Dunne in

Written By: - Date published: 1:06 pm, March 15th, 2013 - 43 comments
Categories: tax - Tags:

As Bill English gives us death by a thousand cuts – searching for any cut against the vulnerable that he thinks the media won’t notice – he’s also always on the search for more stealth taxes.  So Peter Dunne & Revenue have the task of finding any little extra cash they can.

But they’ve mucked up with their carpark fringe benefit tax.

Not only is it likely to cost more to gather than it brings in, it’s just plain petty.

But now advertising groups are starting to line up against it and paint it as National over-meddling (like Labour was painted with the eminently sensible efficient light-bulbs), it looks like Dunne is being left to carry the can.

In typical National style, he’s out of the country, so can’t defend himself.

But presumably a Bill didn’t get to Select Committee on this without National support…

It’ll be interesting to see how National try to keep this petty tax, but continue to blame 1-vote-Peter for getting it through the House.

And I doubt Dunne wants to die in a ditch for a petty carpark tax, so it’ll be good to see his response when he gets back.

43 comments on “Dunne in ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. One Tāne Huna 1
    15 March 2013 at 1:26 pm

    Is it any wonder that the Hair gets to oversee fringe benefits?

  2. bad12 2
    15 March 2013 at 1:53 pm

    Slippery the Prime Minister being fed a cold dead rat from His coalition partner the ‘Hairdo from Ohariu’ Peter Dunne,

    Apparently while in Opposition in 2005 Slippery explicitly ruled out such a ‘carpark tax’ by any Government He was part of,

    Just another ‘truth modification’ to add to the long list of Bovine Defecation that our Prime Minister has inflicted on us all,

    Any bets on Slippery canning this tax in a flurry of publicity next week when He gets His nose rubbed in that other recent piece of ‘truth modification’ the billion dollar request for funding from the Government He claims Solid Energy asked for and which the past Board Chairman of that company denies ever happened???,

    The voters who cast a ballot for that nice man Key should all about now be coming to the conclusion that Slippery and truth and honesty are not even passing aquaintances, bring on November 2014…

  3. George D 3
    15 March 2013 at 1:54 pm

    So; Labour, the EMA, National’s rich mates who actually have inner-city carparks, and the talkback crowd who treat cars as sacrosanct, all came together in a coalition to fight for the right of assigned CBD car-park holders to avoid a small tax which would have encouraged public transport and sustainable design.

    Congratulations, you won.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.1
      15 March 2013 at 2:21 pm

      Pretty much what I was thinking.

      • George D 3.1.1
        15 March 2013 at 2:26 pm

        “But, the cleaners!” Was Cunliffe/Twyford et. al.’s line of argument.

        It was enough to convince them.

      • Naki nark 3.1.2
        15 March 2013 at 2:56 pm

        But unions are against this type of tax too. People who have lived in Tamaki no there is no public transport to be encouraged with. http://blog.labour.org.nz/2013/03/15/the-no-credibility-carpark-tax/

        • Te Reo Putake 3.1.2.1
          15 March 2013 at 3:14 pm

          Dead right, NN. The reason unions are against it isn’t just about the cost or the conveniance. Forcing shift workers to walk through darkened streets late at night to get to their vehicles is setting them up for robbery and violence.

          • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2.1.1
            15 March 2013 at 4:22 pm

            Not forcing them to at all. The cost of keeping their employees safe should, inevitably, fall upon the business.

            • TheContrarian 3.1.2.1.1.1
              15 March 2013 at 4:31 pm

              “The cost of keeping their employees safe should, inevitably, fall upon the business.”

              But only to a point.

              The car-park tax is stupid.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                15 March 2013 at 5:24 pm

                Why only to a point? Either the business pays it directly (through direct provision) or it pays it indirectly (through higher wages). If the workers are having to walk in the dark to their cars then the business isn’t paying enough for the safety of their workers and should either increase how much they’re spending on it or close down.

                • TheContrarian …
                  15 March 2013 at 6:04 pm

                  Because the council has responsibility to provide adequate lighting and safe public areas, not the employer.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    15 March 2013 at 6:09 pm

                    Yeah, so we should possibly look at increasing rates on the business as well.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      15 March 2013 at 6:13 pm

                      Or the employer could provide a safe, well lit parking space for employees.

                      Hey, we already have that – excellent.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      15 March 2013 at 6:16 pm

                      And they could then pay tax on it to offset the damage and pollution having that car park represents – excellent.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      15 March 2013 at 6:19 pm

                      A tax which costs more to maintain that it brings in.

                      That’s stupid Draco and you should feel stupid.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      15 March 2013 at 8:38 pm

                      Not if it’s goal is other than revenue (which, considering this government, it probably isn’t but it can achieve those other goals even if this government isn’t specifically going for them).

        • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2.2
          15 March 2013 at 3:49 pm

          Apparently, Unions can be just as wrong as politicians and economists.

          • ropata 3.1.2.2.1
            15 March 2013 at 5:40 pm

            bloody hell Draco

            why not tax other “perks” like coffee and toilets at work as well

            good on labour for siding with workers

            • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2.2.1.1
              15 March 2013 at 6:02 pm

              I suppose that would depend on if we wanted to get rid coffee drinking during work time.

              So far the only argument against this tax that I’ve seen is that it would cost more than it would raise and that’s not an argument because a) the cost would mostly fall upon business and b) other factors are involved such as saving the environment.

              good on labour for siding with workers

              They’re not siding with workers though, they’re siding with business and their continued attack upon the environment.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                15 March 2013 at 6:05 pm

                That said, Murray Olsen has a point in that there may be better options available but we should be discussing those better options. The one I like would be to improve PT, have it cost considerably less than a car and car park and make it so that the business had to directly pay for transport to and from the place of work.

              • TheContrarian …
                15 March 2013 at 6:06 pm

                …”and their continued attack upon the environment.”

                Non-sequiter much?

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  15 March 2013 at 6:15 pm

                  Do cars expel CO2? Are they also considered to be a major source of CO2? Is anthropogenic CO2 considered to be a major cause of climate change? Is anthropogenic climate change considered to be damage to the environment? Who is most likely to be worse off due to climate change?

                  Business wants to keep the cars, ergo, they want to keep doing damage to the environment and thus they want to keep attacking it. Labour is siding with this attack and against the workers.

                  • TheContrarian …
                    15 March 2013 at 6:22 pm

                    It’s not a matter of “Business want[ing] to keep the cars” Draco.
                    It’s about those shiftworkers who use cars having somewhere to park them and the argument is that getting rid of those carparks mean the worker park offsite in potentially dangerous areas.

                    That’s why your argument about the environment is a non-sequiter

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      15 March 2013 at 8:36 pm

                      It’s about those shiftworkers who use cars having somewhere to park them…

                      And I could have sworn that it was The Fringe Benefit Tax Action Group is an alliance made up of the Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA) Northern, Property Council New Zealand, car park operators and the Unite Union.

                      Seems to be more than just shift workers in there.

                    • Glen Forrester …
                      15 March 2013 at 9:33 pm

                      Draco, it’s not a choice between this tax and saving the planet.

                      The Nats don’t have any plan for public transport in Auckland. They hate the rail loop.

                      It’s just a tax that will cost more to bring in than it actually brings in. Paperwork for the sake of it.

                      Your logic is kindof like saying If the IRD writes a billion dollar invoice to companies and another three billion dollar invoice to itself that would make John Key build a train in Auckland.

                      I’ll believe that when I see it.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      15 March 2013 at 10:48 pm

                      it’s not a choice between this tax and saving the planet.

                      I didn’t say that it was. I even pointed out an alternative that would do a better job.

                      The Nats don’t have any plan for public transport in Auckland. They hate the rail loop.

                      It’s just a tax that will cost more to bring in than it actually brings in. Paperwork for the sake of it.

                      It’s not even that – it’s this government trying to raise taxes without raising taxes on the rich.

                      Your logic is kindof like saying If the IRD writes a billion dollar invoice to companies and another three billion dollar invoice to itself that would make John Key build a train in Auckland.

                      I’m thinking more along the lines of unintended consequences. It may have that effect no matter what JK wants.

  4. Murray Olsen 4
    15 March 2013 at 2:34 pm

    I’ve seen information indicating that this tax would cost more to administer than it would bring in. I suspect there are better ways to encourage public transport and sustainable design.

    • One Tāne Huna 4.1
      15 March 2013 at 3:12 pm

      +1

    • Rogue Trooper 4.2
      15 March 2013 at 3:37 pm

      +2

    • Mary 4.3
      15 March 2013 at 5:49 pm

      And it’s not just the rich and the cleaners who’ll be affected. There’s a whole other group in between, the ever-increasing membership of the working poor that’s getting bigger every day who’d be screwed even further. If you look hard enough you’ll find all sorts of people with carparks attached to their employment, not necessarily because their employers are wealthy but because the park’s available. The implications are far wider than we think and affect people who can least afford it.

  5. TightyRighty 5
    15 March 2013 at 4:12 pm

    Gonna let Pete george back if what dunne says fits with the rabid anti key meme? Be kind of ironic.

    The intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the left never fails to astound me.

    • Pascal's bookie 5.1
      15 March 2013 at 4:55 pm

      “The intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the left never fails to astound me.”

      You imagined something that isn’t going to happen, and it astounded you.

      Golf clap.

    • bad12 5.2
      15 March 2013 at 5:20 pm

      There’s more chance of you getting the kick in the next month than there is of the idiot George getting a reprieve from His ban after months of His whining about being banned from the Standard on other web forums…

      • TighyRighty 5.2.1
        17 March 2013 at 10:56 am

        The idiot George at least constructs a decent argument, whether you agree with it or not. It’s more than we can say for you, Draco, colonial ass wiper or the retard set of Murray Olsen, Craig glen Eden, one tane hua and mcflock.

        • Colonial Viper 5.2.1.1
          17 March 2013 at 11:05 am

          But it’s “decent argument” which simply goes around in circles because while he loves to argue process and morals, he refuses to actually go anywhere with his arguments just in case he’s called on it later on.

    • lprent 5.3
      15 March 2013 at 7:28 pm

      We run periodic general amnesties on the banned to find out if the idiots have figured out how to behave here. That would be his next chance.

      • the pigman 5.3.1
        16 March 2013 at 2:34 am

        Hmm, lprent, way to take TightyRighty’s bait!

        Also – thought police much? It’s like saying, if he just brushes up his ideas a little and pretends to be more of a centrist/left-leaning, he can come and derail and concern troll again – great!

        • lprent 5.3.1.1
          16 March 2013 at 3:52 am

          It isn’t the concern trolls that are a problem because we tend not to give them permanent bans. It is usually the people who attack authors personally, the ones who tell us how to run this site, and the ones who go for a consistent pattern of firestarting and high level diversion in posts outside of OpenMike. The people who fall into the areas covered by our long-standing policies and indulge in behaviour that is deemed to be disruptive or anti-social on this site. Mostly we don’t care about peoples opinions – we care about how they act.

          Unusually this time around wasn’t me initiating it (which I like). It had been discussed by a number of mods since last year. I have been holding it up because of my lack of moderating time. I didn’t disagree now that I have time to engage as a cleanup moderator again.

          In the past, I’ve usually the one who has just quietly done it when I have had time to do some concentrated moderation and after we’ve accumulated a year or so of permanent bans. In this case we have almost three years of accumulated bans to clear out because that is how long my work project ran for (and I had a heart attack in the middle that didn’t help much either).

          Then we let people back on and see if they have improved their behaviour. If they repeat the behaviour(s) that got them banned last time then they wind up with a short sharp and preferably quite humiliating bounce. Of course there will be a few fools who take it as a badge of honour to be banned from TS – the ones who congregate at whaleoil or the sewer to display their badge of stupid behaviour and lie about why they banned. But many will have learnt to not repeat dumb behaviours. The key to doing it is when there is time to have a moderator solidly available to deal with the usual idiots who fail to learn from their past foolishness.

  6. Craig Glen viper 6
    15 March 2013 at 4:43 pm

    Tighty is all for the parking tax he and the right just love taxing business workers anyone as long as it means they can give money to their mates. The intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the right never fails to astound me.

    Its easy to make a fantasy statement then make out others are intellectual and morally bankrupt.

    I had a Uncle who use to say “dont judge others by your own standards” some times he would include “own shitty standard’.

    Own shitty standard seem applicable to Tightys post.

    • TighyRighty 6.1
      16 March 2013 at 10:34 am

      You are one of the more moronic posters here. I tend not to comment directly on government policy that I disapprove of. The more insightful here have realised that. Thanks for telling me what I think though. Of all the things you could be OTI you choose to be a retard from glen Eden.

      This a stupid tax, all it will do raise compliance costs and therefore the hackles of business owners. It’s so arbitrary to. I park on my companies customer car parks at all times of day or night. My customers do so too. I use my phone almost exclusively for business, yet the few personal calls I make will cost the company a fortune. Do I carry two cell phones like a drug dealer for a few minutes of personal time each day? Does my accountant want to audit all my phone bills to pay the government in the range of $500 per year? It will cost more to enforce than the government will collect.

      So Craig glen Eden, what else do I think? And Can you specify why you object to it?

      Fucking retard.

  7. Simeon 7
    15 March 2013 at 5:51 pm

    I agree with the tax but not having it applied so generally.

    There is a difference between an employee getting a paid car park on Shortland St and a cleaner who works at night or an employee parking on work property in East Tamaki.

    The former employee gets a tax free benefit of expenses they would have to otherwise incur. The latter two do not. The cleaner uses the space during off peak hours and the factory work parks on the only spare land available.

    The tax should be calculated into your annual income which means the employer pays the tax through PAYE or the employee pays it after 31st March.

    Simple, fair and it reflects reality.

  8. tc 8
    16 March 2013 at 11:48 am

    So they introduce a tax that’s more costly to administer than it’s revenue impact after cancelling Gift duty for the same reasons.

    Interesting when the NACT/UF hypocrites fight amongst themselves, shows how desperate they’ve become when this and issues like cancelling 6 monthly warrants and not funding Kauri preservation get looked at rather than admit the ‘fiscally neutral’ $1.2Bill + p.a. hole they willingly punched in crown tax revenue was a shite idea and fat lie all in one swoop.