Planet Rugby Forum

Tehui wrote:

jambanja wrote:

Tehui wrote:

Enzedder wrote:

BillW wrote: If they can't fix it in ten years, they can still blame John Key.

Already started with the raising of the minimum wages. I see that National moaned about that, despite agreeing to the bill to help address poverty. I like that we are seeing a move away from subsidising wages using the WFF payments but in some ways it makes the overall progress in reducing poverty at a minimal level if we are just reducing one income as the other increases.

Rent is the killer and the one that has to be addressed before we can make any decent progress in my opinion

I agree. Immigration policy isn't an area I know a lot about, but I wonder if we should be turning the tap off over the next few years to allow our housing supply to catch up on demand.

We’re currently experiencing a labour shortage of rather large proportions, how do we go about dealing with that without immigration?

Aligning our education curriculum with skill deficit areas would help, particularly at the regional level. Call me an idealist, but why should we import skilled immigrants to pick up jobs, when we should be training our young people to align with jobs coming down the pipeline. I would like to see the education sector, ITOs, iwi and industry groups coordinate their efforts, go out and specifically target and meet with 10-14 year olds who come from poor backgrounds, and plant seeds of aspiration & employment goals in their head.

This does kind of happen already, but the gears of government grind so slowly on these topics (as investing in particular education streams requires agreement between TEC, MoE and the discipline's related department) which has tended to mean that by the time the education sector has been funded to react, the area of critical skill shortage is no longer in such immediate need.

Enzedder wrote:

It seems very unlikely that this solution to ending child poverty can ever be implemented.

Sorry, are you saying that earning more wages isn't the way to fix child poverty? I think it is the only way and employers will need to have to find other economies - paying insufficient or subsidised wages is a cop-out.

Earning more in the band between minimum wage and the median wage will definitionally "fix" child poverty, but compressing the income distribution in that sector of the labour market seems unrealistic and will likely cause other economic problems. That's the solution I think is very unlikely. Simply raising wages across all levels won't change the proportions below the poverty line significantly so it won't fix the problem as it is defined.

One example of an unforeseen consequence might be that compressing the income distribution at the low level disincentivises tertiary education. How do you incentivise tertiary education to fill a skill shortage if the expected income from the tertiary education is likely to be only $3-4 more than minimum wage for the first 10 years of a career? And if you decide that the solution is to pay skilled workers more, then how can you do that without creating definitional poverty at the minimum wage when the median income increases?

An important component of any measure is disposable income.
Decreasing the expense of the tax burden on low income earners is relatively easy for a government to do compared to trying to force structural changes in the labour market, and seems the most obvious solution first up.

jambanja wrote:

Tehui wrote:

jambanja wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

Tehui wrote: Aligning our education curriculum with skill deficit areas would help, particularly at the regional level. Call me an idealist, but why should we import skilled immigrants to pick up jobs, when we should be training our young people to align with jobs coming down the pipeline. I would like to see the education sector, ITOs, iwi and industry groups coordinate their efforts, go out and specifically target and meet with 10-14 year olds who come from poor backgrounds, and plant seeds of aspiration & employment goals in their head.

That would be amazing.

It really would, so that will help the problem in 4-6 years time, what do we do now?

Also we need people who want to do these jobs, everyone seems to want to go to uni these days

Get the message out to teenagers that being a plumber is sexy. They also get paid more than most lawyers these days.

Again that’s all well and for once we’ve completed our sexy plumber campaign, what do we do now?

To answer your rhetorical question, I don't believe there is a short-term answer. This requires planning. If you have a better idea, put it up.

Sensible Stephen wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

Tehui wrote: Aligning our education curriculum with skill deficit areas would help, particularly at the regional level. Call me an idealist, but why should we import skilled immigrants to pick up jobs, when we should be training our young people to align with jobs coming down the pipeline. I would like to see the education sector, ITOs, iwi and industry groups coordinate their efforts, go out and specifically target and meet with 10-14 year olds who come from poor backgrounds, and plant seeds of aspiration & employment goals in their head.

That would be amazing.

Or communism.

People should pursue a career they want, not one the government thinks they should have.

No point training someone to be an engineer if they actually want to be a history teacher.

Yes, that's what we were suggesting. Total state control. Today we prepare them for the future, tomorrow we control everything.

Tehui wrote:

Sensible Stephen wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

Tehui wrote: Aligning our education curriculum with skill deficit areas would help, particularly at the regional level. Call me an idealist, but why should we import skilled immigrants to pick up jobs, when we should be training our young people to align with jobs coming down the pipeline. I would like to see the education sector, ITOs, iwi and industry groups coordinate their efforts, go out and specifically target and meet with 10-14 year olds who come from poor backgrounds, and plant seeds of aspiration & employment goals in their head.

That would be amazing.

Or communism.

People should pursue a career they want, not one the government thinks they should have.

No point training someone to be an engineer if they actually want to be a history teacher.

Yes, that's what we were suggesting. Total state control. Today we prepare them for the future, tomorrow we control everything.

I think there's a lot to be said for employment pathways, and getting youth engaged if at all possible. But it's not straight forward, kids aren't really that interest in working believe it or not

Flockwitt wrote:

Tehui wrote:

Sensible Stephen wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

Tehui wrote: Aligning our education curriculum with skill deficit areas would help, particularly at the regional level. Call me an idealist, but why should we import skilled immigrants to pick up jobs, when we should be training our young people to align with jobs coming down the pipeline. I would like to see the education sector, ITOs, iwi and industry groups coordinate their efforts, go out and specifically target and meet with 10-14 year olds who come from poor backgrounds, and plant seeds of aspiration & employment goals in their head.

That would be amazing.

Or communism.

People should pursue a career they want, not one the government thinks they should have.

No point training someone to be an engineer if they actually want to be a history teacher.

Yes, that's what we were suggesting. Total state control. Today we prepare them for the future, tomorrow we control everything.

I think there's a lot to be said for employment pathways, and getting youth engaged if at all possible. But it's not straight forward, kids aren't really that interest in working believe it or not

Yeah, I get that. I'm sure if I was to visit groups of young people from Flaxmere, Murupara and the Far North, a lot of them would have different aspirations to young people living in Remuera and Karori. However, I'm a believer that we need to specifically target people who live in marginalised communities and work back from there. The stats say that young people between 18-24 who are not involved in education, employment and training have massively poor long-term life outcomes. We should be targeting these people before they even get to that age. If it was that easy of course, I'ms sure previous governments would have done it years ago.

To answer your rhetorical question, I don't believe there is a short-term answer. This requires planning. If you have a better idea, put it up.

It was you who suggested scaling back immigration, I'm merely saying that doing that will exacerbate an existing problem.

I agree that there needs to be a renewed emphasis on training people in the more practical trades, like you said plumbers earn a shit load, I was really chuffed when my son said he was going to do a plumbing apprenticeship, he's now changed his mind and is chasing his dream of becoming a pilot, but that's by the by although perhaps symtematic of what's happening these days, people chase the glamour stuff rather than the practical?

BillW wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

jambanja wrote: Also we need people who want to do these jobs, everyone seems to want to go to uni these days

Yeah, well a couple of decades of low wages for 'menial' work will do that... I've heard older Kiwis complain this summer that Kiwis just don't want to do the work. It would help if they paid a decent wage.

Here's an idea.
Why don't all you people who act so concerned about child poverty and low wages, start up businesses that pay a living wage and see how you make out?
Put your money where your mouth is.

I have - I'm doing well.

If a business is dependent on paying workers less than a living wage in order to survive than I suspect it's not a particularly good business.

Tehui wrote: Remuera and Karori .

Jeez, I grew up in Karori & it's not quite Remuera.....

Fat Old Git wrote:If a business is dependent on paying workers less than a living wage in order to survive than I suspect it's not a particularly good business.

That is true, what is also true is that it's a number of employed people that may well otherwise be unemployed.


There seems to be a conception that all small business owners are paying their staff peanuts while they are creaming it, when what is equally likely is that the business is not thriving and profitability is very marginal.

Is the preference to have the staff of these businesses paid more, even if it means the business might fail and they might lose their job altogether?

Tehui wrote: Yeah, I get that. I'm sure if I was to visit groups of young people from Flaxmere, Murupara and the Far North, a lot of them would have different aspirations to young people living in Remuera and Karori. However, I'm a believer that we need to specifically target people who live in marginalised communities and work back from there. The stats say that young people between 18-24 who are not involved in education, employment and training have massively poor long-term life outcomes. We should be targeting these people before they even get to that age. If it was that easy of course, I'ms sure previous governments would have done it years ago.

This was where charter schools would have been of value.

Unfortunately the Labour policy ideologues balked at the idea of particular students getting a more targeted education because they were anchored to the idea that the State system is the only system of any value.
Now setting up academy-style specialised vocational education for school-leaving age students is very difficult.

If the charter school concept had been better embraced by the educational sector then we may have got more out of the concept than we did. Unfortunately the PPTA opposed them and the concept was doomed as soon as Labour got into government.

I don't have a problem paying school kids a youth wage - but once a person has reached a certain age they should be able to work fulltime, and not rely on the state for help. Once the Governemnt steps in, so do the predators like landlords who use the accommodation supplement to gouge rents.

guy smiley wrote:

deadduck wrote:

Fat Old Git wrote:If a business is dependent on paying workers less than a living wage in order to survive than I suspect it's not a particularly good business.

That is true, what is also true is that it's a number of employed people that may well otherwise be unemployed.


There seems to be a conception that all small business owners are paying their staff peanuts while they are creaming it, when what is equally likely is that the business is not thriving and profitability is very marginal.

Is the preference to have the staff of these businesses paid more, even if it means the business might fail and they might lose their job altogether?

Sorry mate but that is an awful argument of diminishing returns. If our economy is so screwed that what you describe is reality then we need massive reform and redistribution of wealth.

Sell that idea to the electorate.

It's not an argument one way or another. Just a statement that there are many businesses out there that will likely not cope with ever increasing minimum wages, and are probably not in a position to pay all their staff a "living wage" without consequence to their business.

We should not pretend that these businesses do not exist. We should not pretend that legislating indefinite minimum wage rises will not have undesirable consequences for these businesses.
Striving for a living wage is fine but we should not demonise those employers who don't pay it without deeper consideration of their reasons.

What industry was that in?

guy smiley wrote:

deadduck wrote:

Fat Old Git wrote:If a business is dependent on paying workers less than a living wage in order to survive than I suspect it's not a particularly good business.

That is true, what is also true is that it's a number of employed people that may well otherwise be unemployed.


There seems to be a conception that all small business owners are paying their staff peanuts while they are creaming it, when what is equally likely is that the business is not thriving and profitability is very marginal.

Is the preference to have the staff of these businesses paid more, even if it means the business might fail and they might lose their job altogether?

Sorry mate but that is an awful argument of diminishing returns. If our economy is so screwed that what you describe is reality then we need massive reform and redistribution of wealth.

Sell that idea to the electorate.

Quite right Guy.
Why piss around with $20 per hour?
Why don't we make the minimum wage $50 per hour and just eradicate poverty completely?

guy smiley wrote:

deadduck wrote:What industry was that in?

Why does that matter?

Because we want your enlightenment oh wise, all knowing one.

I noticed you said 'run small business' not owned where, you know, you're the one with all the risk, as opposed to just collecting a salary or wage.

guy smiley wrote:

deadduck wrote:What industry was that in?

Why does that matter?

It's obvious that some industries have greater margins than others, higher expected earnings and greater value of sales simply due to the nature of what they're selling. Some are also much more price sensitive to others and can have much more influence on the market price depending on their niche in the market and the overall level of competition in the industry.

A small landscaping business for example will likely already have much higher revenues than a small shop selling pies and cakes, and if their labour costs go up the landscaping business can probably charge more per job and people will pay, because there aren't many landscaping businesses and people might want to pay for that particular business because they know they're good. Labour will be one of the less significant costs faced by the business and they probably can pay their labourers a living wage fairly comfortably.

The shop selling pies and cakes can't easily increase the prices of their food because people can easily shop elsewhere where the prices may be cheaper. They're competing directly on price, so their margins will already be pretty low in order to compete in the market. Forcing this business to pay their staff more will likely have a much greater impact on the viability of the business compared to the landscaping business.


It's not reasonable at all to say that because one small business is able pay living wages, all small businesses can do it.

guy smiley wrote:So here we are lads...

reduced, as ever, to trying to play the man and not the ball.

Look who's talking. BillW asks you a perfectly reasonable question and you come up with some lame response about a potato peeler.

guy smiley wrote:

brat wrote:

BillW wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

jambanja wrote: Also we need people who want to do these jobs, everyone seems to want to go to uni these days

Yeah, well a couple of decades of low wages for 'menial' work will do that... I've heard older Kiwis complain this summer that Kiwis just don't want to do the work. It would help if they paid a decent wage.

Here's an idea.
Why don't all you people who act so concerned about child poverty and low wages, start up businesses that pay a living wage and see how you make out?
Put your money where your mouth is.

Yes I know - some people have a warped sense of reality

What, a fair day's pay for a fair day's work?

That offends you guys, doesn't it. Really grates you, like a potato peeler across your fingertips.

I see you're finally realising why businesses might resist ramping up their labour costs based on some moral principle and instead tend to defer to their accountants on such matters.

guy smiley wrote:

deadduck wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

deadduck wrote:What industry was that in?

Why does that matter?

It's obvious that some industries have greater margins than others, higher expected earnings and greater value of sales simply due to the nature of what they're selling. Some are also much more price sensitive to others and can have much more influence on the market price depending on their niche in the market and the overall level of competition in the industry.

A small landscaping business for example will likely already have much higher revenues than a small shop selling pies and cakes, and if their labour costs go up the landscaping business can probably charge more per job and people will pay, because there aren't many landscaping businesses and people might want to pay for that particular business because they know they're good. Labour will be one of the less significant costs faced by the business and they probably can pay their labourers a living wage fairly comfortably.

The shop selling pies and cakes can't easily increase the prices of their food because people can easily shop elsewhere where the prices may be cheaper. They're competing directly on price, so their margins will already be pretty low in order to compete in the market. Forcing this business to pay their staff more will likely have a much greater impact on the viability of the business compared to the landscaping business.


It's not reasonable at all to say that because one small business is able pay living wages, all small businesses can do it.

It's a fundamental principle of business that you can meet your costs. Part of that would be forecasting reasonable increases in your expenses... including wages. If your business case is such that you can't cover increases in expenses then, sadly, you're done.

The old "If you can't afford to pay your staff the biggest sudden hike in the minimum wage ever, then you shouldn't be in business" argument.

One of the dumbest in history.

If they go out of business and have 2 or 3 staff then that is 3-4 out of work and on crappy benefit money.

The vast majority of businesses in NZ are small, on man/women bands.

Not the multi national/national chains, where this argument might actually be taken seriously

guy smiley wrote: It's a fundamental principle of business that you can meet your costs. Part of that would be forecasting reasonable increases in your expenses... including wages. If your business case is such that you can't cover increases in expenses then, sadly, you're done.

So the great, wise, all knowing, left wing idealogue is now giving us a lecture on how to run a business.



A fundamental principle of small business is that the owners put their own money into the business to get started and often put more money in to stay afloat during tough times drawing little to no wage for themselves. But I'm sure you knew that.

What was the small business that you ran again? Or are you embellishing like our prime minister who said she knew small business from working in a fish n chip shop?

guy smiley wrote:

Dark wrote:
If they go out of business and have 2 or 3 staff then that is 3-4 out of work and on crappy benefit money.

The vast majority of businesses in NZ are small, on man/women bands.

So what is it? One man bands or employers of 2 or 3 magically turning into 3-4?

Well unless the business owner is a figment of imagination they are also out of work?

This stuff ain't rocket science

Sroubek is back on the radar

Should have been deported in 2005

Labour let him stay

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zea ... verstaying

The minimum wage rises have been flagged since Ardern shook hands with Winston ($20 per hour minimum wage by 2021 is NZ First's policy) back in 2017.

While I can understand business concerns about all this, it should be no great surprise by now. The minimum wage will rise to $20 per hour by April 2021.

Labour/NZF have form for raising the minimum wage reasonably steeply. They did the same thing between 2005-2008.

I work for a large corporate and we have decided that our "casual" staff should be getting the living wage, which is great for them, what it does mean though is that those increased costs will go staight onto the end user, who in my case is the primary producer, whether r not they can afford the extra that I charge will be interesting to see, their other option is to use a business that is cheaper than my business unit (there are a number out there), because their staff are on minimum wage or they can always do the service we provide themselves, which again will be a distinct possibility.

I put casual in bracketts because that is how they started off, they are now part time permanent. Meaning regardless of whether they work or not, they will still get paid, which in an industry that is at the mercy of so many variables, weather, pest pressures, market forces and crop reliability once again puts my cost of production up significantly, something again the primary producer will have to bear...or not, if the latter then it not only puts my staffs' jobs at risk but mine too. Not that we're there yet but it is a possibility.

guy smiley wrote:

deadduck wrote:I see you're finally realising why businesses might resist ramping up their labour costs based on some moral principle and instead tend to defer to their accountants on such matters.

I see you're deliberately avoiding the small matter of all businesses being subject to the same market forces, including rising wage costs.

I'm not ignoring it, it's just not particularly important. The key thing for any business is not just the market forces, but how well their particular business is placed to adjust to the market forces.
A minimum wage rise might affect all employers the same way, but the impact of the change will be different for everyone even between businesses in the same industry as every business will have slightly different fixed costs, slightly different agility in their output and slightly different scope for productivity improvements.
Each business has to make its own determination about what level they can afford to pay their staff, and they will strike the balance between retention and cost of wages depending on their individual circumstances.

That's why it's daft to follow an ideological approach to paying the living wage when businesses themselves are forced to be pragmatic.

Apparently the census might have turned a bit FUBAR

https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/politics-c ... 18-census/

This will not go well

Dark wrote:Apparently the census might have turned a bit FUBAR

https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/politics-c ... 18-census/

This will not go well

It was such a lame census question wise. Clearly geared to collecting data re the housing crisis. Since when do Census focus on one topical current event? All it seemed to ask was:

Have you got a roof over your head
Do you live in your own house
Do you own your house
Have you lived in a damp house
Does your house have insulation
Does your house have adequate heating
Etc etc

So they spent $113 million on a census and now won't release the results yet because why? The results are 6 months late already, they were supposed to have been released in October, now we're being told that towards the end of April, they will anounce...no not the results...but when they will release the results. What have these people been doing, is there no accountability anymore?

Auckman wrote:The minimum wage rises have been flagged since Ardern shook hands with Winston ($20 per hour minimum wage by 2021 is NZ First's policy) back in 2017.

While I can understand business concerns about all this, it should be no great surprise by now. The minimum wage will rise to $20 per hour by April 2021.

Labour/NZF have form for raising the minimum wage reasonably steeply. They did the same thing between 2005-2008.

That's fair, but this is sound politics by business.
Bring it up now, bring it when ever you can, and especially bring it up before the next election.

CGT seems to be going down like a cup of cold sick.

Think Labour might have painted themselves into a corner with this.

Given the Kiwibuild fiasco, they kind of can't not do it, but it might end up so watered down it costs more than makes.

Not ruling out kiwisaver being part of it in the remit was slightly dim. By slightly I mean idiots

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... -poll.html

booji boy wrote:

Dark wrote:Apparently the census might have turned a bit FUBAR

https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/politics-c ... 18-census/

This will not go well

It was such a lame census question wise. Clearly geared to collecting data re the housing crisis. Since when do Census focus on one topical current event? All it seemed to ask was:

Have you got a roof over your head
Do you live in your own house
Do you own your house
Have you lived in a damp house
Does your house have insulation
Does your house have adequate heating
Etc etc

I didn't respond. Was fecked off with Stats for year after year requiring me to do a business return that asked questions that (a) government already knows and are mostly available online (b) wouldn't have changed since the year before and (c) were on a FECKING PAPER FORM. When they eventually tracked me down they sent an e-form. I didn't do the personal census and no-one followed up.

They've gone from a respected department to a cluster. And the idea that a public servant would refuse to answer questions put by a select committee is a disgrace. The minister should immediately express no confidence in the CE and goneburger.

Auckman wrote:The minimum wage rises have been flagged since Ardern shook hands with Winston ($20 per hour minimum wage by 2021 is NZ First's policy) back in 2017.

While I can understand business concerns about all this, it should be no great surprise by now. The minimum wage will rise to $20 per hour by April 2021.

Labour/NZF have form for raising the minimum wage reasonably steeply. They did the same thing between 2005-2008.

It's a very high minimum wage internationally, and living wage is just stupid. If you're my daughter living at home your living wage is nearly zero, and if you're 22 with two kids it's a lot more than $25 an hour.

Dark wrote:CGT seems to be going down like a cup of cold sick.

Think Labour might have painted themselves into a corner with this.

Given the Kiwibuild fiasco, they kind of can't not do it, but it might end up so watered down it costs more than makes.

Not ruling out kiwisaver being part of it in the remit was slightly dim. By slightly I mean idiots

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... -poll.html

Not ruling out Kiwisaver was just insane but nothing surprises me coming from that smarmy cnut Cullen. The irony being that he established Kiwisaver to ensure New Zealanders save for their retirement and wouldn't have dreamed of applying a CGT to it when he was in Govt. But pay him a $1,000 a day to pontificate on it and he'll come up ways to tax us from every angle.

As for Labour painting themselves into a corner their out might be NZ First refusing to support it. Listening to Winston being interviewed it's clear that if it goes through at all it will be an extremely watered down version of the complex monstrosity the TWG have proposed. He has said repeatedly 'the law must be simple and not create an industry for valuers and accountants'. So in other words no valuation day. That rules out CGT on businesses. Maybe rental property and baches will still be in the firing line as we have valuations based on govt valuations. I'm hoping he'll go a step further and introduce grand fathering where the tax is only applied to property acquired in the future, after the introduction of the CGT.

Come on Winston, my man, you know you want to, it is the only way!

TheDocForgotHisLogon wrote:

booji boy wrote:

Dark wrote:Apparently the census might have turned a bit FUBAR

https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/politics-c ... 18-census/

This will not go well

It was such a lame census question wise. Clearly geared to collecting data re the housing crisis. Since when do Census focus on one topical current event? All it seemed to ask was:

Have you got a roof over your head
Do you live in your own house
Do you own your house
Have you lived in a damp house
Does your house have insulation
Does your house have adequate heating
Etc etc

I didn't respond. Was fecked off with Stats for year after year requiring me to do a business return that asked questions that (a) government already knows and are mostly available online (b) wouldn't have changed since the year before and (c) were on a FECKING PAPER FORM. When they eventually tracked me down they sent an e-form. I didn't do the personal census and no-one followed up.

They've gone from a respected department to a cluster. And the idea that a public servant would refuse to answer questions put by a select committee is a disgrace. The minister should immediately express no confidence in the CE and goneburger.

Quality rant.

Isn't the low response rate part of the reason they've not yet released the results?

booji boy wrote:

Dark wrote:CGT seems to be going down like a cup of cold sick.

Think Labour might have painted themselves into a corner with this.

Given the Kiwibuild fiasco, they kind of can't not do it, but it might end up so watered down it costs more than makes.

Not ruling out kiwisaver being part of it in the remit was slightly dim. By slightly I mean idiots

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... -poll.html

Not ruling out Kiwisaver was just insane but nothing surprises me coming from that smarmy cnut Cullen. The irony being that he established Kiwisaver to ensure New Zealanders save for their retirement and wouldn't have dreamed of applying a CGT to it when he was in Govt. But pay him a $1,000 a day to pontificate on it and he'll come up ways to tax us from every angle.

As for Labour painting themselves into a corner their out might be NZ First refusing to support it. Listening to Winston being interviewed it's clear that if it goes through at all it will be an extremely watered down version of the complex monstrosity the TWG have proposed. He has said repeatedly 'the law must be simple and not create an industry for valuers and accountants'. So in other words no valuation day. That rules out CGT on businesses. Maybe rental property and baches will still be in the firing line as we have valuations based on govt valuations. I'm hoping he'll go a step further and introduce grand fathering where the tax is only applied to property acquired in the future, after the introduction of the CGT.

Come on Winston, my man, you know you want to, it is the only way!

Bryce Edward's column and the articles* it links to are worth a read.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=12220797

* (Not including Hosking's rant.)

Euthanasia bill came up again today

Heard an interview with Maggie Barry about it

The more I hear her the more I detest her.

Mucho respecto for everyone to have a valid opinion on it, but geezes, talk about completely closed minded and having piss poor arguments against it

I don't get the whole CGT negativity (or positivity) at this stage. We have a whole lot of ideas, some dumb and some not but no policy or proposals to get exited or bitchy about yet. Just a whole lot of chicken-licken media beat-up at this stage.

I see that it pays not to be an "emotional junior staffer" in the National Party when scapegoats are needed.

This man suffers from foot in mouth disease I reckon.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politi ... IE5_6TKliU

Maniototo Man wrote:

booji boy wrote:

Dark wrote:CGT seems to be going down like a cup of cold sick.

Think Labour might have painted themselves into a corner with this.

Given the Kiwibuild fiasco, they kind of can't not do it, but it might end up so watered down it costs more than makes.

Not ruling out kiwisaver being part of it in the remit was slightly dim. By slightly I mean idiots

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... -poll.html

Not ruling out Kiwisaver was just insane but nothing surprises me coming from that smarmy cnut Cullen. The irony being that he established Kiwisaver to ensure New Zealanders save for their retirement and wouldn't have dreamed of applying a CGT to it when he was in Govt. But pay him a $1,000 a day to pontificate on it and he'll come up ways to tax us from every angle.

As for Labour painting themselves into a corner their out might be NZ First refusing to support it. Listening to Winston being interviewed it's clear that if it goes through at all it will be an extremely watered down version of the complex monstrosity the TWG have proposed. He has said repeatedly 'the law must be simple and not create an industry for valuers and accountants'. So in other words no valuation day. That rules out CGT on businesses. Maybe rental property and baches will still be in the firing line as we have valuations based on govt valuations. I'm hoping he'll go a step further and introduce grand fathering where the tax is only applied to property acquired in the future, after the introduction of the CGT.

Come on Winston, my man, you know you want to, it is the only way!

Bryce Edward's column and the articles* it links to are worth a read.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=12220797

* (Not including Hosking's rant.)

Thanks, good article.

It's funny re Hosking. There was a time when I absolutely couldn't stand the wit kant. But recently I've started enjoying his breakfast radio show. I find him and his offsider (technical producer?) quite entertaining. Whatever you think of him, and he is f**king opinionated and fairly right wing, but you have to admire his grasp of the detail. Quite clever.

I never watch his rants though. Like Stu Wilson, the only thing worse than listening to him is when you can actually see him!