Comments on: $400 mln xmas gift for banks

By: expat

expat — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:33:08 +0000

Buying tranzrail back doesn’t count

By: prism

prism — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 03:45:59 +0000

Wasn’t the British government setting the scene for us in using a political practice called “The third way’ which we were also following, as we trailed behind their Labour government? This was to go down the middle of socialism and capitalism, allowing business to proceed fairly unfettered and ensuring welfare was effective and fair.

By: Akldnut

Akldnut — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 01:45:37 +0000

Good Idea Jenny, the bastards are just thieves – we do that and we go to jail.
The do it and they go for a holiday for Christmas to someplace like ahhhhh Hawaii.

The Govt should just throw senior management in the slammer until it’s paid.
(Thats the ranting side of me coming out, cause I could do with some of that cash as tax relief)

By: prism

prism — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 22:46:51 +0000

expat I understood that the Clark government tried to follow the right-wing trend demanded by business interests and give more opportunities for business through contracting or privatisation, rather than government doing everything itself.
The government was committed to maintaining social welfare but also to setting up policies that would lessen the number on benefits. This after the Nat right-wingers had wiped out so many jobs with jolly unconcern, in the belief that the capital released would be more usefully directed to new job-making operations. Like destructive rich children whose parents will replace their broken Christmas presents.

By: Jenny

Jenny — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:44:49 +0000

Why wait for the outcome of an appeal? Stick these thieves in Mt Eden Remand Prison on Friday and the full $2.6 billion would probably be paid by close of business, on Monday. And if not keep them there till it is.

When they get out they they can still mount an appeal for the the $200 million if they want.

This is how it works for everyone else.

By: Herodotus

Herodotus — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:21:00 +0000

Given both the destruction in the value of money and the volume that had been floating around. It has and still is not that dificult to throw large $$ around. Both govts within the last 10 years can say “WE” are/have spent more on this or that than any other time. The question on all spending should be the quality of that spending and the on-going benefits that have arisen from this.

By: George.com

George.com — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 11:01:14 +0000

Correction for expat – the years of under investment in our infrastructure were the Roger Douglas and Jim Bolger years. Clarks govt made big inroads into our infrastructure deficit following those years of neglect under the neo-liberals.

By: expat

expat — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 09:15:03 +0000

$2.2bn now is better for our balance sheet than maybe $2.6bn some time later.

Lifes full of these types of compromises, makes me think of the under investment in roading and telecoms and electricity generation and transmission during the Clark years so that the spend-a-thon on social services could go ahead.

By: gomango64

gomango64 — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 09:02:47 +0000

fully aware of the privy council status. I put presumably because I wasnt sure of the timeline and thought these tax cases may have started before abolition of the privy council rights for NZ, but given the timeline i guess thats not true in this case.

And poneke – just because the banks settle doesn’t mean the crown have to, and if the case was that cut and dried why would they. Its by mutual agreement obviously.

I do believe this judgement is correct, but as important as the current cases, is the effect it will have on future behavior around NZ as an offshore tax jurisdiction. And whether you buy the arguments or not, the case for the privy council (imo) is more about independence of the judiciary from political influence, and quality of the judges given our very small talent pool.

And also bear in mind that there was a very significant settlement last year by one foreign owned bank with a stronger case (based on one crucial structural difference) than the aussie banks. That settlement was in excess of 100mm, and under the labour government. I would be surprised if either then (labour) or now (national) the politicians settle on terms that conflict with the advice from the IRD and crown law.

By: Jenny

Jenny — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:07:19 +0000

Where’s the guts to stand up to these fraudsters? I bet if they were facing some real jail time, they wouldn’t be so happy to wait in a cell for the results of some drawn out appeal.

It beggars me that a solo mother can face jail and separation from her children for a $4 grand and most likely would stay in jail if she appealed her sentence.

Yet these bank fraudsters can get away with $400 million and return to the beds in their mansions every night.

Maybe Paula Bennet’s high profile beneficiary bashing can shave some money from the Social Welfare budget to pass on to the banksters.

By: tsmithfield

tsmithfield — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:03:57 +0000

Net present value of money.

If the banks had decided to go through the full court process, they probably could have dragged it out for years. Also there was the chance they could have won on appeal to the Supreme Court.

Receivers/the taxman etc love money in the till.

By: A terrible toss-up between siding with tax-trimming bankers or with brain-taxing wankers « Alf Grumble

Thu, 24 Dec 2009 01:15:00 +0000

[...] a bloke called Eddie is banging on about the big bucks owed to the IRD. The banks, who tried to rip us off to the tune of $2.6 billion, have agreed to pay us $2.2 [...]

By: randal

randal — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:38:09 +0000

searching.
we are a mature nation of inteeligent people. we dont need anyone like a privy council (I mean who are they) to tell us what to do.
$400Mil buys a lot of popcorn and toys for infantilised idiotes.

By: poneke

poneke — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:06:35 +0000

any settlement takes into account the probability the banks will win on appeal presumably privy council in this case after a round with the supreme court

Appeals to the Privy Council were abolished in 2005. The Supreme Court is, thank goodness, our final appellate court.

What is likely here is that the four banks have realised they are unlikely to win in the Supreme Court, after the damning and lucid judgements against them in the High Court and Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court is not the soft touch for corporates that the Privy Council was. Ask yourself why the biggest supporters of appeals to the Privy Council were corporates and the Business Roundtable.

The lawyers for the banks will have advised settling for a discount, which the solicitor general agreed to last night, probably to save the cost of years more of litigation (it could take that long to go through the Supreme Court).

It was an abrupt capitulation as only this very month, those banks got leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Our politicians would not have been involved at all. This country is not corrupt, no matter which party is in power. The deal will have been done by IRD, Crown Law and the lawyers for the banks.

By: searching

searching — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:21:48 +0000

Gomango – get up to date. Appeals to the Privy Council ended with cases decided 31 Dececember 2003.

A pragmatic result.