An open letter to all unionists & fighters for equality & social justice in Aotearoa

216 comments on “An open letter to all unionists & fighters for equality & social justice in Aotearoa ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Anthony 1

   29 April 2011 at 1:05 pm

   If Sue and Matt are on board (in addition to Hone) then they definitely have my party vote.
   • Tigger 1.1

     29 April 2011 at 1:41 pm

     The fact that McCarten is on board makes me think this party is doomed. Totally rate Sue though – she deserves better than the scrum of bullies she’s surrounded herself with.
   • Terry 1.2

     29 April 2011 at 3:07 pm

     Terry – yes I agree with the above (Pakeha). My vote will go this way.
2. quentin 2

   29 April 2011 at 1:07 pm

   As much as I support the struggle of Maori people to fight for their rights, I don’t believe in a race based party. I fully understand that the maori are tangatawhenua and need special protection and support to help alleviate the grievance from the past. For this reason I do support the existence of maori seats and fully acknowledge that maori should be consulted on many more political points (i.e. supercity). However I think it is much more important to give a voice to the Green. They are truly representing the people of NZ and trying to protect our land. They do understand maori issues (Meteria Turia is co-leader), but are also able to reflect on the issues facing all of us NZers. Not to mention the fact that it is time to give consideration to the planet we live on. We are part of the ecosystem we live in and we can’t live outside it, we therefore must protect our environment! This I think no other political party has yet realised
   • Terry 2.1

     29 April 2011 at 3:09 pm

     Terry
     You call this race-based? It is not in fact. You might as well call National “Wealth-based”.
   • McFlock 2.2

     29 April 2011 at 3:35 pm

     I support the idea of the Maori Party, and am glad Hone has exposed the class conflict within the wider representation issue by launching the Mana Party.

     I also support the concept of a party with primarily environmental principles like the Green party.

     But my main concern is about the class struggle, so I can’t support a party for whom the general population’s class conflict is a secondary (even if important) party, and I’m not convinced that this is the Mana Party. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to be able to say “I voted for the government” or “my party’s in parliament”, and Hone seems to be a solid leftie, but unless he’s going to be the party that refuses to support anyone on confidence and supply, something will have to be prioritised above something else – and that something else would be general leftist policies under iwi-focussed policies.

     I’ll think about it some more, but that’s my basic feeling at the moment.
3. Pete 3

   29 April 2011 at 1:13 pm

   A recipe to increase the population of Australia, as NZ’s economy swan dives into oblivion.

   But I guess that’s what he wants.

   Lucky his chances of getting any power are zero.
   • Blighty 3.1

     29 April 2011 at 2:29 pm

     “A recipe to increase the population of Australia, as NZ’s economy swan dives into oblivion.”

     describes the last three years under Key pretty well.
4. higherstandard 4

   29 April 2011 at 1:14 pm

   Moonbats to the right of me moonbats to the left of me.
   Into the election for 2011 went the 4 million.
   Lefty and righty and even the centre most mighty.
   Stormed at with lie and bribe.
   Hoodwinked by spindoctor and scribe.
   Into the election for 2011 went the 4 million.
5. Lanthanide 5

   29 April 2011 at 1:28 pm

   Seems quite promising. I might make my forthcoming donation to them, instead of Labour, as they could probably use the money more.
   • mickysavage 5.1

     29 April 2011 at 9:04 pm

     You could do both …
6. Rob A 6

   29 April 2011 at 1:42 pm

   They are starting to look very promising. Hone might be worth my vote
7. green left 7

   29 April 2011 at 1:44 pm

   New Party looks exciting. I look forward to Winston scrapping with Brash, and the Mana Party ripping into National and its privatisation and pollution agenda. National is failing Aotearoa, failing its people and failing our planet.

   It would be very exciting seeing a invigorated union movement , and a new movement that has more gaul and guts than that pensioner Brash. Venzuela has Chavez, Bolivia has Evo Morales, and Aotearoa has a new movement… watch out Brownlee, Brash and bankers…!!! Key did say privatisation might be the issue that breaks him, and he is a gambling man. The odds are, he is out this year with Rodney.
8. green left 8

   29 April 2011 at 1:47 pm

   On a side note there is a climate festival in Auckland in May http://planetfestival.org.nz/ on May 21, Auckland Town Hall.
9. Oleolebiscuitbarrell 9

   29 April 2011 at 2:05 pm

   Hilarious. “Yours in solidarity”. Is he serious? What year does he think it is? 1932?
   • Eddie 9.1

     29 April 2011 at 6:36 pm

     amazing how ignorant the right is of the left
   • Galeandra 9.2

     29 April 2011 at 9:46 pm

     You oleaginous types don’t know how to stick together, so ‘solidarity’ is one of those solecisms which make you giggle so immaturely behind your hands. Shades of Huxley’s portrayal in Brave New World. The omens are worse than they were in ’32 btw, people will certainly have to learn to cooperate and support each other.Ijust hope I don’t get to pull a smartarse like you out of a ditch, though.
10. Sanctuary 10

    29 April 2011 at 2:06 pm

    They’ve got no money to campaign with. Next.
    • r0b 10.1

      29 April 2011 at 2:16 pm

      Maybe they don’t need it.

      Also, take a moment to think about just what a sad state democracy would be in if you couldn’t participate without loads of cash.
      • Eddie 10.1.1

        29 April 2011 at 6:37 pm

        remember Whale’s posts about the Brash buy-out. It’s all about donors to the Right.
        • Colonial Viper 10.1.1.1

          29 April 2011 at 6:42 pm

          They’re not donors mate, Righties always expect a return on their investment
    • Terry 10.2

      29 April 2011 at 3:13 pm

      Terry. They have YOU – let us see your money for starters.
    • Graeme Edgeler 10.3

      29 April 2011 at 3:59 pm

      They also can’t advertise on radio and TV. Iwi radio was a bit of a focus of Maori Party advertising last time, but while the Maori Party have applied for an allocation, the Mana Party has not, and applications closed some time ago.
11. Pete 11

    29 April 2011 at 2:11 pm

    Green vote will split.
12. Oleolebiscuitbarrell 12

    29 April 2011 at 2:12 pm

    “Happy are those who dream and are prepared to pay the price to make those dreams come true”

    Except they aren’t prepared to pay. That’s the very point. They expect someone else to.
13. big bruv 13

    29 April 2011 at 2:19 pm

    My god!

    I do hope that the Mofo party push their compulsory unionism agenda hard.

    The people of NZ will reject it completely.
    • felix 13.1

      29 April 2011 at 4:38 pm

      I don’t see anything in there about compulsory unionism bruv.

      I do see a bit about stopping freeloaders and bludgers like yourself getting a free ride from their unionised workmates though.
      • big bruv 13.1.1

        29 April 2011 at 5:36 pm

        Then look a bit closer Felix.

        Thank goodness the only thing this bunch of moonbats will achieve is the demise of the Greens and perhaps the demise of the racist Maori party.

        All in all it has been a great week for the right.
        • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.1

          29 April 2011 at 5:38 pm

          All in all it has been a great week for the right.

          Yes, love to see Righties knifing each other in the back, saying publicly that they really enjoyed and are proud of being knifed by their friends, and then claiming here that it’s been a great week 😛
          • big bruv 13.1.1.1.1

            29 April 2011 at 5:54 pm

            Good old Comrade Viper, never letting the truth get in the way of his spin.

            Nobody was knifed in the back Viper, this was an honourable challenge for the party leadership (something the left know nothing about) and something done out in the open.

            Brash (and I suspect Key) have stuffed the left well and truly, ACT will pick up at least 8% of the vote (I predict they may well get 11%) and ensure that Neville Key does not have to go to the racist Maori party to form a government.

            I should feel sorry for you guys, it is going to be a very tough three years coming up as you see your all your pet projects killed off, never mind, the nation will emerge stronger and in far better shape.

            Hell…we might even see an end to the bludgers and DPB slappers stealing from the hard working tax payer.
            • felix 13.1.1.1.1.1

              29 April 2011 at 6:45 pm

              It must be amazing in your world bruv, a magical place where you distance yourself from racism by working with Don Fucking Brash.

              Lol, you’re such a thickie. I’ve missed you.
        • felix 13.1.1.2

          29 April 2011 at 6:47 pm

          “Then look a bit closer Felix.”

          Glad to. Please point me to the part that deals with compulsory unionism and we’ll have close look together, you and me.
          • The Baron 13.1.1.2.1

            29 April 2011 at 7:00 pm

            You are right, Felix. No compulsory membership – just compulsory raiding of every worker’s pockets, to pay for services that they may not want, need or agree with. But hey at least the membership is optional – even though you have to pay for it.
            Glad we have that cleared up.
            • Draco T Bastard 13.1.1.2.1.1

              29 April 2011 at 7:56 pm

              Ah, I see, you prefer that people have the ability to free-ride on other peoples work. And here I was thinking you hated bludgers.
            • felix 13.1.1.2.1.2

              29 April 2011 at 8:20 pm

              Jeez Baron. How about you take some personal responsibility, negotiate your own agreement without free-riding on the union negotiations, and pay for it yourself.

              What’s the problem with that?
              • M …

                30 April 2011 at 2:30 pm

                Nah felix, it’s too easy to coast on someone else’s coat tails. For all the frothing at the mouth RWNJs they probably can’t remember the last time they did an honest days’s work ’cause their too busy perfecting their grifting skills.
14. marty mars 14

    29 April 2011 at 2:23 pm

    I am excited about this launch and see Mana and the Greens working well. Good on everyone involved – and i can see why goff and the maori party are so scared of Hone – Party Vote Mana has a great ring to it.
15. Oleolebiscuitbarrell 15

    29 April 2011 at 2:50 pm

    Mike Treen was so excited about getting out his presser that he didn’t have time to proof read it.
    • Eddie 15.1

      29 April 2011 at 6:38 pm

      focused on the big issues, I see.
16. Herodotus 16

    29 April 2011 at 3:04 pm

    “The Mana Party is determined to continue to be the voice of the majority of ordinary Maori and at the same time give voice to the excluded majority across our land – whatever their national or ethnic origin.”
    So from this it is a political party for the Maori 1st. What happens if there is a conflict in policy outcomes when 1 group maybe disadvantaged to the benfit of another whom they are purporting to represent?
    and then this”..(we’d like to call it the Hone Heke Tax). ” Why are small parties so dependant upon the cult of personality?
    And should not many of their reported aims already be the aims of a true Labour party? But I forgot the current Lab gang is very similar to that in the blue corner, pity many cannot see it 😉
17. Carol 17

    29 April 2011 at 3:05 pm

    This is a really important project. I like how the aims of the party are being framed. Of course, it still remains to be seen if they can follow through with it in practice…. the campaigning, the party make-up, the policy development etc. But I do hope it develops well.
18. slightlyrighty 18

    29 April 2011 at 3:50 pm

    Thank you for your letter. I’ve not had such a good laugh in ages!
    • Santi 18.1

      29 April 2011 at 3:52 pm

      Humour of the highest order!
19. Paulwgn 19

    29 April 2011 at 3:59 pm

    Some one has been channelling Pyongyang.
20. queenstfarmer 20

    29 April 2011 at 4:00 pm

    Mike Treen forgot to add “Change country’s name to Zimbabwe”
21. r0b 21

    29 April 2011 at 4:11 pm

    Gosh a sudden rush in 10 minutes of agitated Righties. You folk just got you astro-turfing orders did you?
    • McFlock 21.1

      29 April 2011 at 4:16 pm

      maybe they just got back from lunch?
      • Pascal's bookie 21.1.1

        29 April 2011 at 4:28 pm

        Gives them something to do between thinking fappy thoughts about old man Brash; who everyone hates coz he’s a such a lying horrible racist.
    • felix 21.2

      29 April 2011 at 4:48 pm

      Well Farrar posted a little one-paragraph anti-communist scare piece at 3.33, which would take most of these dropkicks about 15 or 20 minutes to read.

      Also, isn’t David Farrar a nasty little racist? Look what shit he stirred up this morning: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/04/taxpayer_funding_the_mana_party.html

      Fomenting horrible racist dog-whistles, eh?
      • r0b 21.2.1

        29 April 2011 at 5:27 pm

        Ahhh – perhaps that explains it. Good on you felix – reading kiwiblog so I don’t have to!
        • felix 21.2.1.1

          29 April 2011 at 7:10 pm

          I hold my nose and skim it from time to time.
22. Draco T Bastard 22

    29 April 2011 at 4:47 pm

    The party sounds interesting and, if it ends up being for everyone with a hard left focus, will probably get my support.
23. Kane 23

    29 April 2011 at 4:50 pm

    Wonderful news! All power to Hone and Mana.

    Finally lefties like me, who may have voted Alliance in the past, will be able to cast a vote in November, knowing that our views will once again be represented in the New Zealand Parliament.

    Aotearoa seriously lacks a parliamentary party that espouses the policies that Mana appears to be pushing. With the centrist to right wing side of the political spectrum fully crowded, Mana and the Greens can share the Left and progressive vote.
24. Mikke 24

    29 April 2011 at 5:12 pm

    This is straight from “One flew over the cookoos nest”.

    Seems more like north korea than a workers utopia.!!!!!!
    • r0b 24.1

      29 April 2011 at 5:24 pm

      Sure is odd how many brand new righties are commenting on this particular post!
      • big bruv 24.1.1

        29 April 2011 at 5:46 pm

        Probably because it is the most humorous thing we have seen for some time r0b.
        • r0b 24.1.1.1

          29 April 2011 at 6:16 pm

          You folk really need to get out more.
          • big bruv 24.1.1.1.1

            29 April 2011 at 6:20 pm

            This open letter would have been accurately titled…’An open letter to the 17% of Kiwis who still belong to a union’ or ‘An open letter to the 17% of Kiwis who are happy to see their union dues go toward funding political parties’
            • felix 24.1.1.1.1.1

              29 April 2011 at 6:42 pm

              You really need to learn a bit about unions bruv. You’re making a fool of yourself as usual.
            • Colonial Viper 24.1.1.1.1.2

              29 April 2011 at 6:43 pm

              ’An open letter to the 17% of Kiwis who still belong to a union’

              17% of voters eh? Not bad, not bad 🙂
              • Draco T Bastard …

                30 April 2011 at 12:51 am

                17% would be awesome. Throw in Labours 30% and the Greens 8% and we’re home and hosed.

                People forget that only 80% of the population voted last elections – that 17% doesn’t have to come from the subset of voters that voted last time but could be a completely new set. Ones that suddenly find themselves with a party that actually represents them.
25. James 25

    29 April 2011 at 5:16 pm

    terrifiying. It’s like we’ve got a party on Pluto and nothing and all other parties are on Mercury. One’s waaaaay too cold and the others are far too hot…be nice if Labour or someone would at least get as far as earth…
    • Colonial Viper 25.1

      29 April 2011 at 5:18 pm

      terrifiying. It’s like we’ve got a party on Pluto

      Funny you should put it quite that way.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy
26. Pete 26

    29 April 2011 at 5:30 pm

    Mofo Party: “When North Korea Just Isn’t South Pacific Enough!”

    >>Sure is odd how many brand new righties are commenting on this particular post!

    The laughter spreads quickly across the blogosphere…..

    For starters, a financial transaction tax. That can be easily avoided by the wealthy, but not by the poor.

    I’m sure you can work out why…..

    If you give it some thought….
    • Colonial Viper 26.1

      29 April 2011 at 5:36 pm

      For starters, a financial transaction tax. That can be easily avoided by the wealthy, but not by the poor.

      Sounds to me like you have no idea.

      I actually think that the property tax is the best proposal.

      0.75% p.a. on each dollar of net assets over $1M, and up to $2M.

      1% p.a. thereafter.

      If you hold net assets of $5M, you’ll pay approx $38K p.a. in property taxes.
      • Pete 26.1.1

        29 April 2011 at 5:49 pm

        “Sounds to me like you have no idea.”

        Tell me, would my share trades in the US market attract this tax? Australia? UK?

        There wouldn’t be much point trading shares or investing here, huh. I’d pay once on the way out, but nothing for each transaction, year after year.

        Meanwhile, every time you go to the ATM, you’ll be paying a transaction tax.

        And it doesn’t sound like I’ll be paying any GST.

        Nice.
        • Colonial Viper 26.1.1.1

          29 April 2011 at 5:57 pm

          Pete, that’s no biggie.

          Commercial transactions in foreign countries are subject to the tax laws of those countries and the treaties we have with those countries.

          Nothing new or interesting there. That’s the way its always been. You work in a foreign country chances are that you don’t pay NZ income tax. So?

          Nice thing about a FTT is that you can exclude certain transactions. Those from ATM’s and EFTPOS terminals for instance.

          Don’t worry mate, the system won’t be dumb, it’ll catch who it’s supposed to catch. Money traders, property traders and similar.

          including those who move large amounts of capital around NZ, and in and out of NZ 🙂

          I’d pay once on the way out, but nothing for each transaction, year after year.

          Well its moving the funds back to NZ so your family can benefit from it which is the problem eh? Then there’s the little matter of the CGT on your foreign shares you’ve been happily trading 😀
          • Pete 26.1.1.1.1

            29 April 2011 at 6:05 pm

            I’d sit resident here and transact offshore. Your transaction tax couldn’t touch it.

            >>Don’t worry mate

            Not in the least bit worried.

            What makes you think you’re entitled to huge swathes of my money, anyway? I worked for it, not you. I saved it, not you. I’m happy to pay my share, just like everyone else, but I won’t be paying more than I would in, say, Australia.

            If you force me to do so, using your state gun, I simply move countries.

            You get nothing.
            • Colonial Viper 26.1.1.1.1.1

              29 April 2011 at 6:23 pm

              If you force me to do so, using your state gun, I simply move countries.

              There’s plenty of capital in the world and plenty of places with far lower taxes than NZ right now, right this second. Somalia, Brunei, Singapore, Hong Kong. Off you go then.

              Don’t look back mate. Bye bye. Hope your kids like changing school.

              What makes you think you’re entitled to huge swathes of my money, anyway? I worked for it, not you. I saved it, not you. I’m happy to pay my share, just like everyone else, but I won’t be paying more than I would in, say, Australia.

              Your share is what you can afford, and if you are wealthy you can afford much more while still enjoying all the luxuries of life. Not brain science. Don’t worry mate, you won’t have to downgrade your Porsche 911 Turbo to the normally aspirated one, wouldn’t be that mean on your ass.

              You get nothing.

              More opportunities for us who are left, so help yourself.
              • Pete …

                29 April 2011 at 6:47 pm

                >> Somalia, Brunei, Singapore, Hong Kong. Off you go then.

                It’s about thresholds. You go over them, and people – and business – leave.

                >>Your share is what you can afford, and if you are wealthy you can afford much more while still enjoying all the luxuries of life

                You live like a king compared to many in the Pacific. They may call minimum wage here the surplus of luxury. You’ll find out soon enough if the Mofo party ever had their way, as that will be your existence.

                >>More opportunities for us who are left, so help yourself.

                The IP goes. The education goes. The drive goes. That’s what business is, not the physical means of production. If you can’t compete now, what on earth makes you think you’ll ever compete? The opportunity is what YOU make it. It’s not something hanging around that just falls into your lap.

                In any case, I export IP in the form of software. You could compete with me right now, but you don’t. If I go, the revenue goes. Same for everyone else like me. It doesn’t get “vacated” for you to simply “take up the reigns”.

                Your mindless vision will see you living in the third world.
                • infused …

                  29 April 2011 at 7:26 pm

                  Nice Pete.
                • bbfloyd …

                  29 April 2011 at 8:10 pm

                  does IP stand for internet porn?
                  • felix …

                    29 April 2011 at 10:00 pm

                    Inherent Privilege?
                  • Pete …

                    30 April 2011 at 9:40 am

                    Intellectual property.

                    Most business runs on IP. Business also runs on the drive and skills of the people involved. If they disappear, it doesn’t mean others can simply “take up the reigns”. If others possessed such skills and qualities, they’d already be the competition.

                    If you can’t compete in this country, right now, you can’t compete. It doesn’t get any easier than starting a business in this country.
                • felix …

                  29 April 2011 at 8:38 pm

                  “It’s about thresholds. You go over them, and people – and business – leave. “

                  Perhaps if you could give some examples of countries where this has happened – or of companies in NZ leaving when tax rates go up or returning when they go down – then your argument might be worth taking note of.

                  Can you provide such evidence (to be meaningful it would be of a statistical nature, one-off anecdotes don’t mean much) or not?
                  • Pete …

                    30 April 2011 at 9:50 am

                    Certainly.

                    You might want to consider the lyrics of Taxman, by The Beatles.

                    Many high income earners moved out of Britain at the time, due to the unfair tax rates.
                    • KJT …

                      30 April 2011 at 11:01 am

                      If they had been in Germany exchange restrictions would have prevented tax exiles from taking their earnings out of the country.
                      But UK, like NZ, is governed by wealthy non-contributing bludgers for wealthy non-contributing bludgers.
                    • Pete …

                      30 April 2011 at 11:46 am

                      Again, there’s a threshold. Australia and NZ exist in a very similar range.

                      If government is better at allocating capital than the individual, and this would benefit most people, then why not set tax rates for all at, or close to, 100%?

                      What’s your job?

                      How about we pay everyone equally, as everyone is a worthy human being by virtue of being born, and everyone who works contributes to the greater good of everyone else.

                      It matters not if you’ve got good qualifications, and work long hours, and have 20 years experience, and manage a lot of people, which is stressful, you should be happy that the 18 year old new hire – who seems to take a lot of time off, the scamp – is on the exact same wages as you.

                      He is, after all, a worthwhile human being and contributes something to your existence, as we’re all inter-connected.

                      Why don’t you demand equal pay for all at your workplace?
                  • KJT …

                    30 April 2011 at 11:04 am

                    Please explain why so many Kiwi’s are leaving for Oz which has much higher tax rates. Why the French are so much better of than the Americans despite very high taxes.
                    Or why are Somali’s worse of than us. Their tax rates are zero.
                • Galeandra …

                  29 April 2011 at 9:57 pm

                  ‘What makes you think you’re entitled to huge swathes of my money, anyway? I worked for it, not you. I saved it, not you.’

                  Oh my, how exalted and virtuous you are.
                  Didn’t drive goods to market or teach in a local primary though, did we. Just feed off onselling someone else’s work.
                  But of course you’re special and soooo deserving.
                  Pay your share, freeloader.
                  • Pete …

                    30 April 2011 at 9:54 am

                    I grew up poor. Immigrant family. Worked the land (market gardens) during my summer school holidays. What were you doing? Playing with your friends?

                    Nice for some, I guess.

                    I’m deserving of what I created, yes, in the same way you’re deserving of the rewards of your achievements. Why should someone who works 9-5, takes no risk, and needs to be trained be rewarded at the same level as someone who works longer hours, assumes more risk and upskilled themselves?
                    • KJT …

                      30 April 2011 at 10:21 am

                      I grew up in a lower income family too. Worked all my school holidays, upskilled myself, ran a business for a time and have qualifications and experience in several different highly skilled professions.

                      I am grateful I was able to do this because, unlike many other countries, NZ tax payers offer subsidised, nearly free, education.

                      I also benefited from employees that were well educated and literate, infrastructure and political stability at no extra cost to my business.

                      I doubt you could have gotten where you are in the country your parents emigrated from.

                      I have no problem with paying taxes to help others like myself, and you up the ladder.

                      Turning around and saying you did it all yourself is a lie, because, like me, you benefited from our socialist system of education, child care and health care.

                      Reductions in taxes over the last 30 years have simply resulted in less disposable income for most of us. We now have to pay twice for privatised infrastructure that used to be supplied from taxes.

                      I agree the tax base should be broadened. Too much comes from productive income and not enough from wealth, financial transactions, and speculation.

                      In case you have not noticed wages for those in skilled, real productive jobs have dropped rapidly since 1980. That is why most of us are now paying 45% taxes into Australia.
                    • Pete …

                      30 April 2011 at 10:39 am

                      I’m not saying I “did it all myself”. I’m not arguing that I should pay no tax. I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t help those less fortunate.

                      We agree on these points, I think.

                      I take issue with the idea that we should pile endless taxes on the wealthy, just because they are wealthy. Some argue that the resulting redistribution is all gain to society, and has no costs associated with it.

                      It does have costs associated with it. The churn alone is wasteful. You’d also need to believe the government would always use that capital wisely, when there is much evidence that shows they set fire to it. Finance companies do it too, and, like you ( I suspect) I do not think they should be bailed out. They have proven they cannot allocate capital wisely.

                      Why would some 9-5 bureaucrat know how to allocate capital than someone who has proven they can do so? Isn’t there jeopardy in spending someone else’s money? See the Finance company collapses. Isn’t there something to be said for leaving more capital with those who have proven they can grow it?

                      Higher taxes can, and do, kill the golden goose.

                      Why not have 100% tax rates?
                • mickysavage …

                  29 April 2011 at 10:03 pm

                  Please Pete

                  Bugger off to another land where you can enjoy your wealth and contribute nothing to the community that you live in. You contribute nothing here. Why should we even spend time reading your crap and responding to you?
                  • RobC …

                    30 April 2011 at 7:21 am

                    You go over them, and people – and business – leave.

                    So tell me, what are the current migration figures to Oz again? 😀
                    • Pete …

                      30 April 2011 at 9:46 am

                      So, if NZ has significantly higher tax levels than Australia, you think migration levels, of people and/or capital wouldn’t change?
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      30 April 2011 at 12:03 pm

                      Why are the Right Wing so slow as to not realise that people go to where their in the pocket incomes are higher, not where taxes are lower.

                      This is not rocket science.

                      Which is why Key and English deliberately lowering NZ income levels is one of the most damaging things they can do to our economy and our population.

                      Frakin stooopid.

                      Of course those on the highest incomes love lowered tax rates because they get free money for no extra work. Those on low incomes – well you’re earning fuck all to start with so getting a few cents extra back per dollar of fuck all makes no difference.

                      Hence why the rich push for tax cuts all the time.
                  • Pete …

                    30 April 2011 at 9:36 am

                    What do you mean I contribute “nothing to the community I live in”?

                    Why aren’t you paying 100% tax? You can, you know. Just make a contribution. If not, it appears you’re doing “nothing for the community you live in”.

                    That appears to be the basis of your criticism. If I don’t pay all the tax YOU demand I should, then I’m contributing “nothing”.
                    • joe90 …

                      30 April 2011 at 10:57 am

                      Why would some 9-5 bureaucrat know how to allocate capital than someone who has proven they can do so? Isn’t there jeopardy in spending someone else’s money? See the Finance company collapses. Isn’t there something to be said for leaving more capital with those who have proven they can grow it?

                      Yet the most successful fund managers in the country are 9-5 bureaucrats.
                    • Pete …

                      30 April 2011 at 11:37 am

                      Yet the most successful fund managers in the country are 9-5 bureaucrats.

                      “On an annualised basis, the NZ Super Fund has returned an average of 7.9 per cent a year since the fund began”

                      7.9?

                      I don’t look at deals less than 30%. Successful private business returns significantly above single digit returns, else why would anyone bother? Government shares in this, of course, with no risk to themselves.

                      All funds, public and private, are conservative by nature. As they must be.
                      But you wouldn’t want to bet your country on them.

                      Is the super-fund result after tax? Do they pay tax?
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      30 April 2011 at 12:05 pm

                      I don’t look at deals less than 30%. Successful private business returns significantly above single digit returns, else why would anyone bother? Government shares in this, of course, with no risk to themselves.

                      Oh, how many 30% ROI deals are you gonna be able to cut in a country with no roads, no power, no police, no way of enforcing contracts, and no educated workers?

                      That’s the role Government plays, and its a huge risk on Government’s part because guys like you love to cut the public purse out of the action unless you are taking from the public purse.

                      You fucking ungrateful bastard. You’ve deluded yourself into thinking that you’re a modern day Gordon Gecko? ***Choke***
                    • Pete …

                      30 April 2011 at 12:29 pm

                      How about Alta Vista? Fuck what a loser, you pick horses after they’ve won, and ignore all those which looked good at the start then crashed and burned along the way, destroying tens of billions in value.

                      You said a 30% return was a scam. I demonstrated it isn’t. It’s just business as usual.

                      Do some businesses go belly up? Yes. So what?
                    • Pete …

                      30 April 2011 at 1:01 pm

                      Colonial Viper claims to be on 5K a week.

                      That is 260k a year.

                      May I ask what job you have, Colonial? If you were to leave, could a school leaver fill your job?
                    • Pete …

                      30 April 2011 at 1:55 pm

                      Hotchins and SCF “creating more value” for NZ shareholders and investors?

                      They didn’t, which is why they went belly up. I didn’t agree with the bailouts.

                      AMI “creating more value” by under-reinsuring?

                      Again, fail.

                      They aren’t wealthy. They’re crying poor.

                      Fisher and Paykel ‘creating more value” by firing skilled NZ workers and hiring Mexicans and Thais?

                      Yes. Why on earth do New Zealander’s want to compete for low-level manufacturing jobs, anyway?

                      Let capital take flight, you can move to low tax Somalia, Singapore, Brunei or HK with it. I advise you to follow the money and go. Not afraid of your arguments as you simply advocate a race to the bottom where the only winners are those which are already rich.

                      I’ve answered your point, many times. You should have the intellectual honesty to not keep repeating it. Compare like with like. No matter how low the tax rate, I’m not moving to Somalia. However, if Australia taxes me half what NZ taxes me, then the move is an easy one. As it would be for a lot of people.

                      You want high taxes on people over 280K per year. How many people qualify? At 59%, that makes a good accountant even more valuable, wouldn’t you say? The only people paying your tax would be the people at the top of government departments.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      30 April 2011 at 1:59 pm

                      Yes. Why on earth do New Zealander’s want to compete for low-level manufacturing jobs, anyway?

                      I don’t know, may be because these “low level” jobs as you call them are highly skilled and pay between $18/hr and $28/hr?

                      Just like National trying to force Hillside workshops to close down and put dozens of skilled workers, tradesmen and suppliers out of business.

                      You want high taxes on people over 280K per year. How many people qualify? At 59%, that makes a good accountant even more valuable, wouldn’t you say? The only people paying your tax would be the people at the top of government departments.

                      Good to see you admit that a lot of wealthy earners shirk their responsibilities and are willing to pay their advisors to help them do that.

                      I’m not moving to Somalia. However, if Australia taxes me half what NZ taxes me, then the move is an easy one. As it would be for a lot of people.

                      Go then.

                      Because 700,000 NZ born Kiwis already have, not because taxes are lower there, but because incomes are higher.

                      But your mates Bill and John are forcing NZ incomes lower as we speak.

                      Interesting eh.
                  • Pete …

                    30 April 2011 at 10:25 am

                    Do you have a moral obligation to raise the living standards of people in the South Pacific? Would you pay more tax, thereby reducing your own living standards, to raise theirs?

                    Solidarity should not be limited by landmass, after all. We’re all people, aren’t we?
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      30 April 2011 at 11:52 am

                      Hey fucktard, we are not talking about people in different countries, we are talking about helping your neighbours and their children who live within 250m of you.

                      Is that Ok by you?

                      Would you pay more tax, thereby reducing your own living standards, to raise theirs?

                      Hey shit head, how exactly is someone on $5000 p.w. after tax income going to have a reduced living standard if they lose another 10% of that in increased taxes and so end up having to live on ‘only’ $4500 p.w.???

                      Given that $500 p.w. is enough to pay for an hours home help per week for 15-20 very elderly and frail people in your local community who in the last several months have had that cut.

                      Damn some people are total losers.
                    • Pete …

                      30 April 2011 at 12:06 pm

                      >>Hey fucktard

                      Well, that’s polite. It certainly shows the left are better people, and more caring.

                      >>we are talking about helping your neighbours and their children who live within 250m of you

                      Are people who live further away less worthy of our help? Why? They exist on a different piece of turf above sea level? Luck of the draw, kind of thing?

                      Rather harsh. Why does that mean you should not sacrifice what you have to help them. You live like a king, by comparison. Surely you could exist on less? They certainly do.

                      >>Hey shit head

                      More of that caring nature coming through, I see.

                      >>how exactly is someone on $5000 p.w. after tax income going to have a reduced living standard if they lose another 10% of that in increased taxes and so end up having to live on ‘only’ $4500 p.w.???

                      A poor person may ask the same of you. Anyone poorer than you can make the exact same argument, simply change the figures to whatever level you happen to be on.

                      >>Damn some people are total losers.

                      You’re right, there.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      30 April 2011 at 12:09 pm

                      🙂

                      Yeah I’m not here to convince you, just here to show what a tosser you are 😀

                      A poor person may ask the same of you. Anyone poorer than you can make the exact same argument, simply change the figures to whatever level you happen to be on.

                      I was talking about myself in that example mate.
                    • joe90 …

                      30 April 2011 at 12:11 pm

                      I don’t look at deals less than 30%.

                      And you’ve shown yourself to be off in the lala land where 30% returns fall into the if it looks too good to be true is indeed a scam.

                      So I’ll call you, you’re a liar who’s making shit up.
                    • Pete …

                      30 April 2011 at 12:14 pm

                      >>I was talking about myself in that example mate.

                      Of course you are.

                      In any case, the problem is easily solved. Take your cheque-book and write out an amount you think you should be taxed at, and send it to the IRD. There is no law that says you can’t pay more tax. Encourage all your friends to do likewise.

                      Do it today.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      30 April 2011 at 12:17 pm

                      There is no law that says you can’t pay more tax. Encourage all your friends to do likewise.

                      I am.

                      All my friends and others too, in fact. Including you.

                      Changes to be implemented come Nov 26.

                      Good of you to keep working against your local communities in favour of your rich asshole masters. Enjoy the scraps they throw you from their dining table.
                    • Pete …

                      30 April 2011 at 12:19 pm

                      >>And you’ve shown yourself to be off in the lala land where 30% returns fall into the if it looks too good to be true is indeed a scam.So I’ll call you, you’re a liar who’s making shit up.

                      You’re not in business, clearly.

                      Are you saying Google is a scam? How about Microsoft? How about Facebook? Do you think they return only 7.9% to their backers?

                      How about if you buy a piece of land for 500K, put a 500K house on it, and sell it for $1.5M? The buyer is happy to pay $1.5 because they don’t want to go through the hassle, and risk, of development. They want to just move in. Everyone is happy.

                      I’m sure you can do the maths.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      30 April 2011 at 12:23 pm

                      Are you saying Google is a scam? How about Microsoft? How about Facebook? Do you think they return only 7.9% to their backers?

                      How about Alta Vista?

                      How about Worldcom?

                      How about Conexant?

                      How about Enron?

                      How about AOL-Time Warner?

                      How about MySpace?

                      Fuck what a loser, you pick horses after they’ve won, and ignore all those which looked good at the start then crashed and burned along the way, destroying tens of billions in value.

                      Hey i too can get 30% return on investments if I ignore all the big corporates who have flushed themselves down the toilet. Some “businessman” you are

                      How about if you buy a piece of land for 500K, put a 500K house on it, and sell it for $1.5M? The buyer is happy to pay $1.5 because they don’t want to go through the hassle, and risk, of development.

                      Oh somehow flipping houses and pushing real estate prices up and up by loading the country up with more and more mortgage debt owed to foreigners ‘creates wealth’ for our country yeah?

                      *Gufffaw* another Righty with no idea.
                    • Pete …

                      30 April 2011 at 12:25 pm

                      >>I am.

                      Of course you are.

                      >>Changes to be implemented come Nov 26.

                      You’re also a comedian, clearly.

                      >>Good of you to keep working against your local communities in favour of your rich asshole masters. Enjoy the scraps they throw you from their dining table.

                      I add value to my education to create wealth, which pays for other people to have hip operations, be educated, and such. I take very little from the collective tax pool, as I do not need it.

                      There is a limit, after which wealth is destroyed. If you take too much, it may inhibit my ability to generate my tax contributions. If the political class take more and more capital away from me, and waste it, they kill the golden goose.

                      If government spend is better than the private sector, why not advocate 100% tax rates?
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      30 April 2011 at 12:30 pm

                      There is a limit, after which wealth is destroyed. If you take too much, it may inhibit my ability to generate my tax contributions. If the political class take more and more capital away from me, and waste it, they kill the golden goose.

                      Who gives a shit about your threats to the golden goose, you want to move to Somalia, or Singapore or Brunei or some other place with lower tax rates than NZ, feel free to go.

                      Other people will move into the positions of influence and power and take your place. You won’t even be missed.

                      That’s one thing I like about the market. You don’t see the opportunities here, someone else will.

                      Hope your kids like changing schools.

                      I add value to my education to create wealth

                      Like I said before, your idea of creating wealth through flipping assets and loading the country up with mortgage debt is a load of bollocks.
                    • Pete …

                      30 April 2011 at 12:35 pm

                      Oh somehow flipping houses and pushing real estate prices up and up by loading the country up with more and more mortgage debt owed to foreigners ‘creates wealth’ for our country yeah?

                      You’re changing the argument because you lost the point.

                      I’ve demonstrated 30% plus returns on deals is common place. You take a resource, add more than 30% value to it, and sell it.

                      If you were on $5K a week, that’s some government job you have. But you’re on nothing like that, are you.

                      You’ve revealed you lack of knowledge of returns on investment in private enterprise.
                    • Pete …

                      30 April 2011 at 12:42 pm

                      Other people will move into the positions of influence and power and take your place. You won’t even be missed. That’s one thing I like about the market. You don’t see the opportunities here, someone else will

                      I’ve explained that to you.

                      It won’t happen.

                      If I leave, you’re left with a room with some computers in it. You don’t have what it takes to turn that into wealth, as the wealth comes from the intellectual property, drive, and ability of the people working there.

                      If you could do it, you’d do it now, compete with me, and eat my lunch. But you don’t. You can no more slot yourself in to that vacated enterprise than you can slot yourself into a 100m Olympic sprint if the Kenyan runner drops out. Unless you first happen to be a very fast runner.

                      You seem to think the only reason you can’t compete now is that someone occupies a place that is rightfully yours. If they go, you slot right in, and you get what they’ve got.

                      Does the same apply to your job? Any 16 year old school leaver could do what you do?
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      30 April 2011 at 12:49 pm

                      Nice to meet you Gordon Gecko II.

                      Go on then, leave, go to Somalia or Brunei or Singapore.

                      Each of those countries has much lower tax rates than NZ, right now.

                      Bye bye

                      Like I said, hope your kids like changing schools, you can explain to them that they need to leave their friends behind because of marginal tax rate differences 🙂
                    • Pete …

                      30 April 2011 at 12:54 pm

                      Nice to meet you Gordon Gecko II.Go on then, leave, go to Somalia or Brunei or Singapore. Each of those countries has much lower tax rates than NZ, right now. Bye bye Like I said, hope your kids like changing schools, you can explain to them that they need to leave their friends behind because of marginal tax rate differences

                      You’re still avoiding the argument. I haven’t argued for no tax, or very low tax, like in Brunei. I’m saying that if you impose high taxes, out of whack with our competitors, then your tax take will reduce.

                      Kids are very adaptable. They loved the UK.

                      Again, why don’t you set taxes at, or close to, 100%? Why not ensure everyone is rewarded equally, no matter what they contribute?

                      That is, after all, the logical conclusion of your argument.

                      Else you do support the idea of some having more than others.

                      Just like me.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      30 April 2011 at 1:06 pm

                      I’m all for a 1% to 1.5% p.a. asset tax on each dollar of net worth over $2M.

                      And a 49% (or maybe even 59%) income tax on each dollar earnt over 10x the median income. That would kick in on monies earnt over ~$280,000 p.a.

                      You still here then?

                      Time for you to go to one of those 0% or 20% income tax countries isn’t it? Who knew that they could compete for your children with low tax rates *gufffaw* What a sell out 😀

                      .I’m saying that if you impose high taxes, out of whack with our competitors, then your tax take will reduce.

                      Pah, Bill English reduced tax rates and his tax take reduced.

                      I’m game to try it the other way since he has proven you wrong already. From after Nov 26 sounds good.

                      You not moved yet?

                      That is, after all, the logical conclusion of your argument.

                      That is, after all, not. My argument is that those who can afford to pay more without undergoing additional hardship, should. Pretty damn easy mate
                    • Pete …

                      30 April 2011 at 1:25 pm

                      I’m all for a 1% to 1.5% p.a. asset tax on each dollar of net worth over $2M. And a 49% (or maybe even 59%) income tax on each dollar earnt over 10x the median income. That would kick in on monies earnt over ~$280,000 p.a. You still here then?

                      Capital would take flight. Your tax take from that group would fall through the floor, and I can’t see the Iwi’s being too happy with it, as a lot of their wealth is tied up in capital that can’t be moved.

                      And the peeps think the price of milk is expensive now!

                      There’s a good reason Dr Cullen didn’t impose such taxes. Even he reaslied there was a fine balancing act involved.

                      Time for you to go to one of those 0% or 20% income tax countries isn’t it? Who knew that they could compete for your children with low tax rates *gufffaw* What a sell out

                      You must compare like with like. Australia is not Somalia. If people are much better off in Australia than New Zealand, it stands to reason more people will choose to live in Australia. If people are marginally better off, it doesn’t make much difference.

                      My argument is that those who can afford to pay more without undergoing additional hardship, should. Pretty damn easy mate

                      Pretty damn simplistic, I feel.

                      Those who can afford to pay more do pay more. But the more you take from people who know how to grow capital, and hand it to those who waste it, having first churned it through government, the lower you force everyone’s standard of living.

                      Else why not set taxes at 100%? If the government knows best, let them allocate everything.

                      PS: Your argument appears to rely on the notion that anyone who is wealthy stole it off others, as opposed to what typically happens – they simply created more value.

                      Not all of course, some “stole it”. Just like some poor people are poor because they make terrible decisions.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      30 April 2011 at 1:45 pm

                      as opposed to what typically happens – they simply created more value.

                      Oh rubbish, more value for whom? Banks taking profits at the rate of $50M per week to “create more value” for Australian shareholders?

                      Hotchins and SCF “creating more value” for NZ shareholders and investors?

                      AMI “creating more value” by under-reinsuring?

                      Fisher and Paykel ‘creating more value” by firing skilled NZ workers and hiring Mexicans and Thais?

                      You creating “more value” by flipping property and loading NZ up with more foreign sourced mortgage debt?

                      Yeah your idea of “creating value” is shite.

                      Capital would take flight. Your tax take from that group would fall through the floor, and I can’t see the Iwi’s being too happy with it, as a lot of their wealth is tied up in capital that can’t be moved.

                      That’s why the Maori Party does so well amongst the moneytocracy. Why don’t you give them some investment advice then if you think they will struggle to pay a 1% asset tax, why with your promised returns of 30% p.a. per year it should be easy as, right?

                      Let capital flap its wings and fly away, and you can move to low tax Somalia, Singapore, Brunei or HK with it. I advise you to follow the money and go. Not afraid of your arguments as you simply advocate a race to the bottom where the only winners are those who are already rich.

                      BTW at the last Government debt auction a record amount of foreign capital wanted in to NZ and ASAP, so I personally think we’ll do OK when you send yours overseas and you follow it.

                      What, you still here? Tell your kids to pack their shit up, Daddy’s moving to a country with lower marginal taxes.
                    • Pete …

                      30 April 2011 at 2:37 pm

                      Hotchins and SCF “creating more value” for NZ shareholders and investors?

                      They didn’t, which is why they went belly up. I didn’t agree with the bailouts.

                      AMI “creating more value” by under-reinsuring?

                      Again, fail.

                      They aren’t wealthy. They’re crying poor.

                      Fisher and Paykel ‘creating more value” by firing skilled NZ workers and hiring Mexicans and Thais?

                      Yes. Why on earth do New Zealander’s want to compete for low-level manufacturing jobs, anyway?

                      Let capital take flight, you can move to low tax Somalia, Singapore, Brunei or HK with it. I advise you to follow the money and go. Not afraid of your arguments as you simply advocate a race to the bottom where the only winners are those which are already rich.

                      I’ve answered your point, many times. You should have the intellectual honesty to not keep repeating it. Compare like with like. No matter how low the tax rate, I’m not moving to Somalia. However, if Australia taxes me half what NZ taxes me, then the move is an easy one. As it would be for a lot of people.

                      You want high taxes on people over 280K per year. How many people qualify? At 59%, that makes a good accountant even more valuable, wouldn’t you say?

                      The only people paying your tax would be the people at the top of government departments.

                      A handful.

                      What, you still here? Tell your kids to pack their shit up, Daddy’s moving to a country with lower marginal taxes.

                      What if the tax rate was 100%? How many would still be here, apart from Bradford, Minto and their clueless band of ******’s.
                • Chills …

                  30 April 2011 at 3:39 pm

                  “It’s about thresholds. You go over them, and people – and business – leave.”

                  Yeah, current government is doing a great job in crossing that threshold, people leaving in NZ in droves due to their management of the economy. I would say “incompetent” management but we all know that the Key government is following the standard National party formula of channeling wealth to their cronies, and doing a pretty good job of it.
                  • Pete …

                    1 May 2011 at 9:30 am

                    Yeah, current government is doing a great job in crossing that threshold, people leaving in NZ in droves due to their management of the economy. I would say “incompetent” management but we all know that the Key government is following the standard National party formula of channeling wealth to their cronies, and doing a pretty good job of it.

                    No one left for Australia under Helen, of course.

                    There wasn’t even a recession then.
        • rosy 26.1.1.2

          29 April 2011 at 6:12 pm

          The idea is to have an international agreement. many, many people around the world are advocating or investigating the logistics of a FTT.

          Economists are notorious for not being able to agree on anything. But today, a thousand economists from 53 countries have written to G20 finance ministers and Bill Gates calling on them to introduce financial transaction taxes to tackle global poverty and climate change and help people hit by the economic crisis…

          As agreed by the European Council in June 2010, the introduction of a global financial transaction tax should be explored and developed further. The European Council notes the intention of the Commission to make a report on taxation of the financial sector by autumn 2011 at the latest
27. PaulL 27

    29 April 2011 at 5:30 pm

    Yeah, a link from a comment in the Kiwiblog thread is how I got here, I’d guess that’s how many right wingers turned up.

    Seriously, surely some of you can see that these policies are a bit nuts? And that this heavy union involvement, with policies that are to the left of Labour, is likely to cannabilise votes from the Greens. The Greens don’t have an electorate safety net, so surely support for this new party puts the Greens at risk? Don’t get me wrong, from where I sit on the political spectrum that would be a great thing, I’m just surprised that nobody from the left is pointing it out.
    • Outofbed 27.1

      29 April 2011 at 5:57 pm

      Nah won’t hurt the Greens too much
      They [the greens]are all middle class Lefties or environmentalists, not sure they have too much to do with the great unwashed.or would even recognise one if they saw them 🙂
      Be good if they can spend a bit more time on environmental issues [grab the Blue Green vote]and leave the social justice policies to a true leftie party.
      Sound good to me
      It seems we have [with some predictions] 🙂

      MANA: Far left 6%
      Green: Environmental/left 7%
      Maori: Maori 3%
      Labour: Centrist/right 28%
      NZF Centrist/right 5%
      National Centrist/right 35%
      Act: Far Right 10%

      Something for everyone!!
      • The Baron 27.1.1

        29 April 2011 at 6:44 pm

        Christ, what a horrible parliament that would be.
        These vote share predictions are even more comical and amateurish than Mike’s original letter, and say more about your political fantasies than anything likely come November.
        • Outofbed 27.1.1.1

          29 April 2011 at 6:50 pm

          No Mate , my political fantasies would have the Greens on 50%
      • PaulL 27.1.2

        29 April 2011 at 7:51 pm

        Heh. Only 13% of NZers are left wing. Reminds me of some on Kiwiblog who insist that National is a left wing party, and only ACT are right enough to maybe qualify as the centre. I usually choose to define the centre as being the mid-point voter. So by that definition Labour are left, National right, NZ First would be centre.
28. Logical 28

    29 April 2011 at 5:34 pm

    Maybe they were to busy working to not post until now. Of course they may be wealthy, which according to Hone, doesn’t make them people. It makes them something that must be driven out of this country, hard working folks who have achieved.
    • Colonial Viper 28.1

      29 April 2011 at 5:43 pm

      LOLZ

      let’s go through this shall we?

      Of course they may be wealthy, which according to Hone, doesn’t make them people (1). It makes them something that must be driven out of this country (2), hard working folks who have achieved (3).

      1) The wealthy are people, except for the ones who gained their wealth by stealing from the rest of us and impoverishing future generations of NZ to foreign ownership. Those ones are borderline.

      2) We don’t need to drive those people out of the country, they run out of the country with our assets. Fay and Richwhite in Switzerland for instance.

      3) Hard working folks don’t get rich. They work 50 hours a week on the minimum wage and can barely afford to feed and house their families. But you don’t give a shit about that, as long as they are generating ROI for the owners of capital, yeah?
      • The Baron 28.1.1

        29 April 2011 at 6:49 pm

        Oh so Fay and Richwhite are reasonable proxies for all those people you want to pay all these wonderful new taxes then? Oh ok – so it applies to at most, what, 100 nzers? Wow, that’ll really fund all these dreams of yours.
        Unless you mean, as usual, that these wonderful new taxes are meant for everyone worth over $100k. In which case your F&R example is the same horseshit as usual.
        How about you try designing policies around the real people of New Zealand, rather than these caricatures? Oh – cos it’s harder that way? Thought so.
        • bbfloyd 28.1.1.1

          29 April 2011 at 8:25 pm

          TB..Is this the sort of rubbish that gets aired on kiwiblog? what sort of site is it? an online school for advanced bitchery?
29. Daniel Miles 29

    29 April 2011 at 5:38 pm

    Fair enough. It’s probably good that there is a party in New Zealand offering this vision – after all, we have the ACT party, it only seems right that we would have their economic opposite.

    Having said that, I’d question the appropriateness of Mike Treen of Unite Union (Or Matt McCarten) advertising on any sort of tax policy when their union is known to have not paid its own tax bill, and refuses to release the financial statements they are legally obliged to even though they are now six months past the deadline.
    • Colonial Viper 29.1

      29 April 2011 at 5:39 pm

      Oh a very good subtle knife slipped in at the end there 🙂

      Anything else you want to share with us to discredit Mana some more? 😛
      • Daniel Miles 29.1.1

        29 April 2011 at 5:46 pm

        As far as I know, Hone Harawira has never failed to pay his tax bill, so I’m not sure that this does discredit the Mana party unless they have Matt McCarten as a candidate.

        As I’ve said many times in various places, the financial statements that Unite filed six months late in May last year showed that they were for all intents and purposes insolvent, and had failed to pay tens of thousands of dollars of tax, including PAYE on the behalf of employees. Their financial statements for 2010 were due, I believe, 31 December 2010 (one month after the AGM where they approved them), and they still haven’t filed them. I won’t speculate on what is in them, but if it shows their unpaid tax liability as even higher than 2009, that’s a very bad look for someone supporting these policies. Or any policies really outside of outright anarchism.

        I’m just not sure people who run organisations that don’t pay tax should have people respect their political opinions. It’s like listening to Terry Serepisos (though I gather even he has cleared the bulk of it).
        • Colonial Viper 29.1.1.1

          29 April 2011 at 5:48 pm

          Oh shit good job, keep it up mate. Keep turning that knife.

          At least Hone’s not asked for accommodation payouts from the tax payer for living in his own house yeah?

          Now tell us what you know about the Federated Farmers members who somehow all have no taxable income and whether or not they should still be running Federated Farmers 😀

          What other diversions do you have to run tonight?

          Let’s see your little script 😀
          • The Baron 29.1.1.1.1

            29 April 2011 at 6:52 pm

            Oh dear, CV rallies against “rich pricks” who don’t pay their fair share of his fictional taxes; but turns a blind eye to unions who ignore the real ones. Smells like hypocrisy to me.
            Shouldn’t everyone have to pay their fair share, CV?
30. PaulL 30

    29 April 2011 at 5:54 pm

    Colonial Viper, I’d be fully in favour of a property tax. One of the biggest problems in our current tax system is that we use income as a proxy for wealth. That is to say, the philosophical belief of most that I meet is that “the wealthy should pay a greater share of the tax”, but what we actually do is apply higher tax to those with high income. The two are quite different – the taxable income of the truly rich in NZ is often quite low, and the high income people tend to be middle aged people at the peak of their earnings (but often people who as yet haven’t accumulated a lot of assets – they’ve got a mortgage and kids in school). The truly rich are often retired or otherwise have low income, but might be living in a $3 million house. In that situation, a property tax is pretty hard to avoid – other than by living in a cheaper house.

    Rather than a property tax, I’d make it an assets tax – so it should cover financial assets as well. Financial assets can of course be hidden offshore, but for those that aren’t, why treat them differently than other property. You might need to reduce the income tax a bit to compensate – so if I tax you 0.5% of the money in your bank account each year, I’d probably not also take 33% of your interest, I’d only take about 31.5% of the interest.

    I also have some sympathy for a turnover tax for business (Australia have been looking at this recently for small/medium enterprise). The trick here is that there are a lot of small businesses that have assets and turnover, and that people continue to work at every year. Yet mysteriously they never turn a taxable profit. You’d have to wonder why those people continue to run them……maybe some cash profits out there somewhere? If you apply a turnover or assets tax, it becomes easy to calculate (the business just needs to know how many dollars went through the books this year – any business should know that), and no longer cares whether you make a profit or not. Sure, some marginal small businesses might no longer be viable, but that would only be the ones that truly make no profit every year – in which case you’re doing them a favour. The remainder could stop lying to us about their profits, and just pay the tax on their revenues.

    You’ll probably find many on the right are all in favour of closing loopholes on the rich, as opposed to just pushing up marginal tax rates. The same way that many thinking people on the left realise that people who claim benefits they aren’t entitled to hurt the case for the genuinely needy.
    • Colonial Viper 30.1

      29 April 2011 at 6:00 pm

      Yeah you are quite right, I did mean “asset tax” to more clearly distinguish it from a “real estate property tax”. Stocks and bonds would be considered assets for instance and be taxable.
      • Herodotus 30.1.1

        29 April 2011 at 7:26 pm

        CV tax paid on unrealised gains/losses or when the gains/losses are realised i.e. At point of sale?
        There is a huge difference between the 2 and also hard for govts to ascertain when the tax would be paid, also if a property spike if unrealised where do most of us find the $ to pay the tax on our family home?
        If we in isolation had a FTT then how do we atttract money from offshore to fund our deficits be they govt/local bodies/business or private? And how would the tranistion from one to the other be managed and what short term rebalancing would we expect? Great for all these power houses pollys to spout these things, but there is nothing to follow. All that happens is that expectations are rasied well above what can be delivered, and in general it is the real kiwis who suffer. Anyway who are these nebulous rich and what is rich? Just like Lab cannot or will not define middle class no one will define rich
31. Daniel Miles 31

    29 April 2011 at 5:57 pm

    I’m really not sure why you think I’m out to discredit Mana – believe me, my political beliefs don’t enter into it. I just think that the activities of Unite are totally unacceptable.

    Like I said, Hone’s never not paid tax as far as I’m aware, so I don’t see any reason why he shouldn’t start the Mana party. I’d just urge him not to have Matt McCarten as a candidate.

    Finally, I don’t have a script sorry, or I’d be able to respond much faster 🙂

    If it helps, when I noticed this in the Unite financials, I checked the other unions for comparison and I can confirm that it’s only Unite who do this – the EPMU and the CTU for example have impeccable books, so I’m not even criticising the union movement in general.

    Short version: Mana party, fine. Hone Harawira, fine. Unions, fine. Unite union, don’t pay taxes.

    EDIT: @Colonial Viper – sorry, I thought I was putting this in as a reply to your post, I’m not sure why it wound up as its own post. Apologies.
    • Colonial Viper 31.1

      29 April 2011 at 6:04 pm

      I’m really not sure why you think I’m out to discredit Mana – believe me, my political beliefs don’t enter into it. I just think that the activities of Unite are totally unacceptable.

      You’re commenting on a political blog to discredit MANA and your political beliefs “don’t enter into it.”? Now I’ve heard everything! 🙂

      So you criticising Fed Farmers and all their non-income declaring members next then?

      Or the way that National used Pansy Wong to raise funds from Mainland China?

      Come on, show us your non-political beliefs by objectively sticking the knife into a few more parties (or their closely aligned supporters) 😀
      • Daniel Miles 31.1.1

        29 April 2011 at 6:10 pm

        I’m not sure whether you’re not reading my posts or just trolling, but reread them. I’m discrediting Unite, not Mana.

        I have to be honest with you, I don’t know enough about federated farmers to comment. It sounds like you do though and I’ll take your word for it. The only opinion I have on the federated farmers is that they clearly need to read up on climate change a lot more.

        I’m confused what you’re saying here – do you think that Unite actually did pay taxes and I’m mistaken? Or do you think that their not paying taxes is not an issue? Because I’m pretty sure that if Matt McCarten did become a Mana candidate then people would use Unite’s financial situation to discredit the party. If you want Mana to be a strong party, then support Hone Harawira, and support Sue Bradford, and support, I don’t know, any other union leader. But they’re better off avoiding McCarten.
        • Colonial Viper 31.1.1.1

          29 April 2011 at 6:18 pm

          I’m not sure whether you’re not reading my posts or just trolling, but reread them. I’m discrediting Unite, not Mana.

          Yeah lets take down the side supports first before you take down the main act!

          Turn the knife mate, stick it into both Unite and McCarten while you are at it (being non-political and all), a few more discrediting smears and you will have done your job 😀
          • Daniel Miles 31.1.1.1.1

            29 April 2011 at 6:22 pm

            I have absolutely no interest in taking down Mana, and I’m sorry you think so.

            I don’t think that federated farmers are a union per se – at least not in the way that Unite or the EPMU are – so I don’t think they’re really relevant. Having said that, I just had a look at their financials, since you clearly want to talk about it, and I can confirm that the national branch seems to be fine tax-wise. I didn’t read the multitude of local chapters though.

            They also have around $6 million in managed funds sitting round, and a surprisingly low salary expense at around $165k (although there is mentioned later $300k in honorarium, so who knows if that is used to offset salaries to some degree).
            • Colonial Viper 31.1.1.1.1.1

              29 April 2011 at 6:26 pm

              Daniel Miles you are a real gem keep up the hard work mate.

              (I was talking about how their farmer MEMBERS somehow have next to no declared income to be income taxed mate, even though commodity prices are sky high these days, that’s ok by you is it?)

              I have absolutely no interest in taking down Mana, and I’m sorry you think so.

              well its great that your political views don’t come into it, it’s outstanding to have all these neutral objective parties attacking Matt McCarten, Unite and the new Mana party 🙂
              • Daniel Miles …

                29 April 2011 at 6:28 pm

                Of course its not OK with me if people are misreporting income or not paying tax that they’re meant to. That’s kind of been my whole point.
            • KJT 31.1.1.1.1.2

              30 April 2011 at 3:13 pm

              I am still waiting for a farmer who pays taxes to challenge my statement, on several forums, that Federated Farmers members do not pay taxes apart from minimal GST.

              And Federated Farmers are just as much a Union as the Medical Association, The Law Society, Employers and Manufacturers, Maritime Union, Unite, Accountants, IPENZ and the Chambers of Commerce.
              • Daniel Miles …

                30 April 2011 at 6:14 pm

                I think you’re confusing unions with associations. They’re not quite the same thing.

                My understanding – and I may be wrong on this – is that a union exists to represent the interests of its members, which constitute employees and / or contractors in a certain sector.

                And I’m not challenging your statement that “Federated Farmers members do not pay taxes apart from minimal GST”. I don’t know. If you’re right and that’s the case, and they are misreporting income to avoid income tax, that’s totally unacceptable.

                All I’ve said from the start is that Unite have failed to pay taxes, and that represents a significant liability to any party that they attach themselves to. Just like how it was a terrible look for National to align themselves with the Exclusive Brethren, it’d be a terrible look for Mana to align themselves with Unite.
                • fermionic_interference …

                  1 May 2011 at 11:23 am

                  @Daniel Miles

                  “I think you’re confusing unions with associations. They’re not quite the same thing.

                  My understanding – and I may be wrong on this – is that a union exists to represent the interests of its members, which constitute employees and / or contractors in a certain sector.”

                  Federated Farmers acts exactly like the above statement for farmers as well as being a political lobbyist as well as swinging a whole heap of clout with regard to rural opinion on future legislation, and mostly the opinion they push is denial (think water quality and climate change for two examples).
                  • Daniel Miles …

                    4 May 2011 at 3:07 pm

                    I thought farmers tended to be owners, not employees or contractors? I don’t know that for sure though.
32. PaulL 32

    29 April 2011 at 6:11 pm

    Colonial – on a thread about Mana? Wouldn’t that be well off topic? Are you sure you’re not being just a teeny bit precious here? I thought that Daniel’s comment was pretty mild, you’re definitely coming over as being defensive. All he’s really said is that UNITE have problems paying their own taxes, so they’re not the ideal spokesperson on how other people don’t pay their taxes. It says nothing about whether Federated Farmers or any other group is a great spokesperson for paying taxes, and to do so wouldn’t be relevant.
    • Colonial Viper 32.1

      29 April 2011 at 6:16 pm

      Oh the sock puppetry!!!!!

      Daniel Miles said he’s not commenting on a political blog to be political – in fact his political views are somehow not relevant to being on a political blog- that doesn’t strike you as a teensy bit strange?

      And of course Fed Farmers comes into it as Daniel Miles contention was that he is looking across all unions equally fairly, without political bias!
      • The Baron 32.1.1

        29 April 2011 at 6:56 pm

        Wow, the paranoia. Again – what would be gained by subverting the standard in this manner? Is this blog even in the top 5 any more? Why would subversion happen here, and not on the far more popular and credible Dim Post?
        Time to lay off the weed, mate.
        • felix 32.1.1.1

          29 April 2011 at 7:06 pm

          lol. There are no pros working the blogs in an election year everyone, just go back to what you were doing (probably reading the dim post apparently) and forget whatever you’ve just seen.

          Oh and none of the right-wing blog commenters you regularly see around the place are David Farrar or Cameron Slater under other names, OK? None of them.
          • PaulL 32.1.1.1.1

            29 April 2011 at 7:54 pm

            Really? I’d believe Cameron Slater maybe, but it’s a pretty long stretch to say that DPF would be posting under other names. I’ve never seen any evidence he’d want to do such a thing. Is it your contention that there are only really 2 people who are right wing in NZ, and everyone else is just a sock puppet? Interesting…….maybe they also vote a lot of times and that’s how National got elected?
            • felix 32.1.1.1.1.1

              29 April 2011 at 8:04 pm

              No of course not.

              What did I say that could lead any rational person to believe that was my contention, Paul? Is it your contention that I’m a retard? Interesting…

              Also, why do you find it so easy to believe that Cameron would behave thusly but not the other one?
              • PaulL …

                29 April 2011 at 8:22 pm

                I was showing your proposition to be a bit weird by taking it too extremes. Your contention seemed to be that Cameron and DPF needed to have fake identities so as to generate the volume of comments that you see. I have no idea whether you’re a retard, other than from reading your comments. They largely seem grammatically correct, so you clearly cannot be a complete retard.

                As to why I’d maybe believe it of Cameron, but no so DPF. Because Cameron is (in the kindest possible way) a nut job so it is possible believable. I’ve met DPF personally and he struck me as a very principled guy. My opinion. What reason do you have for thinking that he’d have multiple identities he was posting under? Seems that you’re the one making the assertion, so you must have some reason for believing it. The simpler explanation, that there are a number of people who were interested enough to click on a link in a thread on kiwiblog (not even a link posted by DPF), and then had something to say about it, seems a more logical explanation to me.
                • felix …

                  29 April 2011 at 8:53 pm

                  “Your contention seemed to be that Cameron and DPF needed to have fake identities so as to generate the volume of comments that you see.”

                  I think it’s about time you stopped putting words in my mouth, fucko. Show me where I said any such thing.

                  As for Farrar and Slater, I never mentioned anything about their personal natures. I’m talking about how they operate politically, and in that context they’re very, very similar animals.

                  Do a rudimentary analysis of the content of their respective websites (looking beyond their personal style) and tell me what the vast differences between them are.

                  Or not. You could just go back to fighting strawmen and talking bullshit.
                  • PaulL …

                    29 April 2011 at 9:13 pm

                    Nice manner you have.

                    You’re telling me that they’re both right wing? I’ll believe that. Don’t see how that relates to your contention that DPF and Cameron are posting under fake identities. Are you backing away from that now?
                    • felix …

                      29 April 2011 at 9:19 pm

                      Don’t school me on my manners while you’re attributing statements to me that I never made.

                      Sanctimonious little shitbag.
                    • PaulL …

                      29 April 2011 at 9:33 pm

                      Guess I can’t reply direct to you – not sure why.

                      Try this quote:
                      “Oh and none of the right-wing blog commenters you regularly see around the place are David Farrar or Cameron Slater under other names, OK? None of them.”

                      Was that you? Or are you going to claim that wasn’t sarcasm? Are you drunk? Or just forgetful? Can you not even remember the start of this discussion?
                    • felix …

                      29 April 2011 at 10:03 pm

                      Congratulations.

                      Now compare and contrast with what you’ve been saying I said.

                      (The reason you can’t reply directly is because the comments only nest within each other up to 7 levels or so. But it’s ok, we can carry on vertically all night)
                    • PaulL …

                      29 April 2011 at 10:05 pm

                      Yes. The same in fact.
                    • felix …

                      29 April 2011 at 10:55 pm

                      Oh sorry Paul, I didn’t realise you were serious.

                      Can you really not see the difference between saying that I think someone uses sockpuppets and saying that if they didn’t there wouldn’t be anywhere near the amount of right-wing comments around?

                      Really?

                      Really Paul?

                      Please tell me you’re just being dishonest and you aren’t really that fucking thick.
                    • PaulL …

                      29 April 2011 at 11:18 pm

                      No, you’re picking one line that was pretty clearly not a quote, and getting your panties in a knot over it.

                      I clearly said that I disagreed when you said that DPF had additional identities he posted under. That was clearly something that I claimed you said.

                      I then extrapolated, since you’d provided no evidence at all as to why you thought that was the case, or why that might be something they’d want to do. I presumed (and clearly noted that I was presuming it) that you might be suggesting that because you thought there were a lot of right wing comments around. I asked you whether that was what you meant, since you were declining to actually engage, being rude, and providing no explanation as to why you thought DPF had extra identities. Something you’re still ducking by the way.

                      Care to elaborate yet as to why exactly you think that DPF (and Cameron for that matter) have multiple identities that they post under. It’s clearly not based on the volume of the comments, since you’re all bent that I asked whether that was your rationale. So what is it? Or do you prefer to stick to abuse and not answering the question? I answered your question as to why I thought it unlikely.
                    • felix …

                      29 April 2011 at 11:32 pm

                      Ah, so it’s just dishonesty then. That’s good, I’d rather waste my time with a liar than a moron.

                      This is what you said:

                      “Your contention seemed to be that Cameron and DPF needed to have fake identities so as to generate the volume of comments that you see.”

                      But it wasn’t, and nothing I actually said could possibly be construed to mean that.

                      Try to separate my comments from your assumptions FFS.
                    • PaulL …

                      29 April 2011 at 11:48 pm

                      “Your contention seemed to be”

                      Is that not a pretty clear indication that I’m not quoting you. That I’m trying to interpret what you’re saying. Really, go read it again. It’s pretty obvious. You’re wilfully misinterpreting what I said, and getting excited about it. That’s why my comment that “I didn’t know I needed academic level of citation”.

                      Anyway, the stupid wedding’s over, so the missus says we can go to bed. Enjoy your evening.
                    • felix …

                      30 April 2011 at 1:48 am

                      This is probably pointless now that you’ve been banned, but anyway…

                      No I don’t mean they’re similar in their political leanings. That’s like saying they’re similar because they’re both bipeds.

                      I said they have similar ways of operating.

                      That’s a fairly straightforward statement and you’ve twice now tried to impose two quite different meanings on it, first that I meant they were personally alike and second that I meant they shared political views.

                      I meant neither of those things and I said neither of them. I’m just addressing this because it’s another example of what you’ve been doing all night, superimposing alternate meanings on things I’ve said and pretending I had anything to do with them.

                      Anyway whatever. Goodnight and don’t dream of lizard people, whatever you do.
                    • lprent []

                      30 April 2011 at 7:35 am

                      He only got a educational ban for a week for reframing. You will be able to play with your food later.
                    • PeteG …

                      30 April 2011 at 7:39 am

                      Ironic in an exchange with felix the reframer.
            • lprent 32.1.1.1.1.2

              29 April 2011 at 10:41 pm

              I’d agree. I haven’t seen any particular evidence of them having sock puppets here. There are a couple of people that I think may be puppets. But I keep an eye on people trying to do any type of astroturfing…

              But if people want to sock-puppet without astro turfing then I don’t care much.
33. NickS 33

    29 April 2011 at 6:28 pm

    • We should nationalise monopolies and duopolies.

    For infrastructure? Plausible and relatively easy to pull off and in the case of Telecom and merging the power SOE’s back into one entity a bloody smart idea. Commodities like milk products on the other hand has serious problems, primarily due to the high levels of debt dairy farmers have straddled themselves with, which they need high milk prices in order to effectively service, and creates strong incentives for selling milk on the global market. About the only way I can see that doesn’t involve nationalising Fonterra or enacting laws to make them provide domestic milk cheaper is a long term public campaign that highlights Fonterra’s inability to see past it’s profit margins and how that impacts on the health of kiwis.

    Though given the EU’s moves towards carbon taxes, and China’s slow lurching towards dealing with climate change etc there is the future potential for international markets to price NZ milk out of the market. There’s also anti-monopoly laws to consider, as Fonterra has become effectively the only actor on the national stage, along with the duopoly of Foodstuffs and Progressive which contributes to the high food costs.

    • New Zealand needs a planned economy that makes job creation its main emphasis rather than leaves it to the non-existent free market. “Given the short time I’ve had to respond to this I apologise if I haven’t covered everything you’d like. But my response should give you some comfort to where our new party will position itself politically.

    This really needs to be expanded, as the command economy of the USSR and other communist states (and deformed workers states like NK) is highly inefficient unless (hypothetically) it’s got up to the minute management. So the question is, are we talking something similar to the Scandinavian countries which have strong regulation and high corporate taxes or a myriad of other possible options?

    And besides all that, any plans need to be flexible enough to deal with fuck ups, natural disasters and political stupidity.

    Then there’s dealing with economists, i.e. a strong evidence based argument is going to be needed, both as a rallying point, but also a means with which to deal with the expert counter-claims.
    • PaulL 33.1

      29 April 2011 at 7:58 pm

      Think you have cause and effect wrong here on milk prices. The high international prices have enabled dairy farmers to saddle themselves with huge debts. More to the point, only the marginal dairy farmers (the ones who just completed a recent dairy conversion) are saddled with these debts. The ones who’ve been around for longer are largely sitting on massive capital gains and making a mozza since they have little debt (they bought their farms when they were cheap).

      In short – the high international prices are the problem, and very little that we can do here in NZ can change that. It’s virtually impossible to pass a law that requires people to sell cheaper on the national market than the international without people just stopping supplying the national market – certainly for the new entrants they’d be making a loss, which would be a problem for them. You could prevent people from exporting to try to deal with that, but that would kind of destroy NZ’s balance of trade, and pretty much the only remaining industry that we’re competitive in.
    • KJT 33.2

      30 April 2011 at 3:17 pm

      A totally planned economy is unworkable as we know, but an economy with no planning apart from “leave it to the market”, deregulate and cut taxes has also failed as we all well know.

      Sensible mixed economies with Democratic Government, natural monopolies and essential infrastructure in State control, with private business properly regulated to control externalities, who have used a portion of State help for local business, are still working well.

      No businessman leaves the future of his business to “let the market decide”.
34. PaulL 34

    29 April 2011 at 6:30 pm

    Heh. The conspiracy theories you’re coming up with are pretty good. I don’t think it qualifies as sock puppetry – at least the way wikipedia defines it, but I realise it makes it easier for you to ignore Daniel if you label it as such. I don’t think Daniel’s claimed to be a rabid lefty. He’s just said that UNITE have skeletons. I’d say that your response of “but look over here, what about these people” is the comment that falls into more internet stereotypes than his original.
    • Colonial Viper 34.1

      29 April 2011 at 6:40 pm

      which conspiracy theory? That people are out to discredit the backers of MANA from the outset?

      Uh…I thought conspiracies were secret, this is obvious.
      • PaulL 34.1.1

        29 April 2011 at 8:04 pm

        The sock puppet conspiracy theory, the theory that there is some script that some VRWC has issued to people to come and mock you with. The bit where a bunch of people think the Mana party are whack jobs is, as you say, pretty obvious, but surely even you can see that they’re looking absolutely tops at maybe 5% of the vote – and a good proportion of the remaining 95% of NZers would see them as whack jobs. So no real conspiracy involved, just stating the obvious.
        • felix 34.1.1.1

          29 April 2011 at 8:49 pm

          Ah, the conspiracy theory you just made up.

          Why didn’t you say so? It would’ve saved me a lot of time trying to figure out what the fuck your point was.
          • PaulL 34.1.1.1.1

            29 April 2011 at 9:11 pm

            No, the one I quoted from your comments. I guess that’s like making it up.
            • felix 34.1.1.1.1.1

              29 April 2011 at 9:22 pm

              Show me where you quoted from my comments, dickhead.
              • PaulL …

                29 April 2011 at 9:30 pm

                Rude, aren’t you. Sorry, was quoting Colonial Viper – you lefties all look alike to me :-). He clearly stated sock puppets, and clearly stated scripts.

                [lprent: Rude? No he wasn’t – read the policy you sanctimonious pillock. If you want to attract my attention and see some true ‘rudeness’ then carry on in the same fashion. You look like a minor match user, and the moderators set the limits on behavior – not you ]
                • felix …

                  29 April 2011 at 9:47 pm

                  Whatever. You haven’t “quoted” anyone.
                • PaulL …

                  29 April 2011 at 10:00 pm

                  OK, try this.

                  “Oh the sock puppetry” Colonial Viper @ 6:16PM

                  “What other diversions do you have to run tonight?

                  Let’s see your little script 😀 ” Colonial Viper @ 5:48PM

                  Notice the quote marks. That would indicate to you that I’m quoting. Both sock puppets, and the suggestion there is a script, are conspiracy theories. Is this really the standard of argument you can bring – to deny what is in writing earlier on this same thread? Amazing.
                  • felix …

                    29 April 2011 at 11:35 pm

                    Here we go again.

                    I’m not asking for academic standards of referencing when I ask you not to fucking say that I’ve written something that I fucking haven’t.

                    What sort of places do you usually comment where that’s acceptable?

                    Oh that’s right.
                • felix …

                  29 April 2011 at 11:05 pm

                  That’s the first time I’ve seen you quote anyone. Well done.

                  Do you not understand why I don’t like you attributing your own theories and remarks to me, Paul?

                  Do you not understand that when you take a simple statement and fill it with brand new assertions and claim that’s what was originally said it’s kind of like lying?

                  Do you not realise that’s what you’ve been doing tonight?
                • PaulL …

                  29 April 2011 at 11:20 pm

                  Obviously not, felix. I don’t think that’s what I’ve been doing at all, and I wasn’t aware that this site required fully cited quotes in the way an academic paper would. I believe that it’s been abundantly clear at each step exactly what I’m claiming someone said, and what I’m extrapolating or asking questions on.

                  Are you really incapable of discerning the difference?

                  [lprent: If you want to make an assertion of fact (not opinion), and people call you on it, then it is likely that I will require you to link to something to support it or to state that it is opinion or to suffer a ban. This encourages people not to simply make crap up.

                  Attempting to reframe what others are saying does require quoting to show that they did say it. And yes you have been doing it.

                  A weeks ban because you have been displaying a number of really stupid troll commenting traits and I can’t be bothered giving a warning which I suspect that you will ignore. ]
                • PaulL …

                  29 April 2011 at 11:46 pm

                  Untidy thread, I’ll reply here.

                  Show me where I “fucking [said] that [you’d] written something that [you] fucking [didn’t].”

                  Seriously, go back and read it. You’re getting all bent over something that didn’t happen. Except for the one thing that I did, and admitted when you pointed it out, where I attributed something to you instead of Colonial Viper by accident – I saw the response and assumed it was the same person I was already engaging with, and it wasn’t. I already apologised for that one, so if that’s all you’ve got, then you need to get a grip.
        • KJT 34.1.1.2

          29 April 2011 at 9:19 pm

          ACT are wack jobs and NACT are theives. Whats your point.
    • PeteG 34.2

      29 April 2011 at 6:45 pm

      The conspiracy theories you’re coming up with are pretty good.

      Don Brash is really behind the Mana party – it’s designed to make Act look less radical.
35. JD 35

    29 April 2011 at 6:54 pm

    Hone (Nationalism)
    + Bradford (Socialism)
    = National Socialism
    • felix 35.1

      29 April 2011 at 7:04 pm

      That’s funny. Really, I mean it.

      Why don’t you do one about some far-right politicians so it’s actually relevant from a policy/ideological standpoint rather than just an amusing word-game.

      I’ll even give you the first one to get you started: National.
      • JD 35.1.1

        29 April 2011 at 8:07 pm

        I love the symmetry of the left simultaneously relying on a racist mana party party and a Asian- hating nationalist pakeha party as their main hope for winning the next election.

        How is that for amusing.
        • felix 35.1.1.1

          29 April 2011 at 8:45 pm

          Apparently you don’t know much about Don Brash’s views on race relations then.
          • JD 35.1.1.1.1

            29 April 2011 at 9:23 pm

            Just as you are conveniently ignoring Winston Peters views on race.

            Is it self-delusion or are you so desperate for Labour to come to power that you’d abandon all principle, bend over and grit your teeth for the possibility. You sad little fucko.
            • Draco T Bastard 35.1.1.1.1.1

              29 April 2011 at 9:49 pm

              What are Winstons views on race? I know he’s against immigration but haven’t heard anything from him on race per se.
            • felix 35.1.1.1.1.2

              30 April 2011 at 1:30 am

              Like Draco, I have no idea whether Winston is a racist.

              And I don’t care, because I don’t vote for him.

              And I don’t care how that tenuously links to Labour because I don’t vote for them either.

              Fuck there are some delusional righties around tonight.
36. Outofbed 36

    29 April 2011 at 7:06 pm

    Compare and contrast
    http://www.3news.co.nz/Brash-has-sights-set-on-Deputy-PM-title/tabid/370/articleID/209094/Default.aspx
    http://www.3news.co.nz/Harawira-names-Minto-Tanczos-Bradford-as-Mana-candidates/tabid/370/articleID/209095/Default.aspx

    Fuck TV3 are wankers
    • felix 36.1

      29 April 2011 at 8:14 pm

      I don’t know, I thought it was very interesting that they went to such effort to point out that John Key and Don Brash were both trying to read very specific lines they’d been given (by who?) to answer very straightforward questions.
37. Carol 37

    29 April 2011 at 7:20 pm

    And the Mana Party will be making significant use of the Internet & Social Networking:

    http://news.tangatawhenua.com/archives/11609

    As a way to share the day with an even greater number of people around the world, Facebook and Twitter feeds will be running live from Te Mahurehure Marae in Auckland, where the launch is being held.

    On Hone’s Facebook page it was announced that the launch will be internet friendly with a new website to be made live as well as a new Party Facebook page. TangataWhenua.com also understands that the Party logo will be released. For those wanting to join the Twitter craze, #mana and #maori will be the tags on the day with access to a live Twitter feed on the Party’s new website.
38. Berend de Boer 38

    29 April 2011 at 7:36 pm

    And we on the right have only ACT, which is a wuzzy party as far as right goes! Where is the party that only wants to confer voting rights to property owners or people with positive bank accounts?
    • felix 38.1

      29 April 2011 at 7:51 pm

      Here is what you’re looking for.
      • Bored 38.1.1

        29 April 2011 at 10:21 pm

        Wonder if they are all watching the wedding right now? Harry just said yes and let us blokes down, dont we ever learn.
39. hobbit 39

    29 April 2011 at 7:51 pm

    You’ve got to be fcuking kidding me! bahaha….
40. Andrew Kensington 40

    30 April 2011 at 12:15 am

    What I find most disturbing about neo-liberals is their inability to grasp some pretty basic concepts, the most obvious being that in a closed system with finite resources there is no such thing as ‘more’ forever – they don’t seem to understand what ‘enough’ means.

    The most under utilised, yet most ruthlessly abused resource, this country possesses is its population. That people like Hone Harawira, John Minto, Sue Bradford, Matt McCarten and their ilk earnestly demonstrate the belief that all people have value, beyond the amount of financial capital that can be squeezed out of them, is a credit to them.

    I will definitely be voting for these people in the next election and for the first time ever (I’m 42) I will be joining/becoming a financial member of a political party.
41. HC 41

    30 April 2011 at 1:08 am

    Is this it???

    Well with having read what Mike Treen has written to us above, I am dismayed about the situation on the left!

    This is only half thought out, lacks sufficient direction and looks like a “patchwork” party that is bound to fail for many reasons.

    a) “The Mana Party is determined to continue to be the voice of the majority of ordinary Maori and at the same time give voice to the excluded majority across our land – whatever their national or ethnic origin.”

    This will be the biggest challenge for a “Mana” party to handle. On one hand it is supposed to be a party for the disaffected, disenfranchised and neglected Maori voters, who lost faith in the Maori Party, and on the other hand the party is supposed to give voice to the “excluded majority across our land – whether their national or ethnic origin.”

    What is that supposed to mean? We live in a de facto “multi cultural society” now that is at the same time upholding some principles based on ‘Te Tiriti o Waitangi’.

    Do the interests of new migrants (often professionals, business people and entrepreneurs from all kinds of countries and cultures) have sufficient in common with the disenfranchised Maori and Pakeha people? I see potential for conflict here. There is the likely prospect of marginalisation of the planned party, which is so far made up of only “activist” supporters and former politicians that have been members of various small parties before.

    Questions will arise as to “how much pro Maori” can the party be, and how much can it include the interest of the rest of the population (Pakeha, Pasifika, Asian and other migrants).

    b) “Mana will be anti neo-liberal, against monopoly capitalism and against privatisation of the people’s assets. Utilities such as water, power, roading etc should be in the hands of the people rather than a guaranteed money making venture for corporations“

    The party is probably going to get some support for bringing key infrastructure networks like roads, rail lines, possibly telephone and internet lines and transmitters, water supplies, maybe even electricity generation and retail back into public ownership. But going further than that will get very tricky.

    Yes, an Auckland Council could be re-shaped by bringing the various services under public ownership and management, but what about ports, airports, dairy factories, meat works and other key strategic operations? I can hardly see that going ahead in the nearby future, and then the question will be: How efficiently and successfully will such operations be run?

    I read the mention “against monopoly capitalism”, which does not cover small and medium size enterprises. So some clarification re this is necessary and will be welcome.

    c) “We will want to abolish GST with sometime like a financial transaction tax (we’d like to call it the Hone Heke Tax)”

    The idea of a financial transaction tax is reasonable and makes sense. Yet I do not believe that abolishing GST on all goods will be realistic. To make up for that lost revenue the government would have to introduce a whole range of other taxes, which is being implied in the letter.

    I think that a two tier GST system is the best. Have a lower GST rate on essential basic living expenses like most groceries, clothing, books, stationery, bus fares and the likes, but maintain higher GST on goods that are not necessarily “essential” for day to day survival.

    Nicknaming a planned tax “Hone Heke Tax” may appeal to some, but it will equally turn others off as well.

    d) “KiwiSaver is privatisation of our pensions so increasing the money we give to these financial institutions to do what they want needs more thought. “

    Indeed there should be stricter guidelines and minimum capital or cash asset requirements for all financial institutions. That is to safeguard such savings, which should be compulsory for all employees. We need to create more savings that enable NZ to have capital for investment in local enterprises that can generate exports and deliver services locally and for tourism and education of foreign students. We need above all more investment in science, education and value added manufacturing here, rather than export logs, blocks of cheese, milk powder and the likes.

    e) “We should nationalise monopolies and duopolies.“

    This gets interesting and will get stiff opposition from the business sectors that own these. I fear that also many voters are too indifferent about this, because changing the status quo in such a radical way leads to uncertainties, which most people fear.

    I would think that a better way may be to simply bring in stricter laws, regulations and guidelines for businesses abusing their market power and ignoring consumer interests, so that they can be forced to act in “the national interest” (i.e. offering cheaper milk, produce and essentials to NZers by not charging “world market prices”).

    Otherwise it remains to be seen what kind of “monopolies” could realistically and practically be “nationalised”.

    f) “New Zealand needs a planned economy that makes job creation its main emphasis rather than leaves it to the non-existent free market.”

    So there is no existing free market in NZ?

    I must disagree and argue instead that there is a “sort of free market”, but it is a “limited free market” here, which is largely due to the small size of the economy.

    Job creation is justified in certain areas, but having a totally “planned economy” risks going down the track that the Soviet Union, Cuba and other supposedly “socialist” countries went down. We know where that led to.

    To “plan” a market efficiently and effectively to deliver the goods and services needed may be possible, but it would require expert planners who could predict trends in not only normal economic development, but also prepare for national disasters, climatic changes, risks dependent on developments beyond national control. That is near impossible though.

    Only if NZ would be part of a wider global group of countries that could complement each other by exchanging needed goods and services – and that uphold similar standards in employment, health, safety, environmental protection, social welfare, health and the like – then may this planning work. It will not work if we engage in such a socio-economic experiment on our own, while oil prices, needed other commodities and manufactured investment goods and so forth are produced overseas under completely different conditions.

    So my conclusion is that this party lacks sufficient design, sufficient direction, sufficient practical planning, a thoroughly researched economic alternative and relies on the support of the old left and activist network that is rather marginalised in our present society.

    I wish I could put my hope and trust in Mana, but I need to see more being developed and a proper party policy developed before I would seriously give this party my vote.

    Looking at this, the Greens look to be the better alternative to me.

    Sorry to spoil your day, dear enthused supporters.
    • PeteG 41.1

      30 April 2011 at 7:37 am

      There seems to be something in common with the old Act and the new Mana parties – vague attempted populist waffle. And too many assumptions.

      Claiming “to be the voice of the majority” of any group is presumptuous, a party can only be the voice of it’s leaders and members and leave it up to the rest to make their own decisions.

      What the heck is “the excluded majority across our land”?

      The sort of policies proposed here are unlikely to appeal to many beyond a fringe of wishful thinking idealists. I guess their policies themselves aren’t important, small splinter parties are going to struggle to get seats let alone get anywhere near getting any of their policies accepted by the governing coalition.

      I think the Mana Party will survive or fail because of personalities – a bunch of cause junkies may have trouble being a cohesive force. Maybe that won’t matter to likely supporters.

      Being deluded about how they will be perceived won’t help.

      John Minto: “I see myself very much in the mainstream of New Zealand and I think the people involved in this party – their values are the mainstream values of New Zealand.”

      I wonder what Labour’s position will be on going in to coalition with these “mainstreamers”.
      • Colonial Viper 41.1.1

        1 May 2011 at 10:17 am

        Interesting thing is that Mana is not looking for your support, nor support from centrist middle class property owning white NZ (whom we know currently heavily favour National, and its safe to bet would never vote Harawira in a lifetime).

        Mana is engaging a completely different element of the electorate. The vast majority of people in NZ, the ones who earn under the median wage of $40K p.a., the same ones who are more likely to be Maori and P.I.

        So your analysis from the standpoint of normal political punditry is pretty much irrelevant.
42. Carol 42

    30 April 2011 at 6:56 am

    Some good discussion points, HC. I will be waiting to see how the party develops but do like the initial general statements of direction and intent.

    This will be the biggest challenge for a “Mana” party to handle. On one hand it is supposed to be a party for the disaffected, disenfranchised and neglected Maori voters, who lost faith in the Maori Party, and on the other hand the party is supposed to give voice to the “excluded majority across our land – whether their national or ethnic origin.”

    What is that supposed to mean? We live in a de facto “multi cultural society” now that is at the same time upholding some principles based on ‘Te Tiriti o Waitangi’.

    To me this part of the Mana statement, is the direct opposite to the Act approach. Act professes to be for all people who adopt their neoliberal primciples, but, it is actually a party lead by well-off white people and re-inscribes white privilege – this is the result of refusing to accpet that it is not a level playing field to start with. And with Don Don that get the added racially divisive dog whistles.

    Hone Heke tax

    I actually thought this is a quite clever hat tip to re-working socialist principles with a Maori face (and a Kiw one) – ie such a tax is often referred to as a Robin Hood tax.

    Of course, at this stage, the Mana party still needs much developmental work. I’m hopeful, but reserve final judgment til I see how it develops, and think its good they’ve good a core of committed followers & forward momentum.

    Also Bradford seems to have some reservations, while being supportive, so I watch with interest whether she will fully commit.
43. green left 43

    30 April 2011 at 3:14 pm

    Mana Party is very exciting. Bolivia has an indigenous eco socialist president. Aotearoa has Annette Sykes, Metiria Turei, Hone Harawira and Matt McCarten. The left is finanally getting some new blood and initiatives, as the same time that the right gets Brash back. He is 70… old enough to vote for Winston. Pensionor Brash is all about the PPPs… privatisation, prejudice and pollution.

    I look forward to the development of the Mana Party this year and over next year. I wonder if David Parker would work well with the green and mana parties if he becomes labour’s next leader. Cuniliff would make a good finance minister, Charles Chauvel a good climate minister and Metiria a good conservation minister.

    2011 is going to be exciting.
44. green left 44

    30 April 2011 at 3:17 pm

    ‎”I want this movement to be a movement that puts an end to the sale of state assets” – Hone @ the party launch.
45. Herodotus 45

    1 May 2011 at 10:04 am

    Can someone help me.
    If we remove all gst, those marginal wealthy (those who own “part” of a family home) will see the majority of their wealth destoryed. As property should decrease by about 13.0%. So someone who has just purchased an avergae home for $500k in Ak, now sees their home worth $434k. they still own the bank the same? Not so bad it it is debt free, but say with a 75% morgage there still is $375k owing to the bank. More destruction to NZ than any recesion ;-(
    Now in this instance if there is capital gains how long will it take for this said property to appreciate to a stage that there is a gain?
    How long will it take for this tax to be paid and what happens to capital losses?
    At least with GST it is relativel constant and there is min time lags in the tax take.
    Also where is the maths to calc what the tax swap would achieve? Just a little fine print missing
    • Colonial Viper 45.1

      1 May 2011 at 10:14 am

      Pretty sure there is no GST component to rent and to private residential housing, just like there is none on financial services (so far).
      • Herodotus 45.1.1

        1 May 2011 at 10:24 am

        You by a house of a builder there is GST to that. the cost of a new house has a determinate influence to all other houses.
        So CV when you buy a new house or a section from a developer is there GST on it? You bet !!!
        You are right there is none relating to rentals
        • Colonial Viper 45.1.1.1

          1 May 2011 at 10:38 am

          Oh yes I see, however your first post talked about GST destroying the wealth of a family who already part owned a home.
          • Herodotus 45.1.1.1.1

            1 May 2011 at 12:29 pm

            removal of GST still destroys value. Try this example. GSt removed 1st April.
            Buy new house 31st March $100k+ GSt = $115k.
            Buy the same house 1st Apr cost is $100k. What does that do on the 1st Apr to all those houses purchased at an ealier time? they all go down by $15k. You have a morgage of $100k, now you had previously a net worth of $15k now you have nothing, worse if your equity was less than $15 before then you are left with negative net worth. There is a domino effect then created by the fact that new houses are now worth less to purchase than to buy an existing house.
            I hope that helps 😉
            p.s.when GST was raised a few months ago, as the market was depressed the builder/land developer bore the added cost, as in this case property was not worth 2.22% more with the raise of GST. The property was worth the same the day GSt was 12.5% and the next day when it was 15% 🙁
    • Daveosaurus 45.2

      1 May 2011 at 10:27 am

      Since when has anyone had to pay GST when they sell their family home?
      • PeteG 45.2.1

        1 May 2011 at 10:43 am

        They don’t, they pay GST when they build.

        Another problem with removing GST – it would have to be an announced policy with a future date to become effective. What will that do to Sales? As much as possible people will defer buying until the GST comes off, this would have a major effect on retail business and employment.

        And another problem – what happens with GST already paid on products that are later sold with no GST? GST costs can be incurred months or years prior to the end product being sold (like a house).
        • felix 45.2.1.1

          1 May 2011 at 11:19 am

          Could always take it down in increments to smooth out the deferred spending issue. Perhaps drop 2.5% every 2 years, all done in just over a decade.

          After all, 2 govts have increased it by that amount without totally destroying the economy so as long as the changes are well gazetted they should be manageable.
          • Herodotus 45.2.1.1.1

            1 May 2011 at 12:18 pm

            So those with nothing, after the gst still have nothing, those who have a huge morgage now have less than nothing, those with a little have nothing, those with alot (Hitchens) still have alot. So the party that espouses to help the poor, make then poorer and those with alot still have their fortune !!!
            With some time I would hate to think of all the other unforseen consequences of this.
            And Felix if progessively reduce it still ends up with the same result. those with little equity have it destoryed, and hitchens $30m property is now worth $26m Still a filthy amount, so no solution, or have I missed something, Hone has !!!
46. Kelvyn Alp 46

    3 May 2011 at 6:26 pm

    Where is the MANA?

    The much touted Financial Transaction Tax being touted by Hone Harawira and the MANA Party was originally adapted by me for the party known as DDP in 2004 for the General Elections in 2005. Now I have carried that policy into OURNZ Party which is going through its formal registration process.

    Thinking it was a great idea to unite as many minor parties that had areas of agreement, I approached Hone Harawira via relations of his. He called me and basically stated that before any meeting took place I was to do two things for him 1) send him the OURNZ Party policies (available on our temporary website at http://www.ournz.net.nz) to see if there were areas we could agree and 2) have Mike Tamaki call him. This was done and from that point to this, I have not had any other contact.

    His application of the Transaction Tax is not appropriate and will in fact raise prices, not lower them. The following is the 1% Financial Transaction Tax as it should be implemented:

    Policy 3 Taxation

    The simple fact is, before Government debt, there was no taxation (except of course that which Monarch levied against people to satisfy their indebtedness to the Banksters – same thing different day). The idea that a Government can demand a large portion of your wealth every year because it was stupid enough to allow “money changers” to get it into a cycle of irredeemable debt and therefore control the economy in all aspects is nothing short of criminal.

    The adopted model of taxation in New Zealand is nothing more than a dysfunctional rout imported from other nations at the behest of the financial institutions that dictate government policies. A fundamentally flawed ideology that taxation decreases a nation’s debt and helps to pay for government expenditure could not be further from the truth!

    New Zealand current company and personal taxation rates are far too high, meaning that companies are at a disadvantage when trying to compete with other countries for foreign investment and business on the world stage. In fact the taxation rates are too high and a hindrance to real growth period!

    OURNZ Party Solution:

    A 1% Transaction Tax on all outgoing financial transactions (i.e. when you draw $500.00 from your account, you pay 1% or $5.00); This Transaction Tax will replace GST, Income Tax, Company Tax, Provisional Tax, Petrol Tax and ALL other taxes including the many “hidden” taxes.

    The simplicity of this taxation system is incredible; software programmed into New Zealand Reserve Bank’s electronic clearing system will achieve the desired results;

    1. Every hour of the day money is withdrawn from savings accounts, cheque accounts, insurance companies, business and investment organisations, and financial institutions of all kinds. Indeed, ALL monetary transactions are withdrawn from some type of bank or financial institution that holds money in trust.

    2. New Zealand Reserve Bank electronic clearing system Report will clearly state the average of what is transacted through the banking system EVERY WORKING DAY in ordinary business trading.

    3. Just one simple and moderate Transaction Tax of say for example 1 percent (1%) on all monies transacted, will provide New Zealand Treasury with annual operating revenue sufficient to build upon monetary reforms implemented as described above. This is calculated on 260 working days at the average of total transactions providing a total transacted amount per annum sufficient to address public requirements; this is how we arrive at a revenue generation figure based per annum at just 1% of total transactions made.

    4. It will be sufficient to control any fluctuation in the economy and help pay for the required Government expenditure.

    We propose that the introduction of the Transaction Tax could be seamlessly implemented under the current economic conditions and in conjunction with the Monetary Reforms.

    Some may be of the opinion that by applying a Transaction Tax (and therefore increasing taxation revenue), this would have a negative effect on the economy, as if to diminish its capital value. This is a completely false notion and will, in fact, have a beneficial effect on the economy through its effectiveness in being able to tax the 5% of the people that hold 90% of the wealth through tax avoidance and careful manipulation of the current system – including the banks.

    This solution will bring economic prosperity, major increases in employment and less dependence on the State. It will give people a sense of value and worth, thereby increasing the mental and physical health of people and much more. Most important of all, the Taxation Policy we propose will greatly reduce the strain of workplace relations between management and workers, family violence and discord due to lack of funds and increase the quality of life for all New Zealanders.

    Money was intended as a method by which goods and services are distributed at an agreed value. Money was never meant to be a product/commodity in itself. The solution is not to tax the real wealth of this country (i.e. labour, resources, business enterprise etc), but rather to tax the method by which that wealth is distributed. With no income tax, nor GST to pay, each person will effectively have a discretionary revenue increase (a pay rise).

    “We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle” – Winston Churchill

    As you can see, I know this policy inside out as I was the one that write it in 2004. DDP campaigned on it in 2005 and I still have the leaflet from then to prove it. ALL MP’s were sent a copy of this information between November 2008 and January 2009 when I wrote the document ‘Economic Reform: Monetary System and Taxation’ November 2008.

    So, the only Party that actually understands the application of the policy properly is OURNZ Party and we shall be campaigning on this and other policies this year. We also welcome any and all to join us on the OURNZ Group discussion page on Facebook.

Links to post

1. Mana vs Maori Party « The Standard: posted on 1 May 2011 at 12:26 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS