Key confirms looters’ bonus

Written By: - Date published: 2:01 pm, July 22nd, 2012 - 173 comments
Categories: privatisation - Tags:

In front of a room full of rich people, John Key confirmed today that, when they buy our shares in our company they will also get a free hand out from the Government if they hold on to their plunder for 3 years. There’s no legislative authority for National to contract to make such a gift, of course. But, when you’re plundering the State, what do rules matter?

173 comments on “Key confirms looters’ bonus ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ed. 1
    22 July 2012 at 2:09 pm

    128 Million dollars out of the mouths of kids, 444 hundred Million on roading consultants, and now this fucking corporate welfare cheque we have to cash.

    I blame (among others) the voters of the left in Epsom. That was our only chance of slowing this down by not electing that little crook Banks. A vote for Goldsmith was a vote to stop assett sales.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.1
      22 July 2012 at 6:09 pm

      I blame (among others) the voters of the left in Epsom. That was our only chance of slowing this down by not electing that little crook Banks. A vote for Goldsmith was a vote to stop assett sales.

      Actually, that didn’t make any difference. An Act MP or a National one – same policies.

  2. Kotahi Tane Huna 2
    22 July 2012 at 2:36 pm

    Three years? By which time they won’t even be in government. Labour and the Greens need to announce that they will not pay Key’s bribes, since the stolen property will be returned to its rightful owners with no compensation – I would be prepared to grudgingly accept that they be paid out the at the original sale price (not adjusted for inflation) or current market value, whichever is the lower.

    Caveat emptor. The buyers are lucky I’m not the government, or they’d find themselves answering for their betrayal of the country, never mind their avarice.

    • Akldnut 2.1
      22 July 2012 at 3:10 pm

      Totally agree KTH

      If I were Labour boss I would announce that all shares sold under this pilfering policy would be taken back at the price paid for and there would be no freebies.

      • Colonial Viper 2.1.1
        22 July 2012 at 3:49 pm

        all shares sold under this pilfering policy would be taken back at the price paid for and there would be no freebies.

        Actually you want to drive the price of the shares down first, before reacquiring them at market value.

        • Nate 2.1.1.1
          22 July 2012 at 4:16 pm

          I agree on this one. Announce that when Labour/Greens gets in there will be no payout, along with saying shares will be bought back at either the sale price or current market value, whichever is the LOWER.

          • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.1.1
            22 July 2012 at 7:20 pm

            Prospective buyers can’t say they weren’t warned well in advance.

          • Rodel 2.1.1.1.2
            23 July 2012 at 2:17 am

            Yep. when will Labour show it’s grit? I and I’m sure many others are waiting….waiting David.

            • David H 2.1.1.1.2.1
              23 July 2012 at 9:22 pm

              David is more like a Dianne, no Balls. I am so disappointed over this weekend. All this robbery shit from the NACTS. You almost expect. But this silent shit from Labour is getting monotonous..

      • Dr Terry 2.1.2
        22 July 2012 at 7:18 pm

        Let’s wait for Labour’s response to this wickedness (hoping there will be one). I have little doubt that the Greens will have something to say (that is, something worth listening to).

        • Carol 2.1.2.1
          22 July 2012 at 7:21 pm

          Labour has responded as seen on TV3 news tonight – a brief response was shown:

          http://www.3news.co.nz/National-unfazed-by-asset-sale-protests/tabid/1607/articleID/262193/Default.aspx

          Labour says it’s a hoax.

          “John Key has turned this into a Ponzi scheme,” says Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove. “We now know that all the people that can’t afford to buy shares will have to pay for the bonus shares for all the people who can afford to get a slice of the action.”

          • Dr Terry 2.1.2.1.1
            22 July 2012 at 8:00 pm

            Thanks Carol, I did not see Tv 3 coverage tonight. I guess this response is not too bad for starters.

          • QoT 2.1.2.1.2
            22 July 2012 at 10:06 pm

            “Ponzi scheme” = good line.

            • seeker 2.1.2.1.2.1
              22 July 2012 at 10:33 pm

              I thought tvnz covered responses more comprehensively than Duncan on tv3 tonight:

              “Norman said there was no detail on how much the loyalty scheme would cost while Labour Party’s State Owned Enterprises spokesperson Clayton Cosgrove called the bonus a “ponzi” scheme that punishes tax payers.

              “The loyalty scheme is simply an admission of defeat by the Government,” Cosgrove said.

              “If these shares were so popular and going to be retained and not sold off to foreign interests, why would you need a loyalty scheme?” ”

              http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/asset-bonus-scheme-ploy-win-over-public-greens-4979265

              • felix …
                23 July 2012 at 8:28 am

                That’s a good question from Cosgrove.

                The other one that needs asking is this: If all that stands between NZ ownership and foreign ownership is the promise of a freebie in three years, then what happens next?

                Do we then have to promise a cash bonus every three years after that?

                If not, why not? Either the National govt cares about what happens to the shares in three years or it doesn’t.

                If it does care, it needs to make plans to ensure ongoing loyalty beyond three years. And if it doesn’t, it needs to come clean and stop throwing our money away on cynical loyalty schemes altogether.

    • Lanthanide 2.2
      22 July 2012 at 3:27 pm

      It seems likely that they’ll be setting aside a portion of the shares for this award, perhaps 5% and maybe as much as 10%. So they’ll be selling 40-45% up-front. When it comes time to give the awarded shares, the government can instead just keep them.

      • Cnut 2.2.1
        22 July 2012 at 6:09 pm

        Any such ‘loyalty bonus’ will need to be set out in the Prospectus and thereby becomes contractual – any future reneging on it would render the issuers liable for misrepresentation amounting to fraud. The Prospectus will also have to set out Mighty River’s view of its continued access to water-flow for its turbines and, as an obviously central matter to its business, any fudging or ‘material misrepresentation’ there would become actionable,entitling share-holders to compensation.

        Labour could ‘renationalise’ Mighty River power at any time, but if it did so at anything less than the bona fide market price no-one would invest in New Zealand ever again. No doubt some here would welcome that but it didn’t work out too well for Stalinist Russia, Rhodesia, the Central African Republic and similar international pariahs where Goverments overrode private rights.

        But then again, Labour doesn’t need to renationalise it. Dividends are declared by the Board and the Board of Mighty River will be controlled by the Crown’s 51% holding. Hence Labour in Government could direct Mighty River to supply cheap power to the peasants, or build a dozen Windfarms – including off-shore ones where they belong – thus wiping out the profits and dividends for a good many years and rendering shares worthless.

        Three years, of course, is not really a long time except in the minds of short-term traders like Key. I’m still sitting on all the shares I acquired on the Contact Energy float in 1999.

        • Lanthanide 2.2.1.1
          22 July 2012 at 8:16 pm

          “Any such ‘loyalty bonus’ will need to be set out in the Prospectus and thereby becomes contractual”

          Why?

          If the government says there will be a loyalty bonus for holding the shares, and sells only 40% of the total number (keeping 9% in reserve for the bonus), why would it need to be in the prospectus?

    • higherstandard 2.3
      22 July 2012 at 3:41 pm

      Feck and you accuse me of having a grab bag full of prejudices.

      What a load of bombastic drivel.

      • Kotahi Tane Huna 2.3.1
        22 July 2012 at 3:46 pm

        Just an extreme position deliberately adopted to make the eventual compromise seem more palatable – like proposing to sterilise the unemployed when all you really intend to do is make them homeless.

        • higherstandard 2.3.1.1
          22 July 2012 at 5:12 pm

          That’s no good, who has proposed to sterilise the unemployed or make them homeless

          • Kotahi Tane Huna 2.3.1.1.1
            22 July 2012 at 6:03 pm

            That was an example to illustrate the political tactic, HS – didn’t you pick up on that?

  3. Dv 3
    22 July 2012 at 2:50 pm

    MayBe that is why three years so the share holder will vote nats

  4. UpandComer 4
    22 July 2012 at 3:08 pm

    Did you notice that it’s for New Zealanders only? What exactly do you people want? interest on 6.5 billion paid to wealthy Chinese and Arab corporate hedge funds overseas, or to kiwi bank accounts?

    Note that the minimum share parcel is only one thousand dollars. Every kiwi should be able to buy these shares. If you’ve gone and had 4 kids on a low wage and didn’t do your homework/learn a good trade etc, that’s your problem.

    Do you know what it is when a government confiscates the property of good faith purchaser’s for value without accounting for inflation and market gains? It’s called class action lawsuits and breaches of the human rights act. Note that the Labour party will not say they will buy the shares back, because they know the alternative of borrowing is actually worse and that no government can confiscate property in that fashion. Cheers and happy wolf whistling.

    • Kotahi Tane Huna 4.1
      22 July 2012 at 3:15 pm

      lol Parliament is sovereign – if it decides to repossess our property without compensation it can write exemptions from all your whining into the bill. I’m proposing this as a punitive measure: I am sick of the National Party betraying New Zealand: they need to be taught a lesson. Screw your investor confidence.

    • Lanthanide 4.2
      22 July 2012 at 3:29 pm

      “because they know the alternative of borrowing is actually worse”

      You’re probably getting yourself a bit muddled, here. Even National (that is, Bill English) has admitted that by 2016 our accounts will be in a worse position as a result of selling the assets because of the loss of the dividend stream will outweigh any up-front money they received for selling the assets.

      Every year after 2016 we’ll be further and further into the red thanks to selling these assets.

      • higherstandard 4.2.1
        22 July 2012 at 3:44 pm

        Um what ?

        Are you suggesting the SOEs in which shares are being offered are returning around 30% par annum ?

        • Lanthanide 4.2.1.1
          22 July 2012 at 5:03 pm

          I’m just saying what Bill English admitted. Here’s the news story: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6429541/Govt-says-asset-sales-will-cut-debt

          They assume a price of $6 billion – the midpoint in previous estimates of a $5 billion to $7 billion sale price – and a corresponding drop in finance costs of about $266 million by 2016.

          But the trade-off is the loss of an estimated $200 million in dividends by 2016 and the loss of $360 million in forecast foregone profits in the same year.

          Emphasis mine. A saving of $266m in interest costs, but a loss of $360m in profit is a net loss of $94m.

          It looks like I may have overstated my case in my comment though, which is probably what you’re bringing up, in that I implied that by 2016 we’ll be in a negative hole from the asset sales, when actually we’ll just be at the start of the downwards slope (that will eventually become negative) compared to the case where we’d kept the assets.

        • Zetetic 4.2.1.2
          22 July 2012 at 5:06 pm

          the government borrowing rate is 3.5%. if the return on these assets is greater than that, then there’s no fiscal benefit from selling them (not forgetting all the other value gained from owning them). The budget numbers show a return of 6.5%

          so, selling these assets would cost the govt 3% a year.

    • Descendant Of Smith 4.3
      22 July 2012 at 4:39 pm

      “Note that the minimum share parcel is only one thousand dollars. Every kiwi should be able to buy these shares.”

      You’re such a tosser. Most people don’t have this type of money spare and sure we only need tradesman – we don’t need cleaners, shop assistants, forestry workers, apple pickers, etc.

      And no-one should have kids til they are financially secure – what a load of tosh and what a denial of reality.

      And lets not forget you shouldn’t be born with a disability either or for that mind be a female cause you earn less and are even less likely to have savings.

      If the rightwing mantra that everyone can start from nothing and do it all themselves then we can make that happen by having a tax rate of 100% for death duties. I’m sure you’d support that wouldn’t you.

    • Zetetic 4.4
      22 July 2012 at 5:16 pm

      the impact on the current account deficit starts off about neutral.

      The reduced overseas borrowing by the govt, which gets about 50% if its borrowing from offshore, would be offset by the loss from 30% of the shares sold (government projection) going offshore.

      In the long-run, it’s a very negative impact on the current account balance.

      No government is going to nationalise the shares, they fear the markets too much. But your fantasies of legal recourse are completely wrong.

    • xtasy 4.5
      22 July 2012 at 6:34 pm

      “Every kiwi should be able to buy these shares. If you’ve gone and had 4 kids on a low wage and didn’t do your homework/learn a good trade etc, that’s your problem”

      Ha, what a stupid comment!

      I know very many NZers who would never be able to have a thousand dollar spare to buy shares with. And a fair few are also singles, depending on lowly paid income, benefits and so, simply struggling to survive on their meagre incomes and being further away than ever to even own their own homes (see property prices and rents in Auckland).

      These asset sales are a bit like selling your car to be able to afford a bicycle. Or to sell your home to buy a new set of furniture. Loss of revenue, loss of strategic assets and income and wealth transfer from the bottom to the top, now even subsidised by the bottom lot of the population.

      That is completely dumb and also seriously immoral!

    • Akldnut 4.6
      22 July 2012 at 10:52 pm

      UpandComer you’re just thowing around National soundbites
      1. “Every kiwi should be able to buy these shares.”
      2. “If you’ve gone and had 4 kids on a low wage and didn’t do your homework/learn a good trade etc, that’s your problem.”

      1. You’re an idiot.
      2. You’re a massive fucking idiot.

  5. UpandComer 5
    22 July 2012 at 3:30 pm

    Parliament can do that, but you might want to consider what the fall-out might be, say from Iwi groups who bought considerable share packages, or from kiwisaver clients whose funds have bought massively into the scheme.

    I’m certain that some of NZ’s excellent legal practitioners can find at least a case under the Bill of Right’s Act for instance against compensation without deference to market gains and inflation. Parliament will probably still win, but it would be a tremendous spectacle to watch a majority confiscate personal property from so many people.

    What’s so funny about this wolf whistling is that Kiwisaver and the Super-fund will be hands down the biggest purchaser’s of shares. So anyone with super or kiwisaver will be indirectly owning these shares anyway.

    Good luck with your proposition lol.

    • Kotahi Tane Huna 5.1
      22 July 2012 at 3:40 pm

      lol, perhaps you have forgotten that parliament can exempt any bill from BoR scrutiny – normally this provision is used to attack the weak and dispossessed, but I think we should use it against avaricious Quislings instead.

      The Labour Party would have to be dragged kicking and screaming into support for my position – I’m sure they’ll come up with some reasonable (to me) compromise.

    • Colonial Viper 5.2
      22 July 2012 at 3:53 pm

      Parliament can do that, but you might want to consider what the fall-out might be, say from Iwi groups who bought considerable share packages, or from kiwisaver clients whose funds have bought massively into the scheme.

      If those groups bought the shares knowing full well the risk, why should they receive any compensation?

      Why should the government make investing in these state assets risk free?

      • UpandComer 5.2.1
        22 July 2012 at 6:17 pm

        It’s not risk-free.

        I am just focusing on Kotahi’s point regarding only compensating people at the final float initiation price. A buy-back by the government will need to include market gains in the share-price and inflation.

        Look to Christchurch as an example. The govt granted itself emergency powers, and generously stepped in where insurance companies such as AMI failed due to bad practice.

        The govt could have drawn a line anywhere. It chose to compensate on the basis of the peak of the CHCH housing market before the earthquake. It reasonably could not compensate for development past that point. However, while the compensation price was arbitrary it didn’t leave room for reasonable practical or legal opposition.

        Note that in CHCH the govt was compensating housing, the prices of which are quite difficult to determine and determinations of which can reasonably vary.

        Share prices are different. They are simply set by the NZX and are certain and easily understandable, and their path can be tracked easily. If Labour does not account for price gains and inflation, this will leave reasonable room for practical and legal opposition to the re-purchase. Practical as it will be patently unfair, and legal as the move will be unprecedented. David Parker knows this.

        The cost of the re-purchase will be much more then the initial cost of the share float. The practical costs will outweigh the legal of course. Kotahi did learn one thing at high school re parliamentary sovereignty. If not, there will be heavy political costs to the move. This isn’t a case of disaster relief. It’s a case of government confiscation of property bought for fair value. It will be veeeeery interesting to see what one of the Davids says at the end of this week. Very interesting.

        • Kotahi Tane Huna 5.2.1.1
          22 July 2012 at 6:28 pm

          Upandcomer do you think I don’t understand all that? I am proposing that NZ steps outside the box here, takes a leaf out of Argentina’s book, and simply acts punitively against what is to most of us, a deliberate attack on the country.

          The Hollow Men made it quite clear – they are acting against the country’s interests and they know it. So I am proposing a scorched earth policy in response – well, except that the property and associated revenue streams will be back where they belong, and none of the people who lose out will suffer undue hardship.

          • UpandComer 5.2.1.1.1
            22 July 2012 at 6:49 pm

            Kotahi I invite you to view the economic history of Argentina since world war I and decide whether or not what you propose is a good idea.

            • xtasy 5.2.1.1.1.1
              22 July 2012 at 7:12 pm

              Up and Down Comer and Goer:

              Having watched the news on TV3 tonight, even your beloved Prime Minister did concede that naturally “not all Kiwis” will be able to afford the shares in the power enterprises to be sold!

              So that fixes for sure your earlier ridiculous comment that all NZers could afford the minimum $ 1000 shares!

            • Kotahi Tane Huna 5.2.1.1.1.2
              22 July 2012 at 8:58 pm

              UpandComer now you come to mention it…

    • joe90 5.3
      22 July 2012 at 3:58 pm

      PG’s sock puppet?.

  6. higherstandard 6
    22 July 2012 at 3:47 pm

    Quisling ?

    Have you been indoctrinated at some kind of lecture series by Penny Bright over the last couple of days ?

    • Kotahi Tane Huna 6.1
      22 July 2012 at 3:53 pm

      No, I’m serious: this policy will harm the country, and the government knows it. It will benefit none but the government’s overseas clients. The National Party, in its current “Hollow Men” nadir, acts as a fifth column.

  7. captain hook 7
    22 July 2012 at 4:08 pm

    so after three years the company will get privatised and the shareholders wiill be made to sell out by the articles but then they get a bonus eh.
    nice work if you can get it.

  8. UpandComer 8
    22 July 2012 at 4:13 pm

    @ Lathanide – I do note there is a 94 million dollar revenue loss noted by NBR, I couldn’t find it on BERL or other business groups. The shortfall will be covered by tightening tax loopholes. Ultimately notwithstanding the operating loss to the government, the gains to investors in my opinion outweigh that consideration. Forecasts show NZ assets growing, not decreasing in the next 5 years. I also think that notwithstanding the loss in revenue, avoiding 300 million dollars plus interest from the principal that must otherwise be borrowed is important and needs to be weighed against that 94million dollars. That 5% plus interest is perpetual unless the government can pay down the principal without further borrowing – which by all projections it cannot do – and please note Labour couldn’t do it right now either. They’d have to borrow for borrowing unless they raised everyones taxes again.

    But I respect your posts more then Kotahi Tane Huna who sounds like a bit of a drongo, no disrespect lol.

    • Lanthanide 8.1
      22 July 2012 at 5:09 pm

      “The shortfall will be covered by tightening tax loopholes”

      Or you could keep the assets, AND tighten tax loopholes and be $94m better off.

      “That 5% plus interest is perpetual unless the government can pay down the principal without further borrowing – which by all projections it cannot do – and please note Labour couldn’t do it right now either. ”

      Last time we had a government paying off principal, we had a nice little opposition that howled to the moon about not getting tax cuts and how horrible it was to be paying back debt etc.

      As for projections of paying back debt, yes, I agree, with current fiscal settings it’s only ever going to go up. There’s some pretty easy ways to fix that, though:
      1. Reverse the tax cuts we couldn’t ever afford (even Labour’s tax cuts they rolled out in 2008 weren’t really affordable)
      2. Put up the age of eligibility of superannuation
      3. Ditch ridiculous policies like Roads of Notional Significance and actually invest in jobs in this country instead of leaving it all up to “the market”

      • UpandComer 8.1.1
        22 July 2012 at 5:33 pm

        What do you propose for investing in jobs? I’m quite interested.

        I agree with the age of superannuation being put up. But, thanks to Winston, that can’t happen until it really needs to. John shouldn’t have made that promise but I give him kudos for sticking to it, and there is (a very little) room there.

        I disagree with roads of national significance. People are still going to drive for the next 20 years, and road have been neglected.

        I am still for the asset sales. lol.

        • Lanthanide 8.1.1.1
          22 July 2012 at 6:37 pm

          “What do you propose for investing in jobs? I’m quite interested.”

          The Greens have a lot of proposals to directly create jobs. I haven’t really looked at into them, I don’t know how realistic or sustained they are, but at least they have *attempted* to create some policy in that area, unlike National.

          “But, thanks to Winston, that can’t happen until it really needs to. ”

          Last I checked, Winston Peters wasn’t in government.

          “People are still going to drive for the next 20 years, and road have been neglected.”

          Yes, I agree people are “still going to drive for the next 20 years”, but the outlook is for declining traffic volumes, not increasing. If you believe that “road [sic] have been neglected” then I presume you would be more interested in upgrading and improving the safety of many many existing roads across the country, as opposed to building 5-10 big expensive highways that don’t even meet their cost:benefit ratio justifications now, and that’s with the assumption of improving traffic volumes which aren’t going to eventuate.

          “I am still for the asset sales. lol.”

          I see I’m talking to a teenager.

          • UpandComer 8.1.1.1.1
            22 July 2012 at 6:48 pm

            Well if you’re enamored of cost-benefit ratios, I invite you to look at the cost benefit ratios for all forms of public transport, and apply them with the same logic you apply to roads. You might notice they are worse, across the board, without exception.

            Actually, roading volume as it is, ‘now’, is too much for the existing roads those 5-10 big expensive highways are going to replace. That is why they are being built in the first place.

            Traffic volumes are too high ‘now’. Even minor, conservative increases in traffic volume, certain along those routes, will justify those roading builds.

            Are you also against broadband?

            No Winston is not, but he will be in the next govt and has said flatly that no increase in super will be tolerated by NZ First. You are happy to raise super on the poor and vulnerable old people with fixed incomes?

            I think you should take a closer look at the Greens job creation proposals. It boils down to Russell Norman ‘picking winners’ in various Green enterprises. I am somewhat doubtful as to his efficacy in this regard.

            You can make up your own mind as to whether I am a teenager or not.

            • Lanthanide 8.1.1.1.1.1
              22 July 2012 at 7:03 pm

              “Well if you’re enamored of cost-benefit ratios, I invite you to look at the cost benefit ratios for all forms of public transport, and apply them with the same logic you apply to roads. You might notice they are worse, across the board, without exception.”

              Sure, provide me some links to back up your claim and I’ll have a look.

              “Traffic volumes are too high ‘now’. Even minor, conservative increases in traffic volume, certain along those routes, will justify those roading builds.”

              Yes, it would be nice if we had roads with bigger capacities, that would be good. The problem is that bigger capacity roads cost money. In these cases, a lot of money. So much money that the cost doesn’t justify the benefit, therefore the specified roads shouldn’t be built.

              “Are you also against broadband?”

              The ultra-fast broadband being rolled out to residential areas, when the only business case the government can come up with is “watch TV and movies over your internet connection!”? Broadband speeds in the cities are already good enough for businesses purposes. What we need is more and cheaper international bandwidth, which the government’s broadband policy does precisely dick to help with, and broadband rolled out to rural areas and schools which presently don’t have access to broadband or it is very expensive. Now there is a government spear-headed scheme for this underway already, but I’d prefer to see that the residential/urban one be scrapped entirely, more money put into the rural and schools one and the rest of the money used for something more important.

              “No Winston is not, but he will be in the next govt and has said flatly that no increase in super will be tolerated by NZ First.”

              Oh, so you’ve got the 2014 election results? Great, maybe you should share them with us, or alternatively go make a killing on ipredict.

              “You are happy to raise super on the poor and vulnerable old people with fixed incomes?””

              I presume you mean “raise super entitlement age”. Labour’s plan would raise the age of entitlement by 2 months every year once it started kicking in. That wasn’t going to start happening for 10 years, plenty of time for people alive today to make plans for this. Anyone who is already receiving super would not be affected.

              “I think you should take a closer look at the Greens job creation proposals. It boils down to Russell Norman ‘picking winners’ in various Green enterprises. I am somewhat doubtful as to his efficacy in this regard.”

              I already said I hadn’t looked at them. What I said is at least they’d come up with something, unlike this government. It seems you agree with that statement.

              “You can make up your own mind as to whether I am a teenager or not.”

              Yes, and I did.

              • Colonial Viper …
                22 July 2012 at 7:22 pm

                “You can make up your own mind as to whether I am a teenager or not.”

                Yes, and I did.

                Yeah I thought it was obvious, too.

              • UpandComer …
                22 July 2012 at 8:38 pm

                We need new transport options, and as I say, roads are better then the others – like Russell Norman, maybe you should look for the studies on this. I actually notwithstanding my many comments on here today, don’t care to spend a long time giving you something you will disregard anyway.

                Maybe you should talk to some businesses regarding broadband speeds and just how excellent they are in NZ. We need bandwith, but bandwith is a tad unnecessary when you don’t have any speed. It can be acquired once you have the infrastructure to justify it.

                Rurals/schools as you say are getting their piece of the action. Again, I wonder at the opinion that broadband is just fine in cities.

                I don’t have the election results, but I’m willing to make a forecast. You should be hoping that I am correct.

                If super was such a pressing problem, Labour could have dealt with it say in 2007, when it knew what it’s forecasts for debt were, but it didn’t do it. Why wait ten years if it’s such a swell policy, why not implement it right now.

                If you care to listen to JK’s post budget speech, he lays out about 17 pro-job initiatives this government is pursuing. But hey, you don’t like the vibe of them even though they all are actually job creating, so lets see if Russell can do what no-one else can do, and pick heaps of winners.

                It will be funny when I come back tomorrow very briefly for the last time and find all of my comments deleted.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  22 July 2012 at 11:19 pm

                  We need bandwith, but bandwith is a tad unnecessary when you don’t have any speed.

                  *Facepalm*

                  It will be funny when I come back tomorrow very briefly for the last time and find all of my comments deleted.

                  You’ve got a suicide by cop mentality.

                • Lanthanide …
                  23 July 2012 at 9:29 am

                  “I actually notwithstanding my many comments on here today, don’t care to spend a long time giving you something you will disregard anyway.”

                  I would look at the evidence if you presented it. I can only assume by your refusal to do so that the evidence was made up. Certainly this is the first time I have heard from anyone that “public transport” is a worse cost:benefit ratio than many of these roads that have ratios below one. The thing with public transport is generally it is pretty cheap, and quite flexible, so the benefit doesn’t need to be huge in order to get a good return.

                  “Maybe you should talk to some businesses regarding broadband speeds and just how excellent they are in NZ. We need bandwith, but bandwith is a tad unnecessary when you don’t have any speed. It can be acquired once you have the infrastructure to justify it.”

                  Actually I work in telecommunications, and my uncle has worked for Telecom, Vodafone, and others, installing cell phone towers and radio transmitters. So I know quite a bit about this stuff 🙂

                  “Rurals/schools as you say are getting their piece of the action. Again, I wonder at the opinion that broadband is just fine in cities.”

                  I didn’t say “broadband is just fine in the cities”, what I said is that there is no need for the massive government-backed initiative to roll out something whose primary business case is “watch movies over the internet” – because obviously watching movies over broadcast TV is somehow bad? Also people can already watch movies over the internet…

                  “If super was such a pressing problem, Labour could have dealt with it say in 2007, when it knew what it’s forecasts for debt were, but it didn’t do it. Why wait ten years if it’s such a swell policy, why not implement it right now.”

                  You can use that argument for anything the opposition proposes, so it’s not really an argument at all.

                  “It will be funny when I come back tomorrow very briefly for the last time and find all of my comments deleted.”

                  No, your comments are going to stand as a testament to your intellect for years.

            • xtasy 8.1.1.1.1.2
              22 July 2012 at 7:24 pm

              How do you work out the cost benefit ratios for public transport when compared with individual motor vehicle transport?

              Well, maybe include ALL true costs of motor vehicle transport, which includes the costs of building and maintaining roads, the costs of the hardware itself, the cost of the fuel burned per passenger, the cost of CO2 and other emissions, resulting in payments NZ has to make as a consequence of having signed the Kyoto protocol.

              Once all the costs have been included, I am sure that public transport investment will be smarter and more advantageous over the longer term. That will especially be so once fossil fuel costs will increase due to more scarcity.

              Producing fuel out of coal or even organic plants is very costly and certainly now not an economic option. The latter also leads to land used for this, and not for growing equally needed food.

    • Dr Terry 8.2
      22 July 2012 at 7:33 pm

      You have the effrontery to speak of “forecasts” as something to be treated as accurate, or literal truth. Have you bothered to look closely at the nature of forecasts by Treasury in this country? Rationalise that one, as no doubt you will.

      .

  9. lefty 9
    22 July 2012 at 4:19 pm

    The idea that dispossessing the greedy infringes on human rights is laughable.

    I think selling shares at the highest possible price then diverting rivers around the power stations so they have no water would be a very smart move and teach the capitalist bastards a lesson they would never forget.

    • UpandComer 9.1
      22 July 2012 at 4:48 pm

      It would be funny, as everybody had no power and ….

      What is with this idea that people who buy these shares are greedy? people have to live in the real world, and prior to this it’s been very difficult to invest in NZ in a sustainable way. Term deposits give tiny gains. Finance companies were a sham, which people invested in often on professional advice. The NZX is moribund. People who saved their whole lives were wiped out by finance companies, people with average wage jobs who lived frugally and paid their taxes. They weren’t/aren’t greedy. Having somewhere safe to invest is a good thing.

      You need to leave NZ and go sit under a tent in Occupy Wall Street. At least those guys are targeting people and policies in the US that deserve it.

      • Kotahi Tane Huna 9.1.1
        22 July 2012 at 5:02 pm

        “The NZX is moribund.”

        Fucking cry baby. Is this private company too big to fail?

        The rest of your concerns can be addressed with a capital gains tax.

        “Somewhere safe to invest”? The virtue of investment is that it involves risk. Anything else is just corporate welfare – sorry, but the current account is in deficit – you’ll have to look in someone else’s wallet.

        • UpandComer 9.1.1.1
          22 July 2012 at 5:16 pm

          What does your second line even mean?

          A capital gains tax in my opinion will wipe out small investors. You are taxed on your wages. Then you are taxed on your savings. Now you say you will be taxed on your investments. Great. At least think about the tax and how you means test-it, set thresholds. Make it ‘progressive’ yes?

          Hey Kotahi, these power companies involve ‘risk’. If the rain doesn’t fall… no power, no profits. It used to happen a lot. They are risky assets, like any other. Corporate welfare is another term that you throw around but don’t actually understand.

          Yes the current account is in deficit, apart from that I don’t understand your final sentence?

          • Kotahi Tane Huna 9.1.1.1.1
            22 July 2012 at 5:26 pm

            My second line? The NZX is a private company. If it can’t succeed without looting the public purse it deserves to close.

            Rainfall in the catchment areas is forecast to increase with the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but yes, I expect unpredictable weather will have a part to play, and the electricity generation network will be far more robust if it remains 100% in public hands

            You are welcome to your opinion on CGT, Chicken Little. I note Australia has one, among other countries.

            My last sentence is simple – I think there are better things to spend our limited funds on than propping up “moribund” private companies.

            • UpandComer 9.1.1.1.1.1
              22 July 2012 at 5:42 pm

              The NZX is a sharemarket, not a private company. A private company is a company that hasn’t been publically listed, so something like facebook before it was floated.

              Where do you get that prediction? As I understand it climate change (Which I accept by the way) makes weather more unpredictable as opposed to less. I can remember when the Southern Lakes ran dry and there was a national TV campaign to conserve power.

              I know Australia has one, as do other countries. So you accept that a capital gains tax should be progressive? I’d hope so given your opinions.

              Again no one is propping up a private company. What is happening is that the NZX will start to become viable again. There are good companies there. But there have been very few public floats of any significance for a long time, and it is unlikely to happen given the amount of capital in NZ that is tied up in the government. Fonterra will be great when that happens, but it will be pricey.

              I would think you would appreciate government intervention? The government has hectares of capital that just sits here in NZ doing nothing. We own billions and billions of capital, why not make it more productive?

                • UpandComer …
                  22 July 2012 at 6:56 pm

                  It’s both.

                  • Akldnut …
                    22 July 2012 at 11:32 pm

                    “The NZX is a sharemarket, not a private company. A private company is a company that hasn’t been publically listed, so something like facebook before it was floated. ”

                    You’re playing with semantics mate.
                    A public company to the layman like myself and I’m guessing 99% of the population isn’t a publicly listed company.
                    It’s an institution which is owned by the govt ergo the public through represention. ie “Fucking power companies that we already own”

                    Private comapanies don’t belong to the govt ie. NZX which generates an income that dosn’t go into the public purse.

                    Not that hard to figure out what KTH was talking about.

              • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                22 July 2012 at 6:50 pm

                Upandcomer, have you ever heard of a quaint little notion called “checking your facts”? I know it’s of no consequence in the right wing echo chamber but here in the real world look what just happened!

                • Colonial Viper …
                  22 July 2012 at 6:55 pm

                  UpandComer is a teenager (or has the mental age of one) with no frakking idea of what he is spouting.

                • BillODrees …
                  22 July 2012 at 7:12 pm

                  Don’t argue with I*+¥ts, onlookers might not be able to tell the differance. 

                • UpandComer …
                  22 July 2012 at 8:39 pm

                  I check all my facts Kotahi Tane Huna, good luck with your argentina project. Sounds great.

                  • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                    23 July 2012 at 7:30 am

                    I said take a leaf, so you took the whole tree, never mind the book. The recent history of Iceland is also instructive. No doubt you will interpret this as a call for more volcanic eruptions.

                    Have fun in the echo chamber.

              • Colonial Viper …
                22 July 2012 at 6:57 pm

                We own billions and billions of capital, why not make it more productive?

                National’s perspective:

                the government owns billions and billions of capital. How can we transfer it to our mates asap.

                • UpandComer …
                  22 July 2012 at 8:52 pm

                  Nat’s perspective

                  How can we use it better since the govt owns so much of it in New Zealand rather then just sitting there being unproductive.

                  Labour’s perspective.

                  Great, lets pretend that we think the govt should own everything even though we invented the public private partnership concept.

                  Let’s just let it sit in crappy housing and the likes that we don’t really care about anyway, because we don’t understand it and don’t really care about things like productivity because the govt should just sit on it whilst hiring armies of people to fret about it, because that’s job creation.

                  • Akldnut …
                    22 July 2012 at 11:40 pm

                    “whilst hiring armies of people to fret about it, because that’s job creation”.

                    You’re hilarious mate, thats exactly what Nationals been doing with consultants trying to sell our shit………… hold on Max??? is that you Max?

              • Pascal's bookie …
                22 July 2012 at 7:21 pm

                NZX is a listed co UpandComer, and the point remains.

                If the NZX isn’t attracting co’s to list, then that is the NZXs problem. In theory the point of a sharemarket is to allocate capital to where it is best used. Ideally, with an IPO what is happenning is that money is being flooded into a good looking company on the up.

                That is nothing like what is happenning here. The co’s are not being capitalised in these floats. The money going into these floats is being taken out of the private sector in that respect as the companies are partially put into it. The money invested in these co’s cannot be invested in other co’s. That money comes from somewhere. It would otherwise be used to pay down private sector debt (which is a far bigger problem that public in NZ), or would be invested somewhere else.

                Saying that the MOMs are the best place for that money is in many ways an odd argument for right wingers to be making. It’s arguing that not only can the private sector not come with any co’s worth investing in, it’s saying that the govt could find better things to do with that capital than the private sector, so it should ‘free up’ some of the private sector capital in return for shares in the SOEs. The givt frames it as being the opposite, but look who will be getting the money to something new with here.

                There is an argument that getting more money invetsed in the NZX will by itself be a good thing. But that only works if it is liquid. Ooops, loyalty shares kind of mess with that. All the money eligible for loyalty shares will be locked in unless something spectacular shows up.

                Outside of that, I’m not convinced this will attract new money to the market over the medium term. I’ve not seen anyone present an argument that explains why institutional investors will re-weight their portfolios towards NZ energy stocks.

                And along side that we’re going to have a bunch of big co’s on the NZX with an implicit govt backing, competing for investors with co’s that don’t. that doesn’t sound healthy for the market to me. particulalry given that aside from AirNZ, (which is a special case given how the govt came by its holding) all of these MOMs will be directly competeing with other NZX stocks in the same market sector.

                • UpandComer …
                  22 July 2012 at 9:13 pm

                  It’s both.

                  And it’s NZ’s problem since it’s our main market.

                  In theory a share-market is there to allocate capital where people wish to allocate it.

                  Sure that money could be invested in other places, and it was, i.e. South Canterbury Finance, and look what happened. That whole period showed the willingness of people to invest as well as save. You will note that people are paying down debt at the moment rather then borrowing – Just like what the government should be looking to do.

                  I understand what you are saying where this isn’t strict capitalisation of those companies, but it’s just one degree separated into what the capital raised will build elsewhere.

                  I think it’s more the government realising that rather then paying interest payments to Chinese corporates, we can pay dividends to NZ’ers, and avoid having to pay 5 plus % interest on 6 billion dollars, whilst retaining control and avoiding some pitfalls of for instance, Labour’s privatization.

                  Institutional investor interest can be explained by looking at the performance of kiwisaver accounts at the moment. They aren’t doing very well.

                  As to your last point, well the government was indirectly backing the muppets in the finance companies who lost billions of dollars under Labour’s Deposit Guarantee Scheme. This would be another form of less direct backing, but without the same extent of risk.

                  In this case you will indeed have some govt involvement in listed companies. But as Labour showed, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. These companies will be competing with the others on the NZX as you say. However, given that large investors will be diversifying and small investors haven’t been investing in those companies anyway, I don’t see a sudden withdrawal of capital from everywhere else into these MOMs.

                  Thanks for your considered comments. This is a contrast with adults who say ‘you’re a teenager’ to other adults they don’t agree with. Similarly other adults who like to think Argentina is a wonderful model of a successful country, and NZ should be an autarkey, might reflect on your excellent post.

                  • xtasy …
                    22 July 2012 at 11:42 pm

                    “As to your last point, well the government was indirectly backing the muppets in the finance companies who lost billions of dollars under Labour’s Deposit Guarantee Scheme.”

                    The very scheme happily taken over by National AND exgtended to more finance companies, not just banks!

                    Also I suggest to inform yourself a bit about legal aspects of companies, stock exchanges, commercial law and the likes. You are muddling things up a bit here.

                    “Institutional investor interest can be explained by looking at the performance of kiwisaver accounts at the moment. They aren’t doing very well.”

                    Guess why they are not doing that well at present? Because of lower returns and losses as the result of the global financial crisis, the socialisation of debts, of bailouts of “too large to fail” banks and thus recessions in Europe and other places, affecting the rest of the global economy.

                    And John Key was a “merchant banker” and “currency trader”, the very profession that contributed immensely to the shocking state of affairs the economies of so many countries are in.

      • muzza 9.1.2
        22 July 2012 at 5:20 pm

        Why don’t people have anywhere safe to invest?

        Occupy Wall St, yeah, nah!

  10. captain hook 10
    22 July 2012 at 4:58 pm

    Thats not the point and you should know it.
    the capitalists in New Zealand like to trumpet all sorts of bilge about rugged individualism, taking risks and the inefficeincy of government but ALL THEY WANT TO DO IS LOOT THE STATES assets for bargain basement prices.
    is that plain enough for you?

    • UpandComer 10.1
      22 July 2012 at 5:18 pm

      Not really. Like any investor they are seeking alpha gains. The collapse of finance companies shows people who can’t invest themselves can’t trust those companies. Term deposits are fine if you want to make $500 over 12 months. People want to be able to safely invest in NZ assets in a sustainable way. You can do that with other assets sure, but most people don’t have seem to have the expertise.

      • Descendant Of Smith 10.1.1
        22 July 2012 at 5:46 pm

        Finance companies got screwed by the banks and by greed same as they did in 87.

        Having been through 87 I said to people that another bust was coming the moment banks started loosening their lending criteria to once again lend more than 70% and up to 100% the value of a house.

        The fiance companies while higher risk have some stability by lending to borrowers with good income who don’t have enough for a 30% deposit.

        Once the banks start moving into this area those stable borrowers depart for the lower interest and leaves the finance companies with ever riskier lending.

        It always been a bad sign when banks stop being conservative in their lending.

        In my view it would be sensible to take the heat out of the housing bubbles by restricting the bank to 70% or GV which ever is the lowest.

        Sure there’s more to it than that but if you ever want a good indication when to get out that’s an obvious one.

        • UpandComer 10.1.1.1
          22 July 2012 at 5:54 pm

          I agree, and that was one of the foundations of the sub-prime mortgage crisis in America as the price discrimination of the banks slowly weeded out the stable and liquid mortgage clients. When you look at the assumptions Citibank, Fannie and Freddie made to justify that lending, it makes you angry.

          Our banks are relatively sound. If I was Obama however I would be using my political capital to take a shovel to the banks over there and reinstate Dodd-Franks, or alternatively I would change the fractional banking ratios to favour deposits more. Haha people here don’t even know what right wing means. We are all in NZ firmly on the Left wing of the Kakapo.

          What will be interesting is that finance companies now will have the Mighty River Power option. That, along with the presence of the Financial Markets Authority may restore some investor confidence.

          • Colonial Viper 10.1.1.1.1
            22 July 2012 at 7:04 pm

            Not really. Like any investor they are seeking alpha gains.

            And because they are such shit business people and have no idea about being entrepreneurs, instead of starting up their own businesses and generating employment, they have to raid the public balance sheet.

      • Kotahi Tane Huna 10.1.2
        22 July 2012 at 5:46 pm

        What’s the advice that I always hear? Only invest in that which you understand? Something like that anyway.

        “Safely invest” is an oxymoron.

        If these shares are guaranteed to provide a “safe investment” that is because they are underwritten by the public. Socialise the losses and privatise the profits.

        And what should be the left’s response to this looting? Meekly buy back the shares at “market value” – a value distorted by the existence of very people who are required now to pay to get them back?

        No. Punish the right wing for this looting. And when they’re down, give them a really good hiding, one they’ll never forget.

        • UpandComer 10.1.2.1
          22 July 2012 at 6:25 pm

          I agree with you against socialised losses – that’s really bad. Bill English would agree with you as well. I imagine he was not happy when in turn he had to:

          bail out SCF for billions due to it’s inclusion under the GDS and his obligations and then
          bail out ACC to the tune of a billion dollars, and then
          stump up billions for kiwirail, a purchase to which he was tied, and then
          having to stump up billions for Christchurch, the dodgy practices of AMI, and the failure of individuals to insure themselves.

          All of those are socialised losses, and all of them are absolutely galling.

          Micheal Cullen didn’t have to deal with anything whatsoever.

          Read my above post as to why it will impossible for Labour to simply confiscate the shares.

          The 49% of shares being floated aren’t underwritten by the government. Once purchased, the owners bear the risk entirely. Further, unlike SCF, Mighty River Power isn’t too big to fail. If it fails, people just lose their money and it either reverts to public ownership or you move the infrastructure to a different power company.

          What that means is that here losses won’t be socialised which is a blimmin blessing after all the socialised losses Bill has had to deal with.

          • Kotahi Tane Huna 10.1.2.1.1
            22 July 2012 at 6:37 pm

            “The 49% of shares being floated aren’t underwritten by the government. ”

            Of course they are you idiot. Too essential to fail.

          • Colonial Viper 10.1.2.1.2
            22 July 2012 at 7:07 pm

            Once purchased, the owners bear the risk entirely. Further, unlike SCF, Mighty River Power isn’t too big to fail. If it fails, people just lose their money and it either reverts to public ownership or you move the infrastructure to a different power company.

            Reverts to public ownership eh? So the tax payer will still bear all the risk and have to bail it out?

            • UpandComer 10.1.2.1.2.1
              22 July 2012 at 7:31 pm

              No. Individuals lose the money on their shares if the company goes bust – If there was a ten year drought in the Southern Lakes all the individuals would be wiped out on that particular investment, and the government would retain it’s 51 percent share. The government could then retake ownership at a nominal or even symbolic price – given there will be zero demand in that case.

              • Colonial Viper …
                22 July 2012 at 7:36 pm

                The government could then retake ownership at a nominal or even symbolic price

                Now you get it.

          • xtasy 10.1.2.1.3
            22 July 2012 at 8:31 pm

            “bail out ACC to the tune of a billion dollars”

            Again you are falling for the government propaganda. They changed the accounting approach and expected that ACC earns within a short period what longer term claims may cost in the medium to longer term future.

            Hence suddenly they “created” a big “hole” in the ACC accounts and justified their cutting back in services, increase of levies and also put in an assessment regime, where biased consultants and doctors helped them “offload” cases, a significant number of them then being transfered onto invalid’s and sickness benefits paid by WINZ.

            The draconian approach, introduced under the leaderhip of that wally type man called Nick Smith was so “successful”, so that ACC (upon direction by the government) could lower levies again last year, helping them to present another “carrot” to prospective voters of National.

            Genius strike, really, but does it justify the suffering of short changed and off loaded claimants?

            • UpandComer 10.1.2.1.3.1
              23 July 2012 at 12:30 am

              It wasn’t hot air. Bill actually had to find the money, and actually had to pay it into ACC, to deal with liabilities for which it did not have revenues. It was not an accounting gimick, it’s just what happens when you give people free physio for practically every injury.

              If it was hot air, then money would not have needed to be physically, actually, like in reality, transferred into ACC – you understand that? It was a serious matter. Roger Douglas wanted to refer Cullen and Labour to the police, and had a case under the Public Finance Act.

              • Colonial Viper …
                23 July 2012 at 1:00 am

                All false. ACC has funds invested in the many billions of dollars. Yet here you claim that a few million in physio fees was going to send ACC under?

                You’re a liar. I suggest you turn your life to something useful before it is too late.

                By the way dickhead, ACC is not funded through Government taxes or borrowing, it is not a government department or ministry.

                • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                  23 July 2012 at 7:38 am

                  And there it is again, UpandComer, reality leaking in.

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    23 July 2012 at 8:16 am

                    lol. Blinglish put a big stack of cash money in a truck and had it delivered to acc head office.

                    I could believe that.

                    • DH …
                      23 July 2012 at 8:28 am

                      CV has it right. The Govt only funds the non-earners account and part of the treatment account. Those two accounts are also not included in the fully-funded target, they have quite large deficits which don’t matter much since they’re underwritten by the Crown

                      It wasn’t a cash deficit anyway, it was a revaluation of the outstanding claims liability which is an accounting figure. That led to adding $1billion to the crown deficit but again it was a paper deficit; no cash was involved.

              • xtasy …
                23 July 2012 at 9:45 am

                By the way – ACC has investments in portfolios, including overseas investments. The supposedly big “hole” that Nick Smith and National “discovered” was at least partly “created” by setting higher financial performance criterias for ACC, earning within a short period to cover long term liabilities.

                Also did the so called “crisis” at ACC occur when the world (and NZ) were in deep recession following the global financial crisis and fallout. So it was no surprise also that ACC may have earned less for a while, due to this. A year or two ago that changed for the better again, not just due to higher levies and stricter criteria for claims and grants. A moderate recovery – admittedly with also implemented “quantitative easing” in the US, UK, European coutries and also China.

      • lefty 10.1.3
        22 July 2012 at 6:24 pm

        The idea that people with more money than they know what to do with should be guaranteed a large and safe return on it for doing nothing is ridiculous.

        If the rich want to make more money they should try working for it like the rest of us have to.

        • UpandComer 10.1.3.1
          22 July 2012 at 6:40 pm

          Argh. I know I’m blowing in the wind and my comments will all be deleted as they present a reasonable case the other way,

          But mate come on. It’s not easy making money unless you’re the son of Owen Glenn. People aren’t being guaranteed a large and safe return – just something that isn’t as risky as a finance company.

          No one who is rich in NZ has done it without working and taking risks, and no who is rich in NZ doesn’t pay a large amount of tax.

          • Kotahi Tane Huna 10.1.3.1.1
            22 July 2012 at 6:43 pm

            “…my comments will all be deleted…”

            Does the policy say that anything that constitutes a mixture of self-serving delusions and paranoid garbage will get deleted? Well I never!

          • Colonial Viper 10.1.3.1.2
            22 July 2012 at 7:08 pm

            and my comments will all be deleted as they present a fairytale the other way,

            FIFY

            • UpandComer 10.1.3.1.2.1
              22 July 2012 at 7:33 pm

              None of my comments are lies. You’ll just delete them because you don’t want people to know facts and other arguments, which is pretty craven.

              • Colonial Viper …
                22 July 2012 at 7:34 pm

                I didn’t say they were lies, I said they were fairytales. You know, designed for the young and the ignorant.

                Hey nice move calling people names for something which hasn’t even happened yet. What are you mentally, 16?

              • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                22 July 2012 at 8:17 pm

                “facts and other arguments”

                Where? You may struggle constructively to believe this, but you haven’t actually presented either.

              • QoT …
                22 July 2012 at 10:13 pm

                Your first comment on this thread was eight hours ago, UaC. Sadly, it looks like the mods have chosen to not dignify your martyr syndrome.

                Alternatively, it could be that despite your drivel, you haven’t hit any of the actual likely-to-get-you-banned buttons and The Standard’s mods don’t actually just delete comments because they disagree with some imaginary party line. I know, it’s a shocking concept.

          • Lanthanide 10.1.3.1.3
            22 July 2012 at 7:09 pm

            “and no who is rich in NZ doesn’t pay a large amount of tax.”

            So I guess that report that came out a while ago saying that 50 of the top 100 wealthiest people in NZ weren’t paying the top tax rate was just wrong, then?

          • fender 10.1.3.1.4
            22 July 2012 at 10:34 pm

            Well obviously they didn’t “present a reasonable case the other way” as they havn’t been deleted.

            “I know I’m blowing in the wind”
            Yes but unlike the song these actions you support are not answers.

            Perhaps you meant blowing out your……..

      • Carol 10.1.4
        22 July 2012 at 6:43 pm

        I’m happy to put my money into term deposits. i don’t have a desire to get some windfall for doing nothing.

        NZ needs people to invest in new, or upcoming productive businesses – e.g making trains that work without needing repair soon after they start being used. NZ doesn’t need people investing in well-developed businesses we already have.

        • UpandComer 10.1.4.1
          22 July 2012 at 7:03 pm

          Sure, but Kiwis are pretty risk averse – this lets you diversify a bit, and then look at getting money into transport companies such as what you mention.

          • Colonial Viper 10.1.4.1.1
            22 July 2012 at 7:10 pm

            Sure, but Kiwis are pretty risk averse – this lets you diversify a bit, and then look at getting money into transport companies such as what you mention.

            So ordinary NZers have to lose their assets to give rich people something to do with their money?

            Rich people who aren’t entrepreneurial enough to start their own businesses, generate jobs, and so have to ride on the back of public sector assets?

            • UpandComer 10.1.4.1.1.1
              22 July 2012 at 7:50 pm

              I’m an ordinary NZ’er, you don’t have to be rich to start off something new, and few people are. You’ve got it the wrong way around. Rich people who get rich the professional route sure as hell earn their dosh. Accountants/lawyers/doctors don’t just stroll into those fields, and it takes a lot of time.

              As I say, they aren’t their assets – they are the govts, and I don’t trust Labour and the Greens to spend that money, and neither should you.

              Rich people have plenty to do with their money, and do plenty, this will give all those ‘ordinary kiwis’ you disparage and patronise all the time somewhere to invest their kiwisaver and super funds.

              • Puddleglum …
                22 July 2012 at 10:27 pm

                “Rich people who get rich the professional route sure as hell earn their dosh. Accountants/lawyers/doctors don’t just stroll into those fields, and it takes a lot of time.”

                I’m not sure you understand how markets distribute wealth. They are not, primarily, technical systems designed to reward ‘effort’ or ‘hard work’.

                In theory, at least, they reward efficient provision of the most desired products and services. This is not the same as rewarding effort and hard work (and any other virtues such as honesty, etc.).

                Accountants and lawyers do not ‘earn’ their ‘dosh’ in the sense of working proportionately harder or with more effort than, for example, an unskilled cable factory worker working 12 hour shifts for five days and then 6 hours on Saturday (as my father worked) who earns considerably less than they do.

                Professionals get rich because they have positioned themselves (or, most often, have been positioned by family and friends) in the most lucrative situation in our economic and financial systems.

                Claims of personal virtue (e.g., ‘hard work’) and morality are completely beside the point when it comes to being wealthy. As Adam Smith noted:

                “This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. That wealth and greatness are often regarded with the respect and admiration which are due only to wisdom and virtue; and that the contempt, of which vice and folly are the only proper objects, is often most unjustly bestowed upon poverty and weakness, has been the complaint of moralists in all ages.”

                 

    • Murray Olsen 10.2
      22 July 2012 at 10:43 pm

      It’s plain enough for me. I also don’t see how paying dividends to a few who may or not be whatever nationality will make up for the increased power bills that will result and the lack of spending on infrastructure that the private sector loves so much.

  11. captain hook 11
    22 July 2012 at 5:20 pm

    what the fuck does that load of codswallop mean?

  12. infused 12
    22 July 2012 at 5:54 pm

    oh u mad.

  13. Kotahi Tane Huna 13
    22 July 2012 at 6:09 pm

    Of course, if the next government wee really sly, they could not announce their intentions, then simply point to some random alarming climate indicator and say that, regretfully, repossession of our property was in the National Interest, and that all New Zealand residents required to relinquish shares would get a certificate of good citizenship for doing so. Something suitably insulting, at any rate.

    Or they could let Hone force it on them the way John Key pretended Charter schools were John “for sale” Banks’ idea.

  14. xtasy 14
    22 July 2012 at 6:23 pm

    The end of democracy and fair politics:

    “Hey bud, heres some dosh for ya! Thanks for voting for me and my policies.”

    That is more or less what Key and National are saying and doing.

    These share sales will again benefit the clientele of National and ACT, who are generally the better earning and more wealthy NZers, now able to get not only the benefit of tax cuts (that favoured them) a couple of years back, they also get a nice top up for buying the energy company and Air NZ shares to be offered.

    The cynical part of it is: All Kiwi tax payers will subsidise the sale, not only by the hundreds of millions to banks and consultants involved, but also the shares purchased by NZers. The theft of the government by selling about half of the companies that all NZers have owned, and the on-sale of the loot is so being rewarded at the expense of all tax payers.

    It stinks to heaven what Key and National are up to. Yet “roll over New Zealanders” allow all this to happen. I cannot believe what is going on here!

    • UpandComer 14.1
      22 July 2012 at 6:31 pm

      NZ”s don’t own the power companies.

      The govt does.

      You have to trust that the govt will spend the revenue on something decent. Do you actually trust Labour to do that? I bet if you were reasonably informed on their spending you might think otherwise.

      This isn’t ‘theft’ at all.

      At least here people will be buying with their own money. When Labour are handing out dosh to beneficiaries, middle class wheeler dealers (thru student allowances and WFF) and their friends (appointing political friends in the public service) they are using your and my money.

      Cheers.

      • xtasy 14.1.1
        22 July 2012 at 6:44 pm

        The government is only caretaker of the people of NZ, who vote them in. Sadly this lot got in only through the support of a somewhat double standard type, self serving, right wing extremist nutter like John Banks, who goes around preaching morals about gambling, alcohol and so forth, yet supports a government actually favouring a casino operator to make a deal for a new convention centre with.

        Another opportunistic hanger on is that one with the silly hair-do from Ohariu, oh that even ends in a rhyme, I note.

        Then we have some Maori MPs and ministers who have sold out on most of the principles they were voted in on. They are digging their grave already, ensuring that once they are gone, that party will vanish from the political landscape.

        So while the lot around Key are in government – they go and sell assets which most NZers (including even many National voters) firmly oppose.

        That is nothing much better than theft from the people who entrusted Key and his gang to be “caretakers” of the people’s and nation’s affairs.

        But it seems that too many NZers do not mind being robbed. Buying back what all own, but only by a selected few who can afford the shares, that is complicity and participation in theft.

        • UpandComer 14.1.1.1
          22 July 2012 at 7:06 pm

          This lot got in with the highest ever vote under MMP, and one of the few govts to increase their vote in their second term.

          You can buy a share parcel for 1000 dollars. You should buy a parcel or two.

          • xtasy 14.1.1.1.1
            22 July 2012 at 8:47 pm

            Ha! How do you know whether I can afford it or not? You make a fool of yourself, even contradicting the PM, who clearly replied to a reporter, that “not all” NZers will be able to afford buying the shares to be offered.

            This lot got in on policies that were presented as a package. So most National voters did vote that party DESPITE of the asset sales plans, and not because of it.

            Do not forget the many non voters, and MMP or not, Key needed the hairdesign freak from Ohariu and the Dotcom beggar Banksie (who had to be boosted a bit by the PM over a cuppa stunt), to form the government.

            Labour struggled and lost, admittedly because too many remembered Goff having been involved with and supportive of asset sales in the late 1980s.

            The government faced 99 per cent of submissions at the Select Committee hearings for the Mixed Ownership Model, which were against asset sales. But the government did NOT bother to listen to the submitters, going ahead against huge opposition.

            That is how they treat the democratic process, “this lot”!

      • Colonial Viper 14.1.2
        22 July 2012 at 6:46 pm

        This isn’t ‘theft’ at all.

        At least here people will be buying with their own money.

        Yeah like buying stolen silverware with your own money isn’t theft.

    • joe90 14.2
      22 July 2012 at 6:38 pm

      NZ”s don’t own the power companies.

      The govt does.

      You really are stupid aren’t you.

      • UpandComer 14.2.1
        22 July 2012 at 6:41 pm

        They don’t!

        The govt decides what to do with the revenue! If Labour decided to buy an airforce again, that’s for them to decide not you or anyone else. Do you trust them to spend it wisely? I don’t.

        • Kotahi Tane Huna 14.2.1.1
          22 July 2012 at 6:46 pm

          We’ll take that under advisement. Thanks for coming.

        • Puddleglum 14.2.1.2
          23 July 2012 at 8:41 pm

          UpandComer, does your claim that the government, and not the people, own the assets that are to be part-privatised mean that you accept the argument that we do not live in a democracy?

          Democracy is usually defined as being government ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’ or variations on that theme. But you clearly don’t equate ‘the people’ with the government so, presumably, you don’t believe we live in a democracy (rule by the ‘demos’, the people). 

          I’ve often noticed that right-wingers seem to treat the government as some sort of private organisation that simply imposes itself on us. Rather than wanting to further democratise government, their usual reaction is to want to eliminate it.

          Yet, at other times they bang on about the virtues of ‘democracy’ and ‘our’ democratic form of government (e.g., when ‘we’ are going to war with some heinous, villainous ‘tyrant’ or dictator).

          All very hard to follow, or see as coherent.

      • joe90 14.2.2
        22 July 2012 at 6:45 pm

        Wow, stupid and an authoritarian.

  15. Carol 15
    22 July 2012 at 6:25 pm

    Bonuses for those with money to spare: cuts in income for some of the most fragile and powerless (and their children) who are already struggling to make ends meet on their benefits.

    National is truly the nasty party. Labour got labelled the nasty party for attacking (the rich and powerful) John Key. But National is truly the nasty party who supports the haves and demonises the least powerful and poorest in society.

    • UpandComer 15.1
      22 July 2012 at 6:36 pm

      Benefits aren’t being cut. They just aren’t being increased, and incentives are being provided to get people off them.

      National are targeting help at those who need it most and will benefit most, i.e. pregnant teens. If they can get level 2, they will go on to employment – that’s what the stats say.

      National is doing something as simple as making up a database of all individuals on welfare – can you believe that one hasn’t actually existed previously? And having case managers check in with recipients as individuals (that also hasn’t happened)

      What is nasty is leaving people to rot on the benefit in darkness and obscurity. These people are often depressed, often minors, often lacking skills and expertise. Just giving them more money doesn’t help them. What they need is someone to know who they are, what their situation is, and help move them off.

      National supports people who are constructive, and helps people who are struggling constructively. NZ housing and welfare has been a terrible joke that has harmed thousands for far too long, and National is doing something about it. That’s why most reasonable people disagree with you, and know who the real nasty party is.

      • Kotahi Tane Huna 15.1.1
        22 July 2012 at 6:39 pm

        “case managers check in with recipients as individuals (that also hasn’t happened)”

        Is that so? You really don’t have the first fucking clue what you’re on about do you?

        Where did you get that little howler from?

      • Colonial Viper 15.1.2
        22 July 2012 at 6:50 pm

        What is nasty is leaving people to rot on the benefit in darkness and obscurity. These people are often depressed, often minors, often lacking skills and expertise. Just giving them more money doesn’t help them.

        I agree. The Government should give everyone who wants to work a full time job, a full time job.

        There’s plenty of work to be done. Railways to be built, rest homes to be staffed, teaching jobs in schools, help for the disabled.

        Let’s move the unemployed off benefits into full time employment asap.

      • xtasy 15.1.3
        22 July 2012 at 6:52 pm

        “What is nasty is leaving people to rot on the benefit in darkness and obscurity.”

        Wow, this one has really been brainwashed thoroughly, aye?

        I have nothing against honestly assisting people on welfare to regain health and ability to return to work. But what is actually being done? We get told another hundred or two hundred million extra will be spent on the welfare reforms, supposedly offering “support” and “assistance” to beneficiaries affected.

        That money will largely come from other beneficiaries, who are likely to get entitlements cut or denied full stop! I know of WINZ and MSD having been “training” so-called “designated doctors” they use for assessments of sick and disabled. I have been shown some of the “training material”. It is clearly biased, and that “training” has been introduced and is being used by this government to achieve the same “off-loading” outcomes as has happened with ACC!

        And there are many other things I could tell you about, e.g. the government actually cutting payments for mental health and addiction treatment services, who have to cut back on staff and resources, compromising their service delivery. Bennett and National are lying to the public when they talk about “helping” people. Also are there not the jobs to offer to people on benefits. That makes it criminal what is going on. It is not helping, it is draconian pressuring and forcing beneficiaries, leading to actually worse health and harmful effects, on mothers and children.

        • UpandComer 15.1.3.1
          22 July 2012 at 7:11 pm

          There are jobs. Employers can’t find kiwis to work in rest-homes, work on orchards and vinyards, milk cows, work on road crews. They have to bring in people from overseas. Firms can’t find labourers who can pass a drug test. There are plenty of jobs.

          • Lanthanide 15.1.3.1.1
            22 July 2012 at 7:20 pm

            “There are jobs. Employers can’t find kiwis to work in rest-homes, work on orchards and vinyards, milk cows, work on road crews. ”

            Because these jobs don’t pay enough money for them to be worth it to anyone but the desperate. Also a lot of the jobs you listed here are physically demanding and therefore many people simply aren’t capable of performing the work.

            • UpandComer 15.1.3.1.1.1
              22 July 2012 at 7:24 pm

              Lol I’ve worked every single one of those jobs. I’m not desperate. My work colleagues weren’t desperate, just constructive.

              Sure, people on the invalids benefit are a special case. But there are lots of able bodied beneficiaries who are fine physically, just on drugs and/or mentally aren’t up to it. I saw lots of WINZ guys come and go. The point is that like everything, you work your way up.

              • Lanthanide …
                22 July 2012 at 7:27 pm

                So, if you’re not on an invalids benefit, clearly you’re able to do any physically demanding job going?

                • UpandComer …
                  22 July 2012 at 7:39 pm

                  My point is that many beneficiaries are physically capable of doing the work, but they get there and they find it hard. The ones that can stick with it are fine, but many seem to not stick with it and fall into bad habits and go on the invalids benefit because it is easier.

                  • Lanthanide …
                    22 July 2012 at 7:46 pm

                    So now you’re saying that people on the unemployment benefit transfer to the invalids benefit in order to avoid doing physical jobs?

                  • Chris …
                    22 July 2012 at 9:27 pm

                    I seem to remember that our own honourable P Bennett had a baby, went to work”cleaning toilets,washing dishes etc” but found it SO EXHAUSTING that she JUST HAD TO GO ON THE BENE. Would be interesting to see just how long she did this MENIAL WORK before she went to the State for assistance.She wouldn’t be able to do it under her new regimes.Am also curious as to whether her own daughter had to use State Assistance when she had her own child at a young age.

                    • xtasy …
                      22 July 2012 at 9:55 pm

                      Chris: Paula Bennett does not give a damned shit about how beneficiaries manage these days. She has jumped into bed with a political party offering her “opportunities” and serving as a very “oppotune” idiot to serve their causes. She worked for Murray McCully and then became an MP herself.

                      Now she has a salary of hundreds of thousands per annum and can live a comfy life, as a result of selling her own dignity and past experiences.

                      Bennett is for me the most dispiccable one of the lot, as she should know better but does act as if her past is another person’s life. Selected views, thinking and actions, that is her. Lecturing others on benefits and denying them what she took advantage of (e.g. TIA). Disgusting that is!

              • Colonial Viper …
                22 July 2012 at 7:28 pm

                Time to give every NZer who wants to work a full time job, a full time job.

                The point is that like everything, you work your way up.

                Yep, these jobs should have clear pathways to higher pay and more responsibility.

              • Puddleglum …
                23 July 2012 at 8:56 pm

                “Lol I’ve worked every single one of those jobs.”

                What was the context of your work in those jobs? For example, were they periods of ‘holiday’ work as a student or did you do them because you had no other qualification and were not competitive for any other work?

                Or, like Rodney Hide, were you simply ‘in-between’ what you knew would be far more fulfilling work and you simply needed a bit of cash and something to keep you busy for a while?

                I ask because the context has a large say in a person’s perspective on and motivation for that kind of work.

              • mike e …
                23 July 2012 at 9:16 pm

                Down and outer yeah you were sacked from everyone of those jobs.
                Just getting to the work area and finding accommodation is beyond most low income people’s financial resources .
                Paula beneficiary not only got the solo’s benefit she got $200,000 of free education while on the benefit.

          • xtasy 15.1.3.1.2
            22 July 2012 at 8:58 pm

            Cheap argument this is! You did not address my critics of the welfare policies introduced and promoted by this government.

            As wages are so bloody low (just above or at the minimum pay) in rest homes and many other areas, those that can and want to work do not bother with working for pittance, which does for many leave little to eat after paying rent or other housing costs, transport to and from work, electricity, water and whatever else.

            Unemployed in Auckland and Wellington can hardly move to the orchards for a few weeks of fruit picking.

            The drugs issue is another one, which can also raise the question: Why do so many people drug and drink alcohol in NZ? Maybe it is due to the crap living standards, lack of opportunities and a fair deal to live a decent life here? Over half of NZ homes are also uninsulated, forcing many to freeze at 10 degrees or less in winter, while not able to afford heating.

            What about “incentives” rather than draconian pressures, dismantling of human rights and paying people pittance to work.

            Rents in Auckland are now so high, the minimum wage would simply mostly go into rent to have a roof over the head. But because the government does not address that and other issues, they choose the easier solution, by putting unbearable pressure on low wage earners and beneficiaries.

          • Carol 15.1.3.1.3
            22 July 2012 at 9:03 pm

            Ah, yes. And all so suitable for solo mothers with young children.

        • UpandComer 15.1.3.2
          22 July 2012 at 7:27 pm

          I’m not sure what doctors you know but most doctors are professional and actually judge people on their merits. I know a lot of people who are bipolar, suffering from depression, have dyslexia or ADHD and the likes, who still go to work everyday, and not just in those pursuits, but those that are more white-collar.

          • Colonial Viper 15.1.3.2.1
            22 July 2012 at 7:29 pm

            Plus if you are a sociopath, you can become a CEO of a major corporate, or maybe a banker.

          • mike e 15.1.3.2.2
            23 July 2012 at 9:19 pm

            Down and outer your getting more grotesque by the comment.
            Mental illness affects people in different ways.
            Redneck bigot !

      • xtasy 15.1.4
        22 July 2012 at 7:02 pm

        Did you not read in the media about a case manager at WINZ denying a client special needs assistance for food – and then sending the client to go to a food-bank? Maybe have a look at the stories under the following links:

        http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/winz-worker-sends-beneficiary-food-bank-4722146

        http://www.3news.co.nz/WINZ-sending-the-needy-away-hungry-says-CAB/tabid/419/articleID/99450/Default.aspx

        http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1112/S00142/winz-exacerbates-growing-food-bank-lines-this-christmas.htm

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/4667121/Winz-denies-driving-man-to-crime

        For about two or so years now, WINZ have denied many clients help with needed food, as after 2 or 3 special needs grants for food clients are forced to see a budget advisor and get no further support of that form.

        Also has Citizen Advice been forced to assist beneficiaries as WINZ is cutting back services. Food bankds no longer give food out, unless the person approaching them also presents a letter from WINZ stating they have no further entitlement for food grants. To get such a letter clients are forced to make an appointment with a case manager, which sometimes may be a week a more away!

        That is how beneficiaries are treated these days!

        • UpandComer 15.1.4.1
          22 July 2012 at 7:20 pm

          I don’t know about individual cases, but I suspect like most cases there will be an interesting context. I.e. the many stories of people ‘struggling’ on low wages who don’t mention they are getting hundreds of dollars of taxpayer assistance as well.

          But wow, really? they are made to see a budget advisor? Those cost money. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

          Appointments with case managers sound reasonable too, and like everyone, you need to plan ahead based on your income.

          • Colonial Viper 15.1.4.1.1
            22 July 2012 at 7:43 pm

            So you’re OK with the denying of food for people?

          • xtasy 15.1.4.1.2
            22 July 2012 at 9:04 pm

            I know some people who saw a budget advisor and then got proved by the budget advisor that it is impossible to live on the benefit incomes paid by WINZ. When they presented the budgets drawn up with absolutely essential outgoings and total benefit received to their case managers, the case managers just fobbed them off and said that is all they were entitled to (in benefits).

            So what are people supposed to do, when even budget advisors prove that WINZ pays insufficient for clients to live off?

            Maybe move under the bridge, I suppose. Then the cops come and harass people, force them into emergency quarters at city missions and so. You can keep screwing people, but the limit will be reached, where it becomes inhumane and disgusting. But it seems you do not give a damn anyway. Wait until you lose job, income and whatever else. Wait until you may be hit with serious illness or an accident. Well, then the tune may change, I presume.

            • QoT 15.1.4.1.2.1
              22 July 2012 at 10:17 pm

              Look, that was just one budget advisor, and like lawyers, Mr Key can give you another one that will give a counterview.”

              Ref.

  16. joe90 16
    22 July 2012 at 6:40 pm

    struggling constructively

    WTF is struggling constructively?.

  17. OneTrack 17
    22 July 2012 at 8:03 pm

    Right, so the government takes steps to encourage kiwis who buy shares to keep them in kiwi hands, and you are against it.

    Yeah, makes perfect sense.

    • Pascal's bookie 17.1
      22 July 2012 at 8:08 pm

      Right, so the govt says it has to sell assets to pay down debt and increase liquidity in the NZX and does it with methods that reduce both the money it gets from the sale and market liquidity.

      Yeah, makes perfect sense.

      • Hayden 17.1.1
        22 July 2012 at 8:59 pm

        “Right, so the government takes steps to encourage kiwis who buy shares to keep them in kiwi hands” …for about 3 years and 1 day.

  18. chris73 18
    22 July 2012 at 9:11 pm

    This is just sounding better and better

    Bet you that we’ll hear a lot of bluster from Labour but they won’t promise to buy back the shares

    • UpandComer 18.1
      22 July 2012 at 9:18 pm

      Yip. After hours of campaigning, virulent hyperbile and militant bloviation, I don’t think they are going to buy them back.

      • seeker 18.1.1
        22 July 2012 at 10:53 pm

        @ Upand Comer

        National should not have put you in a position where you are encouraged to make money out of these ‘electricity’ assets’, which are in fact public utilities which are vital for our existence. No probs with planes boats or trains etc but NOT water or electricity. Think UandC- this will never do you any good as it will come down to ‘making money out of other’s suffering’. Don’t let National corrupt/criminalise you.