Government as startup

Written By: - Date published: 8:00 am, September 4th, 2018 - 67 comments
Categories: Economy, election 2017, greens, jacinda ardern, labour, Media, Politics - Tags:

This new government is almost perfectly replicating the burn cycle of a startup business.

Like a tech startup, the popular notion is that it has two stages: a great idea and a spectacular payoff.

In reality, this government is behaving like a tech startup because there is an awful lot of work to do between these two points.

There are six distinct stages, each with specific needs in terms of growing internal competencies, building an adviser team, and creating a scalable infrastructure to support growth and get to the finish line. For a Labour-led government, that finish line is the next election, and the next, because their big ideas are such that they need three terms to see stuff actually altering society and New Zealand as a whole.

  1. Idea Generation.

This has occurred in this government through the policy formation processes of its three coalition partners, and came to a conclusion at the election and coalition document, and first Speech from the Throne. Through the coalition document, the roles of the founding members were determined. There is no doubt from the polling that until these ideas start delivering, the competitor will continue to loom massive.

  1. Vetting.

This is where the ideas take shape, and the initial cash burn amount is signalled. In this government, this was signalled very early through the mini-budget. But as with all early cash requirement announcements, it was out massively. The second part of this is what they are doing now: putting concepts out there, realising that it will take much, much longer to get a political payoff for the major concepts that they have underway (such as shifting New Zealand’s investments from housing to the productive sector, building rail lines, housing, altering child poverty, and lifting consumer spending with big sectoral pay increases). The PM has made the black and white commitment that there will be no exceeding the cash burn requirement through breaking their imposed debt rules.

Not all policies survive the first big burn, which is what we are going through.

  1. Customer Engagement.

There’s a central need for customer engagement. As a startup hybrid government with very little cabinet experience, they are slow to get to this. Thankfully the Prime Minister is the communications expert in Parliament right now; she’s back, and it’s showing. They’re a long way from the great “baby picture” phase of the first quarter, but they are getting out in the field as they should.

It’s yet to be determined whether all the hundreds of influencers on the 170+ committees – the “angel investors” spending their reputations into this cash burn period  – are really getting the payoff they might be entitled to. Tactically it’s smart to engage so many because with so many professionals engaged from so many fields, the capacity to critique is decreased. It shows that many believe that this startup is real. They are all motivated to ensure that it hits its milestones.

But this government is deep in its burn cycle. It’s spending political and taxpayer capital all over the place, it’s amping up the marketing with sustained promises of what it will deliver in the years to come, and it’s working all the hours God has given it to get there. Lower-order management is due for a re-tool to keep the rest of the sales team hungry.

This government is a long, long way from generating much political cash.

  1. Scaling

In their second and third year, they’ve done their prototypes, tested their political markets, costed them, and are ready to roll out the policy ideas rapidly. It is now out of startup mode and promising mode, and in to the phase of being an assured real government. The customer base expands significantly, requiring additional customer relationship management tools. That means every single Minister rehearses before every media interview, there’s a team in the PM’s office who has full command across the media scape, and there is one comprehensive message calendar that the government is working to, and as much as possible they are setting the agenda within its market.

This is the time where teams change, such as the formation of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, and new PPP’s and UDA’s are formed. It’s also where accounting and banking needs become more technical, especially where selling your concepts across state or international boundaries as this government is. In the NZHerald this morning, Canadian pension fund CDPQ is ready to roll over procurement processes we are familiar with here and get into public consultation with NZTA on light rail even though they haven’t been awarded the job. In time we will see Cabinet and public servants change as the risks of scaling alter the experience needed to deal with this.

This government is not yet at scaling.

  1. Profitable Growth.

This government will have profitable growth when they sustain their popularity not on whether the Prime Minister is pregnant (or other irrelevant media story), but on whether citizens see that their policies really work, and that conviction is reinforced by within both MSM and digital media. That means it’s not just the occasional columnist; it’s when most product reviews come in and they are good.

The measure of profitable growth is whether this government gets re-elected. Which is kind of like a really big rights issue. The IPO was the first election.

And finally …

  1. Maturity/Exit

Yes, all things come to an end, and Labour governments are as bad at this as they are succession planning. In 2023 or 2026 they will lose because that’s just the way things are. But a really smart company has already invested all the political capital that they have been salting away by appointing friendly judges, friendly University Vice Chancellors, friendly Chiefs of Police and of the Defence Force, stacked the ACC and NZSuper and EQC Boards, tilted NZ On Air and TVNZ with their people. In some cases, they are rewards for Cabinet Ministers who could conceivably come back. You need them all there, because you know your children are going to want to launch their own – and they will need their own Angel Investors ready to vent a little of their own personal capital into that new burn, that new government.

In the meantime, this is the burn cycle.

67 comments on “Government as startup”

  1. Gosman 1

    Why does the government want to lift consumer spending? NZ has not got a problem with depressed consumer spending. We do have a problem with productivity growth. Increasing consumer spending won’t help solve that.

    • dukeofurl 1.1

      Sending more and more logs offshore wont help productivity either. Same goes for those calling for ‘drill baby drill’ and its cousin ‘dig baby dig’

      • Kevin 1.1.1

        We don’t own the logs and the owners can do what they like with them. That is why selling forests 30 years ago was a classic NZ case of short term thinking.

        • Gosman 1.1.1.1

          Yes the owners can make as much money out of owning something they can get. What a terrible idea /sarc.

          • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1.1

            Yes it is. Such bludging is always a bad idea especially when it impoverishes society leading to its collapse.

            Which is where capitalism always takes a society.

            • Gosman 1.1.1.1.1.1

              I think you are mistaking Socialism for Capitalism again Draco 😉

              • Draco T Bastard

                No, I’m not.

                Capitalism is purely destructive of societies and always has been. That’s why almost all religions throughout the world ban usury and theft. That’s all capitalism is really – legalised theft.

          • Marcus Morris 1.1.1.1.2

            Not like you Gosman but I think you have missed the point Kevin is making. Profit is being made by overseas interests from raw product grown in NZ that sold off at bargain basement rates by a National Government thirty years ago. I was living in Levin when a large forest block (planted out by PD workers I think) was sold off to Renier for a ridiculously low price and I can recall local people being outraged at the time. I was talking very recently to a woman whose family was in the timber business for years and she says she “weeps” each time she sees a load of logs heading for the sport of Tauranga. Why has Kinleith been allowed to become so diminished. At bone time NZFP was New Zealand’s largest listed company. Does it rate at all now? We have got to look at adding value to our raw materials (like Tatua has done so successfully with milk). I am hopeful that Shane Jones sees things in a similar light.

      • Gosman 1.1.2

        Considering I’m not calling for that I don’t know why you brought it up.

        • Marcus Morris 1.1.2.1

          Goodness me. I thought that your direct implication was that any owner can make as much profit as they are able to. Fair enough. But in this case the owners are not New Zealanders and the assets that they are exploiting once were NZ owned and that they were sold off was a mistake. However I don’t expect you to see it that way.

          • Gosman 1.1.2.1.1

            The assets were not sold off by mistake. It was a deliberate action on behalf of the former owners and they received payment for the assets.

            • Marcus Morris 1.1.2.1.1.1

              You do love to be pedantic. The example that I mentioned was a publicly owned asset. Those responsible for the sale did not make a mistake in a legal sense – I know that and you know I know that. However there was general dismay in the community when news of the sale was made public and many felt that the asset had been sold far too cheaply.

      • SaveNZ 1.1.3

        Can’t see how investing so much into housing to be sold or rented to more low waged migrants (such as “restaurant managers” or “farm workers”) here is going to generate wealth.

        Wasn’t lowering immigration one of labour and NZ First election promises that took them over the line with voters?

        Blowing the budget on corporate welfare infrastructure to support John and Bill’s low wage economy and stimulate as much competition in that area to keep wages low and competition for low cost housing and jobs high, while encouraging as much driving as possible for the growing precariat class?

        P.S. there is not much public transport in poor areas and you can’t get around from your gig economy jobs or part time work on public transport as it currently takes twice as long, if it even goes where you need to go. What are people going to do for the next 10 years while they wait for the woefully inadequate public transport? Practicality is missing from Labour. New migrant and foreign money is buying up all the prime sites and driving those that live and work in NZ further out while penalising them for it, with petrol taxes and additional taxes to pay for public transport.

        Pretty hypocritical to complain about not investing in the productive sector when the governments money is being firmly thrown into construction and most messaging is to support construction business and not much else??? The government also seem to be freaking out when it looks like Kiwis are not going to be buying all the new apartments as they can’t afford them so allow foreign investors to buy them, keeping the inflated construction sector going while expecting Kiwi taxpayers to subsidise the process and keep it going by providing the taxes for infrastructure while not even being able to afford to live there.

    • left_forward 1.2

      …and which part of productivity growth theory are you thinking of Gosman?
      Stripping more natural resources, or making workers do more for less?
      Is this your capitalist voice or do you actually have some progressive ideas about how to grow productivity?

      • Gosman 1.2.1

        Ummm… you are aware that the key to productivity growth is usually capital investment aren’t you?

        • lprent 1.2.1.1

          Yep. Invariably to do capital investments in raising the productivity of employees and then passing some of the benefits on to the employees.

          That is the classical theory and one that works when there aren’t arsehole employees and rapacious shareholders around.

          That raises the overall quantity and quality of goods and services and feeds back onto the whole
          community.

          However over the last couple of decades it hasn’t worked like that.

          Instead real wages have diminished across virtually every sector of the economy regardless of the increases in productivity.

          Almost all the substantive costs of employee productivity increases have increasingly been pushed on to the employee and the government. This is known as tertiary education along with its massive subsidy and putative loans.

          At the same same time virtually all benefits from any benefits from any productivity increases have been translated directly into shareholder returns and executive salaries.

          Since then are the only real beneficiaries of such capital investments, then why should the unprividged care a toss for those arseholes?

          in essence you are a economic
          fossil. Perhaps you should learn about modern economies rather than trying to lecture by repeating rubbish that was dying when you were born.

          • Gosman 1.2.1.1.1

            I would dispute that Tertiary education has lead to massive increases in productivity.

            • greywarshark 1.2.1.1.1.1

              Gosman –
              Your rationale is : I shall dispute

            • Gabby 1.2.1.1.1.2

              Go on then gozzer, get disputin.

            • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.1.1.3

              Tertiary education by itself doesn’t. Use of that education to develop the economy does.

              Unfortunately, we’ve not been using that education to develop our economy the way it needs to be developed and so we’ve seen an increase in poverty and inequality as the capitalists steal from from the rest of us.

        • left_forward 1.2.1.2

          Perhaps you mean production growth (but even then you have missed human and natural resources).
          Productivity is about efficiency of production (independent of the size of production) – productivity growth is about improving this efficiency.
          Capital Investment does not have any effect on productivity.

          • Gosman 1.2.1.2.1

            Wrong. If I invest in new capital equipment I would expect my productivity to increase (otherwise it has been a poor investment).

            • left_forward 1.2.1.2.1.1

              So even though you declare me to be wrong, you do in fact substantially agree that capital investment will only have an effect on productivity if it has a certain quality – i.e. it increases productivity!
              So having taken this meaningless diversion – please answer my question –
              [What makes a capital investment good to you ] –
              Stripping more natural resources, and / or making workers do more for less?

              • Gosman

                What makes capital investment good for me is that it allows workers to do more for the same amount of money AND it enables a business to use less natural resources to produce the same output.

                • left_forward

                  Thanks Gosman, we got there!

                  I assume you forgot about the return on investment – the increased profit! As a good capitalist that would be a given I guess.

                  Yet, you specifically refused to share some of the increased profit with the workers?

                  And what of the shared commons from which you have taken those (albeit reduced) natural resources – would it not also be good to refund the commons for the resources taken?

                • Ad

                  I just knew you you belonged in the Labour Party.

    • Nic the NZer 1.3

      What are you talking about? Increases in consumer spending are almost directly recorded as increases in income and therefore productivity (for the sectors which are spent on).

      • Gosman 1.3.1

        No they are not. I don’t know why you think that.

        • Nic the NZer 1.3.1.1

          Yes, it follows from the definitions.

          GDP = C + I + G + (X – M) = Total Income

          That is consumption by households, investment by businesses, government spending on goods and services, and net exports, which are equal to exports minus imports of goods and services.

          So consumption spending counts directly in GDP which is a measure of economic income.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product#Components_of_GDP_by_expenditure

          Further productivity is to some extent measured as income divided by time worked. For example OECD productivity data measures GDP per hour worked. So increases in consumption spending will almost directly have a positive impact on the productivity of the sectors of the economy where that spending occurs.

          https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm

          The alternative is that the hours work increase with the increases in consumption spending but I am pretty sure you need to be barking mad to believe there is no such slack in the economy to be exercised by such a spending increase.

          • Gosman 1.3.1.1.1

            Except you miss the fact that if Government increases spending it usually means less investment (unless the State borrows more) which means the equation does not change.

            • Nic the NZer 1.3.1.1.1.1

              Wrong again, Bob!
              BTW, if the government succeeds in increasing consumption spending this doesn’t increase government spending. As you can see they are two different parts of GDP.
              And no government spending does not directly decrease investment, though that is a commonly held belief in certain religious circles.

              • Gosman

                How can you increase spending without decreasing investment Nic?

                • Nic the NZer

                  Easy, just increase spending. You will notice both count positively towards GDP.

                  Also note all the domestic private sectors spending counts as consumption or investment. If there was an inverse relationship there it would be impossible for the private sector contribution to GDP to grow (or shrink), at all.

                  Your getting awfully confused about the basics.

                  • Gosman

                    You can’t just increase spending. The money has to come from somewhere. If you spend it you can’t invest it. Do you not understand basic maths?

                    • Nic the NZer

                      Christ your deluded.

                      A countries money supply is very far from fixed. It increases and decreases through accounting inside the banking system, including the central bank. You can verify that just by observing aggregate money supply statistics over time.

                      Also, consumption and investment spending are a flow so they can increase on the same money supply due to faster turnover.

                    • Gosman

                      Unless you print OR borrow money you CANNOT increase Consumer spending without impacting Investment. This has been known by Economists for a VERY LONG TIME.

                    • Nic the NZer []

                      So last years GDP outcomes where both consumption and investment spending nominally grew year on year, in fact didn’t happen then?

                    • arkie

                      Disputing reality is a trademark of ol’ Gosman

                    • Gosman

                      Noone is arguing that investment and consumer spending can’t go up if the economy is growing. What the argument is about is if you increase consumer spending artifically by an action of Government in the short term you will reduce the amount of money available for investment. You might bank on this having an effect in the medium or longer term if demand encourages capacity to be utilised more fully but if capacity is close to full then any increase in spending will not be hugely beneficial to the economy at all but will actively harm it as Business can not access enough capital to expand production AND the extra demand will drive up prices and costs.

                    • Nic the NZer []

                      “Noone is arguing that investment and consumer spending can’t go up if the economy is growing.” – Gosman

                      “You can’t just increase spending. The money has to come from somewhere. If you spend it you can’t invest it. ” – an earlier Gosman.

                    • Gosman

                      I’m not arguing that the result of a growing economy is more money for both Consumer spending AND Investment. I’m arguing that if you start from the point of view of increasing Consumer Spending (i.e. the other end of the equation) you will reduce the amount available for Investment and vice versa If you increase investment you reduce Consumer spending.

                    • Nic the NZer []

                      Wrong again Bob!
                      GDP is an accounting relation. Also in maths equality is symmetric it doesn’t matter which direction you look at it.

  2. Stuart Munro 2

    “In 2023 or 2026 they will lose because that’s just the way things are”

    That may be the way that things have been, but there are few to no signs of renewal among the Gnats at present. They oscillate between the blandly incompetent Bridges, the tainted and nasty Collins, and the frankly stupid Bennett & Brownlee.

    If Labour can deliver on its promises and responsibilities, the Gnats are out until they make a generational change. And they’re not good at change, they probably won’t make any until they plumb the bedrock English took them to back in the day.

    • Gosman 2.1

      I think your analysis of NZ Politics hasn’t got a very good track record at predicting political trends. I believe you are one of the many here who kept predicting the imminent demise of the last National government years before it actually lost.

      • Stuart Munro 2.1.1

        Really no one cares what you believe Gosman – your alleged beliefs are so full of it they’re a waste of pixels.

        Political parties have support of differing tenacity.

        There is volatile support, which changes with the wind, broad support, which may still be lost over significant issues or conspicuous failures, and there is bedrock support, which will largely stay with parties regardless of their activities.

        Bill English found National bedrock support to be in the order 24% back in the day, and on current performance there is every reason that their base should fall back in that direction; moreover, many of those supporters will have died since then, thus it is probable the Gnat bedrock is closer to 20%.

      • Duncan 2.1.2

        You seem to think money comes from the government printing press Gosman which is not generally true.
        Most of it comes from banks creating more money every time they book a loan. A bank only needs to hold around 14% capital, and the rest it can lend. This is why a bank does not make 1-2% return on capital (the difference between deposit interest rates and loan interest rates), it makes more than 10%, as it lends more than 7 times what its capital is.
        And in a time of rising house prices, the money supply increases as lending increases backed by increased deposits from those who sold their house at an inflated price and exit the property market.
        This is why the housing rises of the last 10 years are a ponzi scheme and are unsustainable and must collapse at some stage.
        And when the housing market contracts, money supply decreases and the economy pays the price. This is the cause of the current dip in business confidence although few probably understand the reasons or the implications.
        Check out the M3 money supply.
        https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/money-supply-m3
        And note how it has increased way above normal rates of growth in the years since 2010 because of National’s foolish housing policy which drew in too much foreign investment and which will lead to certain collapse of all the banks within the next two years.
        If you understand what M3 money is and how it is created then you will understand your notion of a finite money supply is utter BS and you will also be witnessing the scale of the collapse that confronts us.

  3. Dennis Frank 3

    Seems rather lacking at stage 3: vision & strategy. Voters being customers in the analogy, they’re looking for substantial products. I’m not seeing enough marketing yet, possibly due to too much diversification in the product design stage or too much muddling in the implementation, pre-production.

    This government won’t earn a second term if it can’t produce a range of inspiring and worthwhile products. Twyford deserves credit for getting the first houses built for his ballot; first product off the assembly line. We await buyer reaction. Shaw’s process promises delivery soon, and critical appraisal awaits that product. Which other ministers are producing useful products for the voters?

    • David Mac 3.1

      I agree Dennis, the most important ingredient of any business or government is the customer. Everything else, hurdles to be cleared but without a customer every business fails. The customer is King.

      The difference between a fledgling tech idea and an app worth millions is that journey from zero customers to millions of potential/established customers.

      No matter where in the business growth cycle, once the ‘OPEN’ shingle is in the door satisfied customers come back for more and recommend the product/service to their friends.

      • Dennis Frank 3.1.1

        So David, do you see other ministers signalling the production of worthwhile or inspiring products prior to the next election? Who else other than Twyford & Shaw is a contender? Anything else that will be seen in retrospect as an historic achievement, such as Anderton’s Kiwibank or Peters’ Gold Card?

    • Gosman 3.2

      Taking that analogy further – If customers expectations are set that the product will be priced affordably but it is actually priced out of the reach of most people then it is likely people will not form a favourable opinion of the organisation providing the product regardless of whether they deliver a good quality product or not.

      • David Mac 3.2.1

        Pricing is a one of many components and plays a minor part in satisfying customers.

        If I have access to financing for my home and it’s an affordable amount I don’t care what the sticker price is.

        NZers aren’t yelling out for particular price points. They’re yelling out, ‘I just want somewhere pleasant, warm and dry to live mate.’

        • Gosman 3.2.1.1

          600,000 for a starter home is not affordable to most people. Heck I just bought a house with my wife for much less than that and it was a stretch financially despite both of us earning a good income.

          • David Mac 3.2.1.1.1

            Market forces Gosman. If Twyford gets close to his projections and creates a pile of $600k – $800k houses great things happen to the pricing of the houses all the buyers move out of. You stretched to afford your new place, as equally as important is what happened to the place you moved out of. Did you free up a rental or create an opportunity for an ‘on wages’ first home buyer?

  4. bwaghorn 4

    With regards to point 6. Labour need to go spend time with the AB’s management . Once the all blacks shifted from one all powerful coach who got axed after a few losses meaning a complete rebuild to the smooth transition type of management we saw going from Ted to Hansen with unstoppable results .

    • Gosman 4.1

      The All Blacks never transitioned to that model. The NZRFU could still cause the All Black Management team to resign and also could replace them next time their contracts are up for renewal.

  5. Bill 5

    Wouldn’t government as governance be nice?

    I know the post is intended as analogy, but the problem with this government is that it’s elevating a very specific measure of financial health above societal health. It’s the same shit as has been done these past decades, and it’s not working.

    When I say “it’s not working”, I mean that more and more people are seeing their personal long term and/or inter-generational prospects tank while a select few cream it.

    I also mean that it blew up in 2008, and the “independent” economists who control government treasuries insisted that society be bled and the blood used to restore the beast of finance to some semblance of health.

    A direct consequence of that is a sharper tanking of those personal prospects, and an even steeper general run-down of society in terms of services and infrastructure.

    A quick look around the world should tell even the most casual of observers that the patient (us) is spitting the prescribed medicine straight back in the face of those who would dole it out (the ‘traditional’ parties of government) Yet, this government is still happily picking up the prescriptions doled out by those “independent” economists.

    In the US, the Democratic Party (the Clinton iteration of it) is dead. In the UK, the Tory Party is dead, as is the “New Labour” project of Blair. Same across the continent of Europe, where the established parties of government that have held sway “since forever” are imploding and being replaced with a ‘new’ politics that sometimes embraces positive (notionally) left ideals, or sometimes quite ugly stuff usually associated with “the right” ( eg – anti-immigrant and chauvinistic nationalism).

    Anyway, a more apt analogy for the current NZ government might have been the stages of death for a person in an aged care facility – one that was somewhat run-down and short staffed, of course. 😉

    • Ad 5.1

      Honestly I thought I was going to get told off more for putting a commercial analogy around a democratic purpose.

      It would make for more interesting history if governments and movements ended more abruptly. But otherwise it would be hard work. Reports of the demise of the forms you mention would be welcome, and yet ……

      • RedLogix 5.1.1

        Honestly I thought I was going to get told off more for putting a commercial analogy around a democratic purpose.

        So did I. Once upon a time there would’ve been finger wagging about you going all ‘managerial’ on us. I’m encouraged we’ve been able to see past the passionate, but often rather narrow, perspectives of the last century. Overall I really enjoyed reading the OP.

        Having said that; I’m sure you’re aware that the external drivers of a government and a purely commercial entity are somewhat different. In particular governments respond to a democratic accountability that has much longer risk/reward horizon than your average tech startup.

        • Ad 5.1.1.1

          …but not that much longer.

          You can just imagine how long governments would last if they were measured by customer satisfaction.

      • Bill 5.1.2

        Well, JK did do that NZ Inc thang and NZ Labour seem happy enough just to take their allotted positions in the boardroom.

        I could believe that only the most ardent fans decked in red scarves and hats pay much attention to them any more, y’know….like that football team that used to fly high and fill the terraces with passionate thousands, who are now well established in the mid ranges of the third division playing before a smattering of shuffling old men who turn up every Saturday because “that’s what you do”.

    • left_forward 5.2

      So hang on Bill – you are saying that Trumpist style politics are somehow the antedote to the old order and that our moderately left Labour party is old and dying?
      I am far from being with you – it is much more likely that the Democratic Party (still the same old) will sweep away the GOP (which in my view is the party that is now dead) and our Labour Government will do two terms here at the very least.

      • Bill 5.2.1

        You’re aware the “established” Democratic Party nominees are being given a bloody good run for their money by upstart Progressive candidates? Some victories are being had and inroads made. (Trawl The Intercept if you want comprehensive articles covering various candidates and races won and lost)

        The NZ Labour Party is what the UK Labour Party would have been under that Welsh guy who challenged Corbyn for leadership (Owen Smith?) – a continuation of what I’d term more or less conservative liberal policies – ie, Blairism.

        Trump is no antidote. Sanders might have been (Probably would have been). Sturgeon is. Corbyn is. Podemos is…

        Voters are breaking left or breaking right depending on what’s on offer – anything to get away from what’s perceived (correctly imo) as the failed and out of touch establishment politics. And some establishment politicians have successfully and dishonestly gained office by tumbling to that and selling themselves as “not of the establishment” – Macron in France and Trudeau in Canada for example.

        NZ Labour might do two terms. We’ll see. The thing about NZ is the lack of any alternative (ie, National and NZ Labour subscribe to the same orthodoxy, the Greens have become somewhat of an adjunct to NZ Labour, and elections are really only over who gets a shot at being manager)

        • Ad 5.2.1.1

          Bill you will enjoy this little clip on the 3-person studio who are the support behind the Democratic Socialist candidates causing ripples within the DNC.

          Nice glimpses of their motivations based within Detroit.

  6. SPC 6

    If they are lucky, there will be

    a substantial migration to Oz because there are jobs to take up that pay enough to buy a home. And this results in an easing of local property values.

    If not, they need to be brave

    A CGT that is the GOAT. Any rental/investment home/bach property not the main place of residence upon post 1 April 2021 sale be subject to a CGT (no matter how long ago the property was purchased).

    Thus any suggestion Labour would win the 2020 election would cause a flood of properties onto the market and reduce land values for new Kiwi Build homes and thus reduce their cost.

    • burt 6.1

      So the only hope for the country is that the talented and mobile ( tax payers ) depart leaving cheaper houses for people on benefits.

      • SPC 6.1.1

        This is happening all the time, its just the matter of scale (in decline because of the slowdown in the Oz job market in recent years and tightening of access into the UK).

        It would only take net migration to Oz returning to previous levels to ease house values nationwide – which would ease rents for those not owning.

        If not, there is the more decisive form of CGT option.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Membership: Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board
    The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have announced the membership of the Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board (ANZEIB) today. This is an important step towards implementing e-Invoicing across both countries to help businesses save time and money ...
    2 weeks ago
  • An end to unnecessary secondary tax
    Workers who are paying too much tax because of incorrect secondary tax codes are in line for relief with the passage of legislation through Parliament late last night. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Chatham Islands pāua plan approved
    Efforts to reverse the decline in the Chatham Islands pāua fishery are the focus of a new plan jointly agreed between government, the local community and industry. Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash says the plan was developed by the PauaMAC4 Industry ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Bill introduced for synthetics crackdown
    The Police will get stronger powers of search and seizure to crackdown on synthetic drugs under new legislation, which makes the two main synthetics (5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA) Class A drugs. The Government has today introduced the Misuse of Drugs Amendment ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Blasphemous libel law repealed
    The archaic blasphemous libel offence will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill today, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Coalition Government lassos livestock rustling
    New rules to crack down on livestock rustling will come into force following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Medieval law axed
    The ‘year and a day rule’ rule will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Further steps to combat tax evasion
    Further steps to combat tax evasion Revenue Minister Stuart Nash has announced New Zealand is expanding its global ability to combat tax evasion by joining forces with authorities in 30 countries and jurisdictions. Cabinet has agreed to add another ...
    3 weeks ago