Gareth Morgan’s TOP is creeping back into the news with more controversial proposals. So I reckon it’s time to take another look at their Comprehensive Capital Tax proposal, and I really don’t like it. It’s crap enough to completely put me off TOP, even though I would otherwise be quite enthusiastic about the proposal to tax capital, and their environment policies really appeal to me.
My objections to the CCT are:
1) Social effects on the asset rich/cash poor. Already thrashed to death and gets the most attention, but I don’t really want to go over it again right here. I’ll just say the suggested mitigations are unconvincing to me.
2) Because it’s a continuous drain on cashflow regardless of profitability, it may cause the collapse of businesses going through lean times that would otherwise survive. Just glibly waving that away by saying they can defer payment while building up debt to the IRD doesn’t cut it with me.
3) Discourages foreign investment. Why would any business want to set up where they start getting taxed long before they earn a penny of profit? Come to think of it, even home-grown start-ups like Xero would have a strong incentive to start up elsewhere if they’re going to be taxed long before they’re profitable.
4) It favours low-capital businesses. The likes of 42 below, Charlie’s, Trademe, Infometrics are low-capital businesses that built up enormous capital gain in value at time of sale that the CCT would not capture (but a CGT would). Importers are also low capital businesses that would have low liabilities under the CCT. It discriminates against businesses that need expensive capital equipment, ie businesses producing complex tangible goods such as Buckley Systems, Magritek, F&P Healthcare etc.
5) Because land is such a high-capital item, it pushes farmers towards a high-intensity high-input farming model. Which is a high-pollution low resilience model, exactly the opposite of what we want
6) The proposed CCT also only applies if the entity is not earning enough income to pay more income tax than the CCT. If an entity pays more in income tax than their CCT liability, their only tax liability is their income tax. It’s the highest of their income or CCT liability, it’s not a combined levy. While it’s wrong in our current system that the asset-rich/income poor escape tax, a fair system would tax the asset-rich income-poor at a lowish fair level, the income-rich asset-poor at a lowish fair level, and the income-rich asset-rich at a somewhat higher level. But TOP’s proposal lets the income-rich asset-rich off of contributing at a level equitable to their doubly good fortune.
7) The CCT is levied only on equity. So it encourages the use of debt as a tax-minimisation strategy. I can’t see anything good about encouraging that.
All up the CCT proposal looks like something that would be dreamed up by an economist that only sees value in things in terms of the income that can be produced. That has no appreciation of the differences between a service business and a business that produces tangible goods. And that is siloed amongst a group of like-minded economists. To me, that’s a real shame because the main point of the policy, that capital needs to pay a fair share of tax and doesn’t pay any at all currently, is absolutely spot-on.
On the other hand, a simple Capital Gains Tax like the one I’m familiar with from the US as it stood in the 90’s strikes me as a fair way to tax capital. In particular, levying the tax at time of sale when there’s the cash in hand to pay the tax is a much better way to go than the continuous cash demands of the CCT.
TOP is creeping back in the news because the rightees in the media are worried the Green Party is getting a lot of traction. They probably would prefer TOP to siphon off some potential GP votes.
That is the express function of TOP, to tip the tables of the election.
Gareth Morgan is not electable material, more like a boil on Bill English’s arse!!!!!
Fact is Maori party are aligning themselves closer to the Green Party now, and that is scarring the hell out of National.
As our family are traditional Labour/NZ First voters we don’t have any interest in TOP or other minor parties now as they are more of a distraction we feel.
We used to like the Green Party when Rod Donald & Jeanette Fitzsimmons/ Sue Kedgely were running it, but now we are confused at them as they sometimes loo like a youth Gatsby era gig.
I think TOP is a bit weird. It’s just a sort of nebulous feeling I have about them.
Or it might be that they promote changing our welfare system rather than trying to fix the underlying problem which is opportunities for those at the bottom are almost non existent. Their party name is offensive rich person satire.
I agree that Gareth Morgan is a little different, odd even. I find his ‘cerebral’ super-rational ‘common sense’ approach a bit difficult to digest even though some of his ideas do appeal. Sometimes he comes across as an economist on steroids but his rationality is ‘cleaner’ or more ‘objective’ than that of the likes of Don Brash, Shamubeel Eaqub, or Eric Crampton.
Maybe it’s a bit of his worldview and philosophy isn’t as noxious as the likes of Brash, Crampton et al, but like them he puts his economist training and arguments in service of motivated reasoning.
I guess it can only be expected that after 40 years of bad neo-liberal economics, the left is now deeply suspicious of ALL economics.
Yet this paranoia is not serving us well in a world where the extremes of wealth and poverty lie firmly at the root of so many problems we want to address.
To give Morgan and TOP credit, they openly put their worldview front and centre for all to see and critique:
“At TOP, we acknowledge that all productive assets generate income (either in cash or kind) and by deeming that they produce
a minimum level of assessable income, such capital will be deployed in the most efficient manner. This is critical for maximising jobs and incomes. Those that already declare at least that level of income will be unaffected. Those that don’t, will pay more.” – from the link at my comment 1.
I just think it’s a really crap limited economist’s worldview that ignores the social value many people derive from secure home ownership. Or even the social value derived from the many businesses started and run by people that care about what they’re doing and for whom earning a living from the business, while absolutely necessary, isn’t the major reason for doing what they do.
I just think it’s a really crap limited economist’s worldview that ignores the social value many people derive from secure home ownership.
If you read the KMPG link above, they make the point that this idea is really nothing new, it was first proposed in the 2001 Tax Review. Imagine if instead of chickening out the Labour govt of the day had gone ahead. We may well have avoided the worst of the crazy house price ponzi scheme we’ve seen this past decade or more.
Sure homes do have a social value, but you have to be able to afford one first.
From another angle, I’ve paid a lot of capital gains taxes in the US, including on what was a family home. It’s no more irritating than paying any other income or sales taxes, the cash flow is there to support it, and the reason for levying the tax is instinctively “fair enough”.
I’ve also paid a lot of deemed rate of return tax, in the form of New Zealand’s Foreign Investment Fund tax (thank you very fucking much Michael Cullen). It pisses me off every time, because the cashflow isn’t necessarily there. I’ve had to pay it in lean times when I’ve had to sell something to raise the cash, and that really grated. To levy a similar tax on a literal necessity of life, the shelter of my home, would really really grate hard.
But to levy a Capital Gains Tax at the point of sale, when my former home becomes purely a financial instrument, just doesn’t carry the same oppositional emotional reaction.
I Iike the point that you raised “limited economist’s worldview that ignores the social value many people derive from secure home ownership.”
I have always placed a high value on Public residential health and well being.
We are hot on this bloody government pushing our country into a road freight empire and killing off rail as the prime mover of freight as rail should again be the prime mover today.
NZTA cost of one road death is now set at $3.4 Million each death and rising.
So if we run all our freight on the single lane roads we will kill many more in future and government don’t even cost this loss against our productivity yet!!!!
Most overseas countries do so but not good old dumb NZ eh!!!!
It would also push far more farmland into overseas ownership. Farmland is worth a false value far in its excess of its productive value for a whole lot of complex reasons,
mostly distortions and non-productive reasons.
If a 2million dollar property earning 200k gross and probably only 80k net was taxed on its capital value it only option is to go tits up or sell to dirty money from offshore.
The TOP Meetings seem to be drawing big crowds and from the photos there are many non-grey heads among them.
If TOP gained 5% of the vote I wonder how that would affect the balance?
I don’t think there’s any show of TOP getting anywhere near 5%. Although it doesn’t sound like that great a barrier, previous elections have shown that it is a hell of a hurdle to overcome.
I see TOP’s communications guy (Sean Plunket) is still trolling the #IamMetiria thread on Twitter – in company with the likes of Hooton, etc. Not giving the impression Morgan and other’s in his party have any empathy for those struggling with a broken social security system.
Only if you assume that all their votes come from the left. Well it’s too soon to tell if this is true or not, but it’s a claim in stark contrast with the idea that Morgan’s a ‘dyed in the wool Tory’.
If you really believed that you’d welcome TOP wasting 4.9% of right wing votes.
As you already know, I was convinced back more than a decade ago when I started donating to Gareth and Jo’s various UNICEF projects, and have been doing so ever since. The total number over the years is starting to add up to some real ding. And they’ve matched it dollar for dollar.
And in every case the projects are all about making concrete differences to some of the most impoverished, struggling and truly vulnerable people in the world. Especially for women and girls.
I’ve read his books, followed his blogs on and off for years. My conclusion is that they’re actually way radical people who are good at convincing Tories they’re safe to invite around for a barbecue.
Besides anyone who has at the core of their tax policy a commitment to slug the top 20% with more tax and make the other 80% pay less is by definition NOT a Tory. Really.
TOP’s proposal is to deem a minimum rate of return for housing, land and business assets, on which tax is payable. Put simply:the net value of the asset x minimum deemed rate (not confirmed in TOP’s policy statement but, say, 5%) = minimum taxable income from that asset.
The proposed asset tax is not all that onerous. For your $2m farm with say a $1m mortgage the net value is $1m. The minimum deemed rate of return would be say $50k. This is less than the $80k of income already being taxed, so nothing extra would be paid by this business.
Morgan stressed the policy wasn’t a tax grab. Overall, the fledgeling party’s package would be tax neutral, with every additional tax dollar collected given back via income tax cuts, which Morgan said he would make bottom-ended so those on lower incomes get more.
When questioned whether the policy would be a hard sell to house-owners, Morgan said “I’m going to give you more money back in tax cuts than you have an increase in rates. You’re better off. Only 20 percent of people won’t be better off and they will hate me.”
Disclosure: Personally I would pay more tax under this policy. I don’t hate this policy because I want NZ to be a safer, saner and happier place to live for everyone.
Roughly the top 20% would pay more, the other 80% would be better off. Hard to see quite why so many lefties see this as a bad thing. Really.
“The minimum deemed rate of return would be say $50k. This is less than the $80k of income already being taxed, so nothing extra would be paid by this business.”
That scenario highlights another problem with Morgan’s tax. Despite having assets, the farm’s assets won’t be captured by Morgan’s CCT. As a result, the farm won’t pay any extra tax.
Yet, a good number of home owning pensioners and low income earners will.
That scenario highlights another problem with Morgan’s tax. Despite having assets, the farm’s assets won’t be captured by Morgan’s CCT.
In this case because it is already paying tax on productive income in the normal way. Because this exceeds the deemed CCT income, then it doesn’t apply.
Someone above put this scenario up complaining the CCT would put this farm out of business. Now when it’s clear that it wouldn’t, you grizzle that it’s not being taxed enough. Sheesh … you really just don’t want this to work do you?
“Someone above put this scenario up complaining the CCT would put this farm out of business.”
That wasn’t me. Nevertheless, it’s another hurdle a struggling, asset rich income poor business would have to deal with or possibly face going under.
As for my initial comment, the income rich asset rich largely get to avoid this new tax burden but the income poor get “punished” by it. Ergo, the rich continue to get richer, hence the problem.
Therefore, when all is taken into account, its got negative impacts whichever way you look at it.
Morgan needs to take it back to the drawing-board.
the income rich asset rich largely get to avoid this new tax burden but the income poor get “punished” by it
In every scenario the income cash rich still get to pay MORE tax than the cash poor. Your argument is a total fail at the point where it ignores the usual tax on income or profit involved.
If you have a sodding great asset that’s hidden away from tax because you’ve arranged for it to earn no taxable cash income … then exactly what is your excuse again?
There are so many people here so exercised by this scenario I’m beginning to wonder exactly just how many of you have unspoken motives here.
this tax won’t capture the assets of the rich. Thus, it’s a fail.
The only fail here is the way you cannot seem to work out how the CCT and normal income/profit tax work together. They don’t exist in isolation, they’re just two aspects of the same thing … total tax paid.
And that is all that matters is it not? And in every possible instance the wealthy would pay more total tax than the poor.
There is a close parallel here with the same uncomprehending response I used to get years ago when I first tried explaining how a UBI and a flat PAYE tax regime would combine to produce a progressive total tax regime. Most people have worked it out by now, but it took time.
My caution about this policy is how it deals with your home – on a 200K home that’s ten grand a year in tax I would need to pay regardless of whether I have a job.
Similar to Andre at 10:33, I’m ok with paying tax on profit if I sell up. But if I lose my job I’ll be paying tax on profit I’ve not gained yet -which might actually force me to sell the damned house. That would piss me off.
what you don’t have several homes and could just simply quickly sell one to make some cash?
You mean you are not Garreth Morgan? doh then, and suck it up butter cup.
Your home and/or farm would be deemed to produce an income of 5% of capital value. That deemed income then gets taxed (real money not deemed money) at your personal income tax rate. So 5% deemed income rate x 30% income tax rate = 1.5% for a moderate earner with a low value house.
One of TOP’s big problems currently is that it can’t explain its policy clearly and consistently to people who aren’t boffins.
I had another go on twitter last night trying to get clear about the UBI and the youth UBI. I was tweeting to one of the TOP candidates (so not ‘fuck off punter’ Morgan/Simmons), and he was happy to engage, but he simply couldn’t answer the questions (which were very basic).
I think the issue is that their people talking about policy are economists or numbers people and they find it easy to talk about this stuff where a lot of regular folks don’t.
In saying that I think Morgan and Simmons are good at explaining things to regular people. UBI and a tax on property aren’t difficult concepts to get across. Personally I think concepts like Working for Families are more complex and my grasp of that still isn’t great.
Yes, but then if you set up a political party you bring in people who know how to talk to people and explain things. The number of times I’ve seen Morgan and Simmons not be able to explain policy and end up telling people to just go read the policy (or worse, Morgan’s book). This alone tells me they shouldn’t be in government. It’s elitist.
Maybe Morgan and Simmons are better in person. Online they’re really bad at it.
Anyway, see if you can answer my question on the youth UBI. How much would a 19 year old currently on SLA get under the TOP policy (excluding supplementary benefits which are untouched for now afaik)?
However we have to take into account what this age group already receives. Around $284m is currently received by this group in benefits. The UBI would replace the first $10,000 (after tax) of benefits received by 18-23 year olds. The benefit of the UBI to this group as opposed to targeted benefits is that people would not lose it if they moved into paid employment.
Currently the government also spends $500m on student allowances and another $150m on student loan living costs (i.e. the cost of borrowing on the loans) each year. Around 41% of people at university are aged 18-23, so we can expect to save around $267m there.
No one aged 18-23 would be worse off, and in fact those on student allowances and jobseeker support will be better off than they are currently. Of course all those not currently receiving any benefit will also be better off. It is particularly worth noting that there are 20,000 people aged 18-23 who are not in education, employment or training and are not receiving a benefit.
My caution about this policy is how it deals with your home – on a 200K home that’s ten grand a year in tax I would need to pay regardless of whether I have a job.
From the KPMG link above:
As transitional measures, TOP proposes:
• Stepping up to the deemed rate over a few years, to give asset owners time to adjust.
• Allowing homeowners aged 65+ to pay tax on change of ownership of their home, to avoid cash-flow issues.
• Allowing businesses facing a temporary/cyclical downturn to defer the tax up to 3 years (with interest payable on the deferral).
Of course almost no-one owning a home outright has NO income. If you are drawing Super the second item above covers you off. If you are on a very low income then TOP’s policy has decreased your PAYE already.
The ONLY people worse off are bastard landlords like me who have substantial assets not returning a taxable income more than the deemed rate of return.
If you’re going to slag a policy at least make an effort to understand it before typing. It’s not ‘boffin’ territory at all, just different to what everyone is used to. And while I understand most people are change resistant, I’ve always imagined progressive people were less resistant than most.
I am trying to understand it. But if something is different from what everyone is used to, then don’t expect everyone to pick up all the details immediately – especially when the actual tax amount is a % of a projected “revenue” % of the value that you’re not actually making from the home you just live in.
So what’s TOP’s proposed income tax rate? Doesn’t seem to be on their website, other than to say it’s “slashed”.
Again the KPMG note explains it well. Or at least I think so:
The policy is very much based on an economist’s view of what should be taxed. Your house is an investment. “What doesn’t go out” (rent saved) and “what comes in” (rent earned) are both income and should be taxed identically.
For (almost) everyone else, their house is their home. And it is only what comes in that is income. These are understandable and, for many, personal deeply-held convictions. The 2001 Tax Review’s RFRM suggestion did not attract public or political support. The family home was a sacred cow.
The difficulty in bridging these perspectives is that most will not see anything that should properly be taxed. However, it is a debate worth having. One that needs to be based on facts, rather than misinformation and emotion.
And there is the crux; essentially a CCT is a charge on the use of capital. Money is after all a public good, and when used for private profit there is an argument for the collective to claim some share back to the public domain.
It’s an interesting, and I accept for many people a challenging thing, to get their heads around. But essentially it’s about motivating people to use capital for productive purposes. We’re very used to the idea that once we have paid for something, we get exclusive use and profit from it. This is the essence of capitalism, private benefit from private ownership.
The family home is of course most ordinary people’s biggest asset, so it has by far the most visibility. And naturally the closet capitalist in all of us struggles to understand.
Download the Full Policy Document. It’s only a couple of pages long. Clearly the numbers would have to be political decisions made by the govt of the day, but the principles are clear and detailed enough to understand how it works.
The bottom line is that the changes will be tax neutral, that 80% will either pay no more or even less tax, while the top 20% will pay more.
Again, hard to see quite how so many lefties find this objectionable.
I already did download it. It didn’t have anything on PAYE.
Morgan has talked about 5% for his new tax, hasn’t he done the numbers for the old tax?
I don’t find it “objectionable”. There’s not enough information to object to – or to support. The “fiscally neutral” tax change promise we’ve heard before.
How can they have an 80/20 “bottom line” when they don’t even have the actual numbers to base it on? What range of tax cuts are they at least estimating? Is “80:20” and absolute, or a nice to have? Or are we just supposed to trust that gareth morgan’s back of the envelope arithmatic is correct?
But of course a left wing govt may well go about achieving this with numbers different to a right wing one.
Exactly. The devil is in the details. But if they can give an indication of the rate of their capital tax, they can do the same with paye.
But if you have reason to think TOP is lying about the stated intent and goals of it’s policy, now would be a good time to present the evidence.
Lying? Nah.
Presenting improvised numbers that morph into gospel based on the conceit of of a leader who strikes me as having an inflated sense of his knowledge of the NZ economy and a predisposition to simply assuming he’s right rather than adapting to the opinions and analyses of other people? That’s the possibility that makes me cautious.
“If a 2million dollar property earning 200k gross and probably only 80k net was taxed on its capital value it only option is to go tits up or sell to dirty money from offshore.”
It probably wouldn’t make that much difference actually.
I haven’t really kept up with the latest tweaks in Gareth’s proposal but he was originally talking about an effective tax rate of about 1%. Thus you would have to pay $20k/year on the $2 million, out of your proposed $80k/year net income. That is probably what you would have to pay nowadays under the current system.
His original proposal, if I remember what I read in the Big Kahuna correctly, talked about a deemed income of 5% or so which would then attract tax. You would be deemed to have an income of $100k rather than the actual $80k you surmise but the tax rate was going to be lower.
I refuse to be judged on the accuracy of this though. I read it a long time ago and my memory could easily be astray.
I agree that CCT has problems when applied to ¨productive¨ businesses, since it seems counterproductive to apply an extra tax to businesses which may just be going through hard times. I made a comment to this effect on the Morgan Foundation website, and received a reply that allowances would be made for businesses in this position. They did not say how.
However the proposal would seem to have merit when applied to residential property; Susan St John came up with a similar scheme to levy such a tax on such property, both owner-occupied and rented, which would have the advantage of taxing the untaxed benefit of home ownership.
The “untaxed” benefit of home ownership is what’s keeping a number of pensioners and low income earners above the poverty line.
Therefore, removing that advantage would have a devastating effect upon them and the rate of poverty (and all it’s ills) within society as a whole.
You say you were informed ‘allowances’ would be made for businesses, it’s a shame ‘allowances’ (exclusions) can’t be made for pensioners and low income earners.
“ Anyone over 65 is not required to pay until the property is sold”
Yet, in many cases it’s the downgrading (selling and buying a cheaper home) that allows them some savings which produces the interest that helps to keep them above the poverty line going forward.
“Most people on very low incomes are likely renting anyway it doesn’t affect them.”
Most but not all. Moreover, do you honestly think in this largely overheated market landlords won’t attempt to pass the cost burden onto tenants? Of course they will be impacted.
“And if they do own the property TOP policy has reduced their PAYE tax to compensate. Only people in the top 20% of wealth are affected”
The tax compensation falls short. Offhand, owning a home valued at around $400,000 or more while being on a low income will lead to one being fiscally worse off.
Well only if you could afford the damn house in the first place.
The median house in NZ right now at about $550k and the median household income around $45k pa this ratio of about 12:1.
Historically and globally it should be in the range of 3-5:1, or in other words the median house price in NZ should be around $180k. Do you remember when house prices were that level?
And a CCT on that sort of number is probably less than $3k pa.
Yes. I’ve often said more people should consider buying in regional towns. We lived in Masterton for some years and still own property there. So I completely agree with you on this.
So on say $100k equity in house in Masterton the CCT would amount to roughly sod all.
But on such low incomes the effect of TOP’s proposed UBI across a household and their reduction in PAYE or other taxes would make up the difference.
The core idea is that people in the bottom 80% would either be better off or stay the same.
“It is only worth 400.000 if you sell it at that price.”
Dead right. Which highlights another flaw in Morgan’s tax. He plans to tax assets on their estimated value and not their true market value, based on an estimated and then set annual increase, which may or may-not reflect the market reality.
“…received a reply that allowances would be made for businesses in this position.”
Following links on TOPs website to a fuller explanation of the CCT, I seem to recall there was one bit saying businesses going through a rough patch would be able to defer paying the CCT and build up the deferred payment as a debt to the IRD for up to three years. I don’t recall what would happen if the business failed with a CCT debt owed to the the IRD. Personally, I’d find that a strong incentive to just pull the plug early on a struggling business.
I’m a bit disappointed. I made 6 substantive criticisms of the CCT that aren’t to do with family homes (points 2 to 7). But so far, only point 2 and partially point 6 have been addressed in comments and yet again family homes have taken up most of the discussion.
But it seems to me that the effects of the CCT mentioned in those other points would be seriously damaging to the economy and particularly the startup entrepreneurial part of the economy.
1) Social effects on the asset rich/cash poor. Already thrashed to death and gets the most attention, but I don’t really want to go over it again right here. I’ll just say the suggested mitigations are unconvincing to me.
I’m surprised the left gives this so much prominence. As I’ve said above the ONLY people this really has any impact on will be bastard landlords like me who have a substantial asset base returning less taxable income than the deemed rate of return. I appreciate your concern, but I assure you it’s misplaced.
If you are over 65 then payment is deferred until sale of the property and it effectively turns into a CGT, something that most lefties enthusiastically embraced when Labour proposed this a while back.
If you are on a low income, your PAYE tax reduction will compensate. I should go away and clarify the exact numbers here, but that’s my understanding. Only the top 20% will pay more, everyone else is better off.
Point 1 was mostly about family homes, already thrashed to death and taken even more of a beating today.
I’m really interested in people’s views about points 2 to 7, which have a lot to do with how the CCT imposes inequities on different kinds of businesses and looks likely to stifle startups and be a general drag on the economy. Particularly in comparison to the effects of a capital gains tax.
2) Because it’s a continuous drain on cashflow regardless of profitability, it may cause the collapse of businesses going through lean times that would otherwise survive. Just glibly waving that away by saying they can defer payment while building up debt to the IRD doesn’t cut it with me.
Any business making less than the deemed rate of return on it’s assets for more than the 3 years beyond which they can defer it, is likely to go under anyway for reasons that have nothing to do with a CCT.
The upside is that it would weed out a lot of fake businesses that get set up to hide assets and manipulate tax liabilities. I see this as a good thing.
Again it’s important to look at the whole package. The intention is to gradually push investment away from ‘farming for capital gain and tax minimisation’ into genuinely productive activities. Introduced over time, the business environment would adapt quite readily.
3) Discourages foreign investment. Why would any business want to set up where they start getting taxed long before they earn a penny of profit? Come to think of it, even home-grown start-ups like Xero would have a strong incentive to start up elsewhere if they’re going to be taxed long before they’re profitable.
Given that foreign investors are notorious for paying as little tax as possible, I’m impressed to see you going into bat for them like this.
Tax regimes are different the world over, but if an overseas investor shies away from coming to NZ just for tax reasons alone, it’s safe to say it was never a viable business model that we wanted here in the first place.
Let’s consider the example of Core Composites, Oracle’s boatbuilder. (For the sake of this argument let’s ignore the $10M plus R&D giveaway they got from the govt which I seem to recall came after the were already set up).
The attraction to them of moving operations to NZ (from the US) is a large resource of skilled boatbuilders. They invested a lot into the likes of big 5-axis CNC machines, curing ovens. I know nothing about their finances, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Tim Smyth and Paul Turner sunk a hefty chunk of their own savings into it. But I really doubt they would do anything like that if making that investment immediately triggers a tax liability. Instead they would have simply stayed in the US. Or they would have done something like keeping the ownership in an offshore holding company to ensure there was very little capital here, which would also make a convenient structure for sucking profits offshore as well.
I can think of several other companies that would have similar considerations about whether to invest capital into NZ to take advantage of skilled workers here. But they would be severely discouraged if they were to be immediately taxed on that capital investment. But if the tax is on profit, then it’s not a consideration until profits are actually made, so there’s less of a risk to come here to make use of the resource of skilled workers.
If Core Composites are not returning more than the RFRR (ie more taxable profit than govt bonds) … exactly what’s so great about this business model?
If they’ve put a huge lump of equity in, then they logically have very low debt, low interest costs, and really should be able to to turn a profit. In which case the CCT consideration vanishes.
Your objection about sucking profits into overseas holding companies applies right now in any case. It’s a big problem that needs addressing quite separately to any CCT.
An interesting point. I think we could have a complex discussion unraveling all the interacting factors here. But at a first stab it’s worth noting that a low asset companies also cannot claim depreciation and finance interest on the assets.
In general I suspect when you take everything into account, the effect you are thinking of may well be less (although not zero) than you might expect.
Stands a bit more thought; if I find anything more I’ll add it here.
Notably low-capital companies like TradeMe and Infometrics attract very little tax as their worth grows and then get sold under the current regime and under the proposed CCT. But would get captured by a Capital Gains tax.
Now if Gareth Morgan had the ethics of the average Nat I’d suspect that would be by design. But Gareth being Gareth, I’m more inclined to the view that’s a consequence he just hasn’t fully thought through.
5) Because land is such a high-capital item, it pushes farmers towards a high-intensity high-input farming model.
Quite the opposite I would expect. The big problem for agriculture is that for decades they’ve literally been ‘farming for capital gain’ rather than cash flow. A typical cockie takes very little cash out of the farm, until the day he/she retires and then makes a massive tax-free windfall.
In many ways farming has the same disease that our housing market has, grossly over-inflated land values that have nothing to do with their productive value. If a CCT takes the steam of farm values, so much the better.
Keep in mind that if the declared taxable income is greater than the CCT, then it doesn’t apply. Nothing is paid. And frankly if your farm isn’t returning more than Govt Bonds, you are running a failed business model. Period.
The thing about farming for capital gain is that it’s quite easy to do just ticking along with lowish stocking rates, then you don’t need massive grass growth so you don’t need lots of fertilizer. You’re just sorta pretending to be busy until you sell up and reap the capital gain. I don’t see that farming for a capital gain is inherently a bad thing, as long as the government gets a fair share at some point. Capital gains tax levied at time of sale makes sure the government gets a fair share.
But if you’re being charged a hefty tax on an asset, then you want to make sure it’s working as hard as it can making money for you. In fact, that’s the explicit stated goal of the CCT. So in the context of farming, that means jamming as much stock on as you can, which then means you need lots of fertiliser to stimulate feed growth, as well as buying in feed.
1. Current land values are grossly over-priced. This is a direct result of decades of farming for capital gain. Get land values back into line with productive value over time, and the CCT on it reduces as well.
2. Then if land values return to sensible levels, and you still cannot pay CCT you really aren’t trying. If you really do run into a bad patch, the 3 year deferment idea kicks in. Hell if a farmer needs 5 or more years … the policy can be altered to suit any special case they care to justify.
It’s actually quite generous really. You try asking IRD if you can defer PAYE liability because you’ve hit a bad patch.
… But TOP’s proposal lets the income-rich asset-rich off of contributing at a level equitable to their doubly good fortune.
Well not really. As you correctly say, the CCT is best thought of as a minimum level of taxation based on how much economic capital you are tying up in assets. Given that money is really something that only has value in the context of an entire collective economy a CCT can be seen as a charge for it’s private use.
So yes if you are silly enough to tie up a lot of capital in an asset that produces very little return, then you are going to be penalised for this.
If on the other hand you are smart enough to make a zillion-load of dosh from it, then you get to pay a stonking great income tax bill in the usual way.
I sort of get where you are coming from, but honestly I’d say you’re over-thinking it.
Ok, take several acquaintances of mine with high incomes. They’re in the habit of purchasing expensive properties. Under the current regime, the ones with high salaries pay high PAYE, while those with businesses are successful in claiming lots of expenses so their income tax isn’t quite so much. Nevertheless, they are able to enjoy those properties tax-free, with tax free capital gains. Under the proposed CCT, they would still be able to enjoy those properties tax-free, since their income taxes would be higher than the CCT on their property portfolios. Their capital assets would still not be contributing to the tax base.
However, with a capital gains tax, the government would get a fair share of the capital income when those properties get sold. In contrast to the current system and in contrast to TOP’s proposed CCT.
It’s a case of the CCT giving an extra reward to the already successful, while delivering a fresh kick to those that are struggling through a rough patch.
That makes no sense at all. The successful continue to pay taxes, and those who hit a bad patch have a chance to recover. You seem to be determined to get this backwards.
I’ve done my best to answer your questions as you asked but I’ve other things to do now.
No, those going through a rough patch don’t get a special chance to recover. At best, the kick is simply deferred, to be delivered as they climb out of their rough patch (if they make it that far).
Yet above you were trying to argue that startup companies … typically loaded to the gunwhales with debt …. are unfairly penalised. Well this answers that issue does it not? Because they have so little equity, they also have a very low CCT. Problem solved.
Does it encourage debt to minimise tax? Probably not so long as the commercial interest being charged on the debt exceeds what might be avoided in paying the CCT.
Given the deemed rate of return is proposed to be the same as the interest paid on Govt Bonds, then using debt to minimise the CCT seems unlikely.
The companies I saw that weathered the GFC comfortably were those that owned their premises and had little or no debt. Some were fairly fresh startups, funded by family wealth or a wealthy investor. I also saw a lot more businesses, young and established, that ran on borrowed money and leased premises go under or just barely scrape through. So I really think structuring a tax system to discourage capital equity and encourage borrowing is a really bad idea.
Again you are contradicting yourself and reaching a bad conclusion.
If as you say a company has loads of debt and no assets … then by definition it will pay little or no CCT. Your objection vanishes.
So I really think structuring a tax system to discourage capital equity and encourage borrowing is a really bad idea.
As long as commercial interest rates on debt exceed the rate of interest paid on Govt Bonds, or what is termed the Risk Free Rate of Return (RFRR), this objection vanishes also.
Paying down debt and reducing interest will always be better than minimising CCT liability.
Surely you’ve had the experience of seeing otherwise intelligent people do strange things because it reduces their taxes? No? You’ve been a lot luckier in the managers you’ve had than I have, then.
Yes, as long as the CCT liability is less than commercial interest rates, then it still makes sense to pay down debt. But the CCT really reduces the benefit of paying down debt. Even under our current tax regime, reducing taxes gets given as a reason to take capital out of a company and take on debt instead. That will happen a lot more if a CCT is implemented, which will make those companies much more vulnerable in adverse conditions.
If Gareth Morgan designs and implements a tax system that encourages them to do so, yes it is his fault. Particular if there’s an alternative that’s widely used around the world that achieves the same goal of taxing income from capital without encouraging strange behaviour. Such as a Capital Gains Tax.
So as you say, people if people already mismanage their affairs so they throw away good money in order to just not pay tax … whose fault is that?
And what makes you think they won’t do idiotic things to avoid a CGT? Is Gareth Morgan to blame for all the idiots in the world?
Besides experience clearly demonstrates that the deferred nature of CGT means they are not very effective in reducing asset inflation bubbles at all. And besides the political problem is that when you sell a house and want to buy in the same market, a whacking CGT liability at that point is extremely unpalatable.
Governments can make policies that discourage stupid behaviour. And they can make policies that encourage stupid behaviour. Personally, I prefer the discourage stupid behaviour ones.
My preferred option for dealing with the problem of CGT liability for people moving their family home is simply a rollover provision.
I have my doubts a CCT will be fully effective in preventing bubbles either. Particular if the capital tax part of it goes away if your income is high enough or you’ve borrowed enough money to make it go away.
Well, the Greens exempted family homes from their proposed capital gains tax, presumably as a concession to electability.
Give them a chance, and a good argument around rollover provisions for family homes, and I think there’s a good chance they would try to bring family homes into the tax net in a way that didn’t harm vulnerable people.
So TOP is being upfront about the need to tax asset wealth hidden in family homes. And this according to you is a bad thing.
The Greens want to do much the same, but they’ll keep quiet about it until maybe after they get into power. And this according to you is a good thing.
Oh and you keep making up shit about a CCT ‘harming vulnerable people’ when it’s been clearly, repeatedly established it will do no such thing. Because I tell you who really ARE vulnerable … it’s a whole fucking generation of young people who at the moment are stuck renting their whole bloody lives because we’ve allowed house prices to become utterly unaffordable.
That crumpled little thing lying on the floor under your computer desk may be the needle off your moral compass.
I’m saying that TOPs proposed way of charging a tax on capital has a lot of downsides. Which may explain why nowhere else in the world uses a similar tax.
I’m also saying there’s a better way to tax capital than TOPs proposal, which is widely used in the rest of the world. Which is a capital gains tax, that includes the family home.
Now essentially you have boiled it down to a choice of CCT or a CGT, the difference being essentially one is a pay as you go, and doesn’t apply if the asset is decently productive … while the other accumulates over time and then hits you in one whacking lump.
If you sell the family home and need to buy in the same market, suddenly you have a big tax liability that leaves a shortfall on the day. That’s the reason why CGT’s on the family home are a tough sell politically.
You point to the effect of CGT’s around the world as evidence of their success; yet I only have to point to house prices in Sydney and Melbourne to suggest otherwise.
All good, I managed to choke down some snark in reply 🙂
As far as family homes go, the concession I favour for people moving home is a rollover provision. So CGT isn’t payable until the final estate sale or some cases of downsizing.
No, a CGT won’t stop a bubble. I really have my doubts any tax provisions can prevent bubbles, at best they’ll slow the inflation and maybe reduce the maximum size. Since the tax provisions around housing have been the same for a long time before the bubble inflated, I think we should be mostly looking at other factors for the causes and mitigations of the bubble.
Overall, my view of a capital tax is a fairness argument: for capital to retain value or grow, a stable just society is necessary, so it’s fair that those who benefit from capital growth contribute back to that just stable society when they enjoy the benefits of that growth. Which means at the time of sale, when the gains are realised.
It’s important the tax system retains legitimacy in the eyes of the taxpayers. Earlier I mentioned a time when I needed to sell something to pay a FIF levy. As it happened, that year I was out of regular work, my US investments actually lost money in US dollar terms although a dropping NZ dollar meant the NZD value went up. So I ended up thinking “I’m fucking being charged a fucking wealth tax on something losing fucking money?!!!?! You fucking IRD Cullen cunts really fucking need to go fuck yourselves”.
Now imagine the CCT gets implemented, and it works as intended to bring down property values. So then we’ll get around 60% of the population thinking “I’m continually being fucking charged a fucking tax to live in my own home that is losing value because of this fucking tax !?!!?!”. Happy times all around!
Whereas even in a bubble situation like we’ve got now, a CGT will just take a bit of the edge off the enthusiasm of investors expecting future gains. So I expect it would lead to a long plateau in prices rather than a crash. Which isn’t as good as those wanting to buy now but is a lot better for those that have recently bought and would really be harmed by a crash.
It’s important the tax system retains legitimacy in the eyes of the taxpayers
Just because it’s a new form of tax you aren’t used to, doesn’t automatically mean it’s wrong or illegitimate. It just means like most people you’re resistant to change. If you had grown up with with a CCT all your life it would be like the furniture, and someone coming along with a ‘nutty’ new idea like a CGT would be shouted down.
And as I keep explaining, but everyone chooses to ignore, TOP’s CCT cannot be considered in isolation. For 80% of the people, and this includes all the vulnerable, cash poor and elderly the complete TOP tax reform package would ensure no change or they’d be better off.
The only people it would have significant impact on are people just like me who have substantial assets that return less cash than the RFRR. And exactly why all the lefties here are getting so excised about this, when people like Morgan and myself are actually happy to pay more … kind of baffles me really.
As I said above, your concern is appreciated, but entirely misplaced.
Nats now giving each other advice in public. Reading between the lines Todd Barclay is a megalomaniacal alpha type and unrepentant, so I’m sure he won’t enjoy reading Chris Bishop’s paternalisms.
They better not be using mental health as a scape goat narrative for dodgy Todd.
Cheers for the link Muttonbird.
Hey Todd, WHAT WAS ON THE TAPES? Scared to tell the public, because we both know the contents of the tapes will shock the public more than the fact you were illegally taping people.
“They better not be using mental health as a scape goat narrative for dodgy Todd.”
If he is having mental health issues why not?
“Hey Todd, WHAT WAS ON THE TAPES? Scared to tell the public, because we both know the contents of the tapes will shock the public more than the fact you were illegally taping people.”
really? got anything to back that up. since you KNOW I assume you have heard the tapes?
Hey Muttonbird (2) & Cinny (2.1)… our elusive Mr B has been very busy improving the roads in Queenstown. Whew that’s a relief. And here was I thinking he was skiving off on full pay avoiding public scrutiny for being a very naughty boy!
Mike Hosking: Most New Zealanders could not, should not and would not stomach Winston Peters as PM
He will tell us provincial New Zealand is broken, that they’re missing out and all the latte sippers have forgotten them.
The reality of course is – and look at any forecasters’ sentiment or the growth surveys – the regions are booming.
Provincial New Zealand, with the exception of a couple of areas, hasn’t seen growth and prosperity like it for decades.
You cannot roll into town in your bus, tell the locals that their life is hopeless when it isn’t.
I admire Peters for still being relevant for all these years, but, if you’re new to all this, look up the history books to the last time Peters was in government. None of us who were there wants a sequel.
Late news on 3 last night, Nick Smith was spruiking the new “Great Walk ” from Blackball to Punakaiki that runs past the Pike River mine entrance as a “commemoration” trail and ,I kid you not , ” ..it should be on everybodys BUCKET list”.
For fucksake Nelson, wake up and get rid of this clown.
National Party List MP Maureen Pugh for West Coast Tasman, does nada for the region, no doubt she will be using this announcement to appear like she is doing something.
Will this ‘great walk’ have a budget blow out, like the million dollar over spend on a cycle way when Maureen Pugh was Mayor of the embattled Westland District Council?
Despite the fact that I am opposed to nuclear power, there is some truth in the fact
that tritium produces only a low energy beta electron. See the graph in the link below.
A low-energy beta electron
The energy carried away by a tritium electron is exceptionally low as can be seen from this comparison of average energies from a variety of beta decays: 5.7 keV when compared to several hundred keV for the others. The total energy liberated, shared between the electron and the antineutrino, is 18 keV. As the decay directly produces a ground state helium nucleus, there is no excited state and hence no gamma emission.
From the same article referred to above:
Luminous dials
Tritium has replaced radium in the luminous paint used in the dials of watches and navigational instruments. Today, the luminescent letters contain tritium as well as fluorescent substances which glow under the beta radiation emitted by the tritium. The manufacture, as well as the use, poses no problems to health. The beta electrons do not leave the paint and no gamma radiation is emitted.
I am more concerned about the amount of plastic that is entering the food chain via the water,
Adam, I share your rage at the attitude that some large corporations have that the ocean is a convenient place to get rid of their waste, regardless of the impact that this has either on the environment or the local population.
What possible “national security” reason could there be for witholding this info (that has not already been canvassed on wikileaks). The only reason i can think of is the US would not like it. This is just not yood enough
A system designed to not produce outright majority ? You mean they had a weird version of MMP where the country was divided into 8 regions with equal numbers of seats, and proportionality was only in those regions not the country as a whole.
SNP had 46% of electorate vote but won 59 seats, party vote they got 42%, so the final result was nearly 49% of the seats
[This is how national will re juggle MMP at some stage]
[TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
I mean the voting system was designed to avoid majority government. And I was very specific about the elections I was referring to because UK Labour breaking to a Social Democratic platform had an obvious impact in Scotland that was absent when Miliband was leader.
Features of the Additional Member System
Voters get two votes – to elect 1 constituency MSP and 7 regional/ list MSPs
Each person living in Scotland has a total of 8 MSPs to represent them.
The overall result is fairly proportional. It is unlikely that one party will get an overall majority and therefore coalitions are likely. (For example, see the 1999 election results when Labour and the Liberal Democrats formed a coalition government – the Scottish Executive)
New parties and smaller parties are more likely to get representation than by using ‘first past the post’. (e.g Green Party, Scottish Socialist Party)
General elections for the Scottish Parliament take place every four years, normally on the first Thursday in May…
So let’s see if I have it right if you want to change the government at the general election.
As it stands, in the electorate seats, you have to vote for the labour candidate, unless you’re in Epsom, where you have to hold your nose and vote for the nat to block Smeghead.
Then you party vote the greens or labour, unless you want to risk a 50/50 toss up, when you’ll vote NZ1st.
If you wish to keep the nats, you vote blue, act, uf or Maori party or waste your vote by chosing Top or Mana.
This is essentially an open letter to the media asking why is it that the media, in all its manifestations, continue to promote the party line on politics and economics. Time and time again the institutional view is presented as fact, oblivious to any possible alternative and most disturbingly, without any critical review of either what drives these views or what agenda is being promoted. In accepting these institutional positions, without question, the media is effectively abrogating their obligations as the fourth estate.
So what specifically, am I referring? Firstly the institutional view of sovereignty, that Parliament has sovereign supremacy. Given that the Treaty of Waitangi explicitly recognises and enshrines the sovereign authority of both Maori and the Queen, any legally constituted Parliament must recognise this in order to have a mandate to govern. Quite clearly, Parliament only recognises the Queen’s sovereign authority and further has conflated this sovereign authority into own juristic person. This is a flagrant rejection of the Treaty and can only be viewed as a post-colonial power grab. This position then frames all aspects of politics and society, where this self-proclaimed sovereign authority is presented as the legal authority by which the people are governed. This firmly places the Government as the masters, not the servant of the people. This is precisely why a third of the voting public have turned their backs on the political system, as no matter which party attains power, all seek to be the master, all seek to wield the whip.
The media are complicit in this post-colonial affirmation of parliamentary sovereign supremacy, none question the rejection of Maori sovereign authority, all accept, without question, that Parliament is legally constituted. This is an aberration given that Parliament’s very own court of inquiry has upheld the Treaty of Waitangi as the sovereign agreement between two peoples, an agreement that affirms the sovereign authority of each, thus as Parliament does not acknowledge its subordination to this authority, it surely has no legal mandate to govern. So why does the media continue to promote this institutional position?
If we as a nation “honour the Treaty”, we recognise the Sovereign relationship between the Māori and the Queen. In honouring the Treaty, we acknowledge the sovereign authority of Māori and in doing so, implicitly reject un-mandated, self-proclaimed Parliamentary sovereign supremacy. This immediately re-establishes the social contract between the people and the sovereign entity and in doing so demands the subordination of Parliament to the Sovereign and by extension to the people. In separating sovereign authority and governance, political intrigue is removed from the directorship of the nation as the office of Sovereign is not subject to a political process. Matters of sovereignty and principles of governance are mandated by the sovereign office, in turn directed by the obligation to effect the social contract. In effecting governance, Parliament is directed by the Sovereign. The Sovereign reigns and Parliament rules, just as it is envisaged today, however now Parliamentary rule is by the true mandate of the people, the Government truly a servant off the people.
Secondly, the economic system that underpins our national economy. This is indirectly related to the first subject, sovereignty. On the premise that whomever controls the money supply controls the economy, [happy to argue this point], quite clearly it is not the Government who does this, rather it is the banks, be they foreign or New Zealand owned. An economy is a closed system and is a measure of the goods and services in circulation. As a tool to aid efficient trade, the money in circulation, must clearly equate to the same measure of goods and services. As the value of these rise or fall, the amount of representative money must be controlled to maintain equilibrium. To ensure this happens with an eye to benefitting society, this control of the money supply must be managed by an entity that has the welfare of society at its heart. One could argue that the best entity to do this is the Government, on behalf of the Sovereign authority. Quite clearly this is not the case in New Zealand, where it is the banks who control the money supply and at the heart of their control is the monetary return to the shareholders, most certainly not the welfare of the people. In order to accrue this wealth, a debt based model is employed, where ever increasing debt is encouraged so that in its repayment, interest is accrued. This interest is wealth over and above the initial debt and can only be repaid by additional productivity, either a person’s labour or the mining of resource [timber, milk, meat, fish, water, etc]. This model is thus the principal pressure on our environment. Again, this is no secret, yet the media continue to give succour to those who promote the institutional view that economic control is the purview of the banks rather than the Government. GDP is held up as the Holy Grail, the OCR slavishly reported and the TWI determines the prosperity of the nation. Immigration, tourism and foreign investment are all metrics of growth, lauded as necessary for the prosperity of the nation.
However, any objective assessment must recognise that this economic model is damaging to society and the environment, yet the media allow commentary that explicitly promotes this as the only economic model available. There is a clear alternative, that of a sovereign reserve that creates [and destroys] money and injects the money into the economy, controlled to ensure equilibrium of the economy. There are many benefits to this model but the most important being that now economic growth is not important, rather it is equilibrium that is the driver of monetary policy. A further difference, taxation is not generally required as a means to accrue revenue, meaning that GST, PAYE, Business taxes etc. are not required. This totally changes the role of Government, now charged with delivery of public services and the administration of the state.
Finally, the health of the environment. The pressure on the environment can be managed without the dependency on the need to extract wealth to service debt. National resources, are just that – belonging to the nation, the people. The Sovereign, as the manifestation of the people’s authority, is charged with the guardianship of all the nation’s treasures, both natural and manmade, for the benefit of the nation. This identifies the true “owner” of the resources, the people. Gone are the contentious issues of seabed and foreshore, of water rights, conservation areas and customary fishing rights. As national treasures, all are managed on behalf of all the people.
Today, the indoctrinated media adhere, without question, to a framework that is predicated on a self-proclaimed, parliamentary sovereign supremacy. As a result, all commentary and discourse deals exclusively with the activities that are a result of such a system, none question the voracity of a different frame of reference, that of sovereign authority, as enshrined in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The automatic acceptance of such a framework also prevents the consideration of a sovereign economy and thus binds the state within a debt based monetary system, a system controlled by third party entities that are not motivated by economic equilibrium, rather are only motivated by the need to increase the wealth of their shareholders, at the expense of the nation’s people.
Back in 2016, the Portuguese government announced plans to stop burning coal by 2030. But progress has come much quicker, and they're now scheduled to close their last coal plant by the end of this year: The Sines coal plant in Portugal went offline at midnight yesterday evening (14 ...
The Sincerest Form Of Flattery: As anybody with the intestinal fortitude to brave the commentary threads of local news-sites, large and small, will attest, the number of Trump-supporting New Zealanders is really quite astounding. IT’S SO DIFFICULT to resist the temptation to be smug. From the distant perspective of New Zealand, ...
RNZ reports on continued arbitrariness on decisions at the border. British comedian Russell Howard is about to tour New Zealand and other acts allowed in through managed isolation this summer include drag queen RuPaul and musicians at Northern Bass in Mangawhai and the Bay Dreams festival. The vice-president of the ...
As families around the world mourn more than two million people dead from Covid-19, the Plan B academics and their PR industry collaborator continue to argue that the New Zealand government should stop focusing on our managed isolation and quarantine system and instead protect the elderly so that they can ...
A chronological listing of news articles linked to on the Skeptical Science Facebook Page during the past week: Sun, Jan 10, 2021 through Sat, Jan 16, 2021Editor's ChoiceNASA says 2020 tied for hottest year on record — here’s what you can do to helpPhoto by Michael Held on Unsplash ...
Health authorities in Norway are reporting some concerns about deaths in frail elderly after receiving their COVID-19 vaccine. Is this causally related to the vaccine? Probably not but here are the things to consider. According to the news there have been 23 deaths in Norway shortly after vaccine administration and ...
Happy New Year! No, experts are not concerned that “…one of New Zealand’s COIVD-1( vaccines will fail to protect the country” Here is why. But first I wish to issue an expletive about this journalism (First in Australia and then in NZ). It exhibits utter failure to actually truly consult ...
All nations have shadows; some acknowledge them. For others they shape their image in uncomfortable ways.The staunch Labour supporter was in despair at what her Rogernomics Government was doing. But she finished ‘at least, we got rid of Muldoon’, a response which tells us that then, and today, one’s views ...
Grigori GuitchountsIn November, Springer Nature, one of the world’s largest publishers of scientific journals, made an attention-grabbing announcement: More than 30 of its most prestigious journals, including the flagship Nature, will now allow authors to pay a fee of US$11,390 to make their papers freely available for anyone to read ...
This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Gary Yohe, Henry Jacoby, Richard Richels, and Benjamin Santer Imagine a major climate change law passing the U.S. Congress unanimously? Don’t bother. It turns out that you don’t need to imagine it. Get this: The Global Change Research Act of 1990 was passed ...
“They’re here already! You’re next! You’re next! You’re next!”WHO CAN FORGET the penultimate scene of the 1956 movie classic, Invasion of the Body Snatchers? The wild-eyed doctor, stumbling down the highway, trying desperately to warn his fellow citizens: “They’re here already! You’re next! You’re next! You’re next!”Ostensibly science-fiction, the movie ...
TheOneRing.Net has got its paws on the official synopsis of the upcoming Amazon Tolkien TV series. It’s a development that brings to mind the line about Sauron deliberately releasing Gollum from the dungeons of Barad-dûr. Amazon knew exactly what they were doing here, in terms of drumming up publicity: ...
Since Dwight Eisenhower’s inauguration in 1953, US presidents have joined an informal club intended to provide support - and occasionally rivalry - between those few who have been ‘leaders of the free world’. Donald Trump, elected on a promise to ‘drain the swamp’ and a constant mocker of his predecessors, ...
For over a decade commentators have noted the rise of a new brand of explicitly ideological politics throughout the world. By this they usually refer to the re-emergence of national populism and avowedly illiberal approaches to governance throughout the “advanced” democratic community, but they also extend the thought to the ...
The US House of Representatives has just impeached Donald Trump, giving him the dubious honour of being the only US President to be impeached twice. Ten Republicans voted for impeachement, making it the most bipartisan impeachment ever. The question now is whether the Senate will rise to the occasion, and ...
Kieren Mitchell; Alice Mouton, Université de Liège; Angela Perri, Durham University, and Laurent Frantz, Ludwig Maximilian University of MunichThanks to the hit television series Game of Thrones, the dire wolf has gained a near-mythical status. But it was a real animal that roamed the Americas for at least 250,000 ...
Tide of tidal data rises Having cast our own fate to include rising sea level, there's a degree of urgency in learning the history of mean sea level in any given spot, beyond idle curiosity. Sea level rise (SLR) isn't equal from one place to another and even at a particular ...
Well, some of those chickens sure came home bigly, didn’t they… and proceeded to shit all over the nice carpet in the Capitol. What we were seeing here are societal forces that have long had difficulty trying to reconcile people to the “idea” of America and the reality of ...
In the wake of Donald Trump's incitement of an assault on the US capitol, Twitter finally enforced its terms of service and suspended his account. They've since followed that up with action against prominent QAnon accounts and Trumpers, including in New Zealand. I'm not unhappy with this: Trump regularly violated ...
Peter S. Ross, University of British ColumbiaThe Arctic has long proven to be a barometer of the health of our planet. This remote part of the world faces unprecedented environmental assaults, as climate change and industrial chemicals threaten a way of life for Inuit and other Indigenous and northern ...
Susan St John makes the case for taxing a deemed rate of return on excessive real estate holdings (after a family home exemption), to redirect scarce housing resources to where they are needed most. Read the full article here ...
I’m less than convinced by arguments that platforms like Twitter should be subject to common carrier regulation preventing them from being able to decide who to keep on as clients of their free services, and who they would not like to serve. It’s much easier to create competition for the ...
The hypocritical actions of political leaders throughout the global Covid pandemic have damaged public faith in institutions and governance. Liam Hehir chronicles the way in which contemporary politicians have let down the public, and explains how real leadership means walking the talk. During the Blitz, when German bombs were ...
Over the years, we've published many rebuttals, blog posts and graphics which came about due to direct interactions with the scientists actually carrying out the underlying research or being knowledgable about a topic in general. We'll highlight some of these interactions in this blog post. We'll start with two memorable ...
Yesterday we had the unseemly sight of a landleech threatening to keep his houses empty in response to better tenancy laws. Meanwhile in Catalonia they have a solution for that: nationalisation: Barcelona is deploying a new weapon in its quest to increase the city’s available rental housing: the power ...
This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Jeff Masters, PhD The 2020 global wildfire season brought extreme fire activity to the western U.S., Australia, the Arctic, and Brazil, making it the fifth most expensive year for wildfire losses on record. The year began with an unprecedented fire event ...
NOTE: This is an excerpt from a digital story – read the full story here.Tess TuxfordKo te Kauri Ko Au, Ko te Au ko Kauri I am the kauri, the kauri is me Te Roroa proverb In Waipoua Forest, at the top of the North Island, New ...
Story of the Week... Toon of the Week... Coming Soon on SkS... Poster of the Week... SkS Week in Review... Story of the Week... Coming attraction: IPCC's upcoming major climate assessmentLook for more emphasis on 'solutions,' efforts by cities, climate equity ... and outlook for emissions cuts in ...
Ringing A Clear Historical Bell: The extraordinary images captured in and around the US Capitol Building on 6 January 2021 mirror some of the worst images of America's past.THERE IS A SCENE in the 1982 movie Missing which has remained with me for nearly 40 years. Directed by the Greek-French ...
To impact or not to impeach? I understand why some of those who are justifiably aghast at Trump’s behaviour over recent days might still counsel against impeaching him for a second time. To impeach him, they argue, would run the risk of making him a martyr in the eyes of ...
The Capitol Building, Washington DC, Wednesday, 6 January 2021. Oh come, my little one, come.The day is almost done.Be at my side, behold the sightOf evening on the land.The life, my love, is hardAnd heavy is my heart.How should I live if you should leaveAnd we should be apart?Come, let me ...
A chronological listing of news articles linked to on the Skeptical Science Facebook Page during the past week: Sun, Jan 3, 2021 through Sat, Jan 9, 2021Editor's ChoiceAfter the Insurrection: Accountability, Reform, and the Science of Democracy The poisonous lies and enablers of sedition--including Senator Hawley, pictured ...
This article, guest authored by Prof. Angela Gallego-Sala & Dr. Julie Loisel, was originally published on the Carbon Brief website on Dec 21, 2020. It is reposted below in its entirety. Click here to access the original article and comments. Peatlands Peatlands are ecosystems unlike any other. Perpetually saturated, their ...
The assault on the US Capitol and constitutional crisis that it has caused was telegraphed, predictable and yet unexpected and confusing. There are several subplots involved: whether the occupation of the Michigan State House in May was a trial run for the attacks on Congress; whether people involved in the ...
On Christmas Eve, child number 1 spotted a crack in a window. It’s a double-glazed window, and inspection showed that the small, horizontal crack was in the outermost pane. It was perpendicular to the frame, about three-quarters of the way up one side. The origins are a mystery. It MIGHT ...
Anne-Marie Broudehoux, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)Will the COVID-19 pandemic prompt a shift to healthier cities that focus on wellness rather than functional and economic concerns? This is a hypothesis that seems to be supported by several researchers around the world. In many ways, containment and physical distancing ...
Does the US need to strike a grand bargain with like-minded countries to pool their efforts? What does this tell us about today’s global politics? Perhaps the most remarkable editorial of last year was the cover leader of the London Economist on 19 November 2020. Shortly after Joe Biden was ...
Alexander Gillespie, University of Waikato and Valmaine Toki, University of WaikatoAotearoa New Zealand likes to think it punches above its weight internationally, but there is one area where we are conspicuously falling behind — the number of sites recognised by the UNESCO World Heritage Convention. Globally, there are 1,121 ...
An event organised by the Auckland PhilippinesSolidarity group Have a three-course lunch at Nanam Eatery with us! Help support the organic farming of our Lumad communities through the Mindanao Community School Agricultural Foundation. Each ticket is $50. Food will be served on shared plates. To purchase, please email phsolidarity@gmail.com or ...
"Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here." Prisons are places of unceasing emotional and physical violence, unrelieved despair and unforgivable human waste.IT WAS NATIONAL’S Bill English who accurately described New Zealand’s prisons as “fiscal and moral failures”. On the same subject, Labour’s Dr Martyn Findlay memorably suggested that no prison ...
This is a re-post from Inside Climate News by Ilana Cohen. Inside Climate News is a nonprofit, independent news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for the ICN newsletter here. Whether or not people accept the science on Covid-19 and climate change, both global crises will have lasting impacts on health and ...
. . American Burlesque As I write this (Wednesday evening, 6 January), the US Presidential election is all but resolved, confirming Joe Biden as the next President of the (Dis-)United State of America. Trump’s turbulent political career has lasted just four years – one of the few single-term US presidents ...
The session started off so well. Annalax – suitably chastised – spent a pleasant morning with his new girlfriend (he would say paramour, of course, but for our purposes, girlfriend is easier*). He told her about Waking World Drow, and their worship of Her Ladyship. And he started ...
In a recent column I wrote for local newspapers, I ventured to suggest that Donald Trump – in addition to being a liar and a cheat, and sexist and racist – was a fascist in the making and would probably try, if he were to lose the election, to defy ...
When I was preparing for my School C English exam I knew I needed some quotes to splash through my essays. But remembering lines was never my strong point, so I tended to look for the low-hanging fruit. We’d studied Shakespeare’s King Lear that year and perhaps the lowest hanging ...
When I went to bed last night, I was expecting today to be eventful. A lot of pouting in Congress as last-ditch Trumpers staged bad-faith "objections" to a democratic election, maybe some rioting on the streets of Washington DC from angry Trump supporters. But I wasn't expecting anything like an ...
Melted ice of the past answers question today? Kate Ashley and a large crew of coauthors wind back the clock to look at Antarctic sea ice behavior in times gone by, in Mid-Holocene Antarctic sea-ice increase driven by marine ice sheet retreat. For armchair scientists following the Antarctic sea ice situation, something jumps out in ...
Christina SzalinskiWhen Martha Field became pregnant in 2005, a singular fear weighed on her mind. Not long before, as a Cornell University graduate student researching how genes and nutrients interact to cause disease, she had seen images of unborn mouse pups smaller than her pinkie nail, some with ...
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidates for President and Vice President respectively for the US 2020 Election, may have dispensed with the erstwhile nemesis, Trump the candidate – but there are numerous critical openings through which much, much worse many out there may yet see fit to ...
I don’t know Taupō well. Even though I stop off there from time to time, I’m always on the way to somewhere else. Usually Taupō means making a hot water puddle in the gritty sand followed by a swim in the lake, noticing with bemusement and resignation the traffic, the ...
Frances Williams, King’s College LondonFor most people, infection with SARS-CoV-2 – the virus that causes COVID-19 – leads to mild, short-term symptoms, acute respiratory illness, or possibly no symptoms at all. But some people have long-lasting symptoms after their infection – this has been dubbed “long COVID”. Scientists are ...
Last night, a British court ruled that Julian Assange cannot be extradited to the US. Unfortunately, its not because all he is "guilty" of is journalism, or because the offence the US wants to charge him with - espionage - is of an inherently political nature; instead the judge accepted ...
Is the Gender Identity Movement a movement for human liberation, or is it a regressive movement which undermines women’s liberation and promotes sexist stereotypes? Should biological males be allowed to play in women’s sport, use women-only spaces (public toilets, changing rooms, other facilities), be able to have access to everything ...
Ian Whittaker, Nottingham Trent University and Gareth Dorrian, University of BirminghamSpace exploration achieved several notable firsts in 2020 despite the COVID-19 pandemic, including commercial human spaceflight and returning samples of an asteroid to Earth. The coming year is shaping up to be just as interesting. Here are some of ...
Michael Head, University of SouthamptonThe UK has become the first country to authorise the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine for public use, with roll-out to start in the first week of 2021. This vaccine is the second to be authorised in the UK – following the Pfizer vaccine. The British government ...
So, Boris Johnson has been footering about in hospitals again. We should be grateful, perhaps, that on this occasion the Clown-in-Chief is only (probably) getting in the way and causing distractions, rather than taking up a bed, vital equipment and resources and adding more strain and danger to exhausted staff.Look at ...
Story of the Week... Toon of the Week... SkS in the News... Coming Soon on SkS... Poster of the Week... SkS Week in Review... Story of the Week... Many Scientists Now Say Global Warming Could Stop Relatively Quickly After Emissions Go to ZeroThat’s one of several recent ...
The situation in the UK is looking catastrophic.Cases: over *70,000* people who were tested in England on 29th December tested positive. This is *not* because there were more tests on that day. It *is* 4 days after Christmas though, around when people who caught Covid on Christmas Day might start ...
by Don Franks For five days over New Year weekend, sixteen prisoners in the archaic pre WW1 block of Waikeria Prison defied authorities by setting fires and occupying the building’s roof. They eventually agreed to surrender after intervention from Maori party co-leader Rawiri Waititi. A message from the protesting men had stated: ...
Lost Opportunity: The powerful political metaphor of the Maori Party leading the despised and marginalised from danger to safety, is one Labour could have pre-empted by taking the uprising at Waikeria Prison much more seriously. AS WORD OF Rawiri Waititi’s successful intervention in the Waikeria Prison stand-off spreads, the Maori ...
As we welcome in the new year, our focus is on continuing to keep New Zealanders safe and moving forward with our economic recovery. There’s a lot to get on with, but before we say a final goodbye to 2020, here’s a quick look back at some of the milestones ...
Bay Conservation Cadets launched with first intake Supported with $3.5 million grant Part of $1.245b Jobs for Nature programme to accelerate recover from Covid Cadets will learn skills to protect and enhance environment Environment Minister David Parker today welcomed the first intake of cadets at the launch of the Bay ...
The Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern and the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands Mark Brown have announced passengers from the Cook Islands can resume quarantine-free travel into New Zealand from 21 January, enabling access to essential services such as health. “Following confirmation of the Cook Islands’ COVID ...
Jobs for Nature funding is being made available to conservation groups and landowners to employ staff and contractors in a move aimed at boosting local biodiversity-focused projects, Conservation Minister Kiritapu Allan has announced. It is estimated some 400-plus jobs will be created with employment opportunities in ecology, restoration, trapping, ...
The Government has approved an exception class for 1000 international tertiary students, degree level and above, who began their study in New Zealand but were caught offshore when border restrictions began. The exception will allow students to return to New Zealand in stages from April 2021. “Our top priority continues ...
Today’s deal between Meridian and Rio Tinto for the Tiwai smelter to remain open another four years provides time for a managed transition for Southland. “The deal provides welcome certainty to the Southland community by protecting jobs and incomes as the region plans for the future. The Government is committed ...
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has appointed Anna Curzon to the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC). The leader of each APEC economy appoints three private sector representatives to ABAC. ABAC provides advice to leaders annually on business priorities. “ABAC helps ensure that APEC’s work programme is informed by business community perspectives ...
The Government’s prudent fiscal management and strong policy programme in the face of the COVID-19 global pandemic have been acknowledged by the credit rating agency Fitch. Fitch has today affirmed New Zealand’s local currency rating at AA+ with a stable outlook and foreign currency rating at AA with a positive ...
The Government is putting in place a suite of additional actions to protect New Zealand from COVID-19, including new emerging variants, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “Given the high rates of infection in many countries and evidence of the global spread of more transmissible variants, it’s clear that ...
$36 million of Government funding alongside councils and others for 19 projects Investment will clean up and protect waterways and create local jobs Boots on the ground expected in Q2 of 2021 Funding part of the Jobs for Nature policy package A package of 19 projects will help clean up ...
The commemoration of the 175th anniversary of the Battle of Ruapekapeka represents an opportunity for all New Zealanders to reflect on the role these conflicts have had in creating our modern nation, says Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage Kiri Allan. “The Battle at Te Ruapekapeka Pā, which took ...
Babies born with tongue-tie will be assessed and treated consistently under new guidelines released by the Ministry of Health, Associate Minister of Health Dr Ayesha Verrall announced today. Around 5% to 10% of babies are born with a tongue-tie, or ankyloglossia, in New Zealand each year. At least half can ...
The prisoner disorder event at Waikeria Prison is over, with all remaining prisoners now safely and securely detained, Corrections Minister Kelvin Davis says. The majority of those involved in the event are members of the Mongols and Comancheros. Five of the men are deportees from Australia, with three subject to ...
Travellers from the United Kingdom or the United States bound for New Zealand will be required to get a negative test result for COVID-19 before departing, and work is underway to extend the requirement to other long haul flights to New Zealand, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins confirmed today. “The new PCR test requirement, foreshadowed last ...
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has added her warm congratulations to the New Zealanders recognised for their contributions to their communities and the country in the New Year 2021 Honours List. “The past year has been one that few of us could have imagined. In spite of all the things that ...
Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment David Parker has congratulated two retired judges who have had their contributions to the country and their communities recognised in the New Year 2021 Honours list. The Hon Tony Randerson QC has been appointed a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit for ...
Minister for Pacific Peoples Aupito William Sio says the New Year’s Honours List 2021 highlights again the outstanding contribution made by Pacific people across Aotearoa. “We are acknowledging the work of 13 Pacific leaders in the New Year’s Honours, representing a number of sectors including health, education, community, sports, the ...
The Government’s investment in digital literacy training for seniors has led to more than 250 people participating so far, helping them stay connected. “COVID-19 has meant older New Zealanders are showing more interest in learning how to use technology like Zoom and Skype so they can to keep in touch ...
Dairy prices increased by 3.9% across the board at the latest Fonterra global auction. The lift followed rises of 1.3% and 4.3% in the December auctions which took dairy prices to their highest level in 11 months, defying those analysts who believed Covid-19 had disrupted dairy markets. In the latest ...
America's Cup team American Magic has spoken publicly after their boat Patriot capsized when on its way to their first win of the Challenger Selection Series yesterday. Patriot dramatically capsized yesterday, becoming temporarily airborne before crashing back into the water and tipping. The boat, helmed by New Zealander Dean Barker, could not be ...
It’s a seemingly age old question: why do Auckland’s beaches become unswimmable after every single downpour? Stewart Sowman-Lund investigates.Ah, the beach. A staple of the New Zealand summer. Unless, of course, you’re based in Auckland and it’s raining. The start of 2021 has been a lot like every other New ...
We have opened a book, among members of the Point of Order team, on how long it will be before the PM offers to sort out the land dispute at Wellington’s Shelly Bay and (to win the double) how much the settlement will cost taxpayers. Just a few weeks ago ...
Breakfast TV news is back for 2021, and Tara Ward got up early to watch. “Thank god it’s almost Christmas,” John Campbell said during the opening minutes of Breakfast’s premiere episode of the year. “2021’s been rough so far. I’m buggered”. We’re all buggered, to be fair, but I’m worried that ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Pearson, Professor of Journalism and Social Media, Griffith Centre for Social and Cultural Research, Griffith University, Griffith University The blame for the recent assault on the US Capitol and President Donald Trump’s broader dismantling of democratic institutions and norms can be ...
Despite a popular and unifying leader of the governing party, divisions both in policy and culture will test the progressive movement, writes Peter McKenzie.‘I think we’re confused.” Marlon Drake is an organiser for the Living Wage Movement. His job takes him all over Wellington, trying to convince businesses to increase ...
Covid-19 Recovery Minister Chris Hipkins says vaccinations should be available to the public by the middle of the year, but other countries are prioritised. ...
It’s as true now as it ever has been: nowhere else offers an education experience like that of Dunedin. But rather than resting on their laurels, the University of Otago and Otago Polytechnic have plans to make the city an even more inspiring place for students.From high in the summit ...
Haggis, neeps and tatties and whisky may not be a traditional spread for a summer gathering in NZ, but trust Auckland city councillor and Kiwi-Scot Cathy Casey on this one. Gie it laldy! Rule one: Hold it on (or near) January 25Robert Burns was born on January 25, 1759. Since the ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Tuffley, Senior Lecturer in Applied Ethics & CyberSecurity, Griffith University It could be argued artificial intelligence (AI) is already the indispensable tool of the 21st century. From helping doctors diagnose and treat patients to rapidly advancing new drug discoveries, it’s our ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Kenny, Professor, Australian Studies Institute, Australian National University Through recent natural disasters, global upheavals and a pandemic, Australia’s political centre has largely held. Australians may have disagreed at times, but they have also kept faith with governmental norms, eschewing the false ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Holly Seale, Associate professor, UNSW Health workers are at higher risk of COVID infection and illness. They can also act as extremely efficient transmitters of viruses to others in medical and aged care facilities. That’s why health workers have been prioritised to ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jim Orchard, Adjunct Lecturer, Monash University Last week, somewhat overshadowed by the events in Washington, the Democrats took control of the US Senate. The Democrats now hold a small majority in both the House and the Senate until 2022, giving President-elect Joe ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mittul Vahanvati, Lecturer, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University Heatwaves, floods, bushfires: disaster season is upon us again. We can’t prevent hazards or climate change-related extreme weather events but we can prepare for them — not just as individuals ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mandie Shean, Lecturer, School of Education, Edith Cowan University Starting school is an important event for children and a positive experience can set the tone for the rest of their school experience. Some children are excited to attend school for the first ...
Some families in emergency housing are reporting their children are becoming emotionally distressed because of their living conditions. Demand for emergency accommodation has escalated this past year with the number of emergency housing grants increasing by half. Data showed nearly 10,000 people were given an Emergency Housing Special Needs Grant between ...
Summer reissue: Michèle A’Court, Alex Casey and Leonie Hayden are back for a second season of On the Rag, and where better to start than with the mysterious, exhausting world of wellness?First published June 23, 2020.Independent journalism depends on you. Help us stay curious in 2021. The Spinoff’s journalism is ...
With few Covid-19 infections and negiligible natural immunity, New Zealand faces being a victim of its own success when it is left till last to get the vaccines, argues Dr Parmjeet Parmar. ...
Steve Braunias reports on a literary cancelling. The Corrections department has refused to allow Jared Savage's best-selling book Gangland inside prison on the grounds that it "promotes violence and drug use". An inmate at Otago Corrections Facility in Dunedin was sent a copy of the book – but it was ...
New data from the CTU’s annual work life survey shows a snapshot of working people’s experiences and outlook heading out of 2020 and into the new year. Concerningly 42% of respondents cite workplace bullying as an issue in their workplace - a number ...
An international player, selector and self-confessed cricket stats nerd, Penny Kinsella has now played a hand in recording the rich history of the women's game in New Zealand. Penny Kinsella’s cricketing career was perched on the cusp of change for the White Ferns. “My first tour to Australia, we ...
The dramatic capsize of American Magic brought out the best in the America's Cup sailing fraternity. But, Suzanne McFadden asks, what does it mean to the crippled New York Yacht Club campaign and to the Prada Cup? It was a scene as unreal as it was calamitous. Right at the moment the ...
The current number of members of parliament is starting to get too low for the job we expect them to do, argues Alex Braae. As a general rule, with the possible exception of their families, nobody likes backbench MPs. But it’s nevertheless time we accepted that parliament should have more of ...
The experience in the Brazilian city of Manaus reveals how mistaken, and dangerous, the herd-immunity-by-infection theory really is. As families around the world mourn more than two million people dead from Covid-19, the Plan B academics and their PR industry collaborator continue to argue that the New Zealand government should stop ...
As New Zealand gears up to fight climate change, experts warn that we need to actually reduce emissions, not just plant trees to offset our greenhouse gases. ...
A nationwide poll has found majority support for the government to continue to closely monitor abortions in New Zealand and the reasons for it, despite the Ministry of Health recently suggesting that there is not a use for collecting much of this information. ...
The out-of-control growth in gangs, gun crime, and violent gang activity is exposing our communities to dangerous levels of violence that will inevitably end in tragedy, says Sensible Sentencing Trust. “The recent incidents of people being shot and ...
Successive governments have paid lip service to our productivity challenge but have failed to deliver. It's time to establish a Productivity Council charged with prioritising efforts. ...
Understanding the connection between chronic fatigue syndrome and ‘long Covid’ might be helpful in treating symptoms that doctors will find all too easy to dismiss.When people began to report signs of “long Covid”, characterised by a lack of full recovery from the virus and debilitating fatigue, I recognised their stories. ...
Nadine Anne Hura, who never considered herself an artist, reflects on what art and making has taught her.I couldn’t clean or cook or wash the clothes, but I could sew. That’s a lie, I’m a terrible sewer, but I left work early to fossick around in the $1 bin of ...
Summer reissue: In the final episode of this season of Bad News, Alice is joined by Billy T award winner Kura Forrester to look at how well we’re honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 2020.First published September 3, 2020.Independent journalism depends on you. Help us stay curious in 2021. The ...
Lucy Revill’s The Residents is a blog about daily life in Wellington that has morphed into a stylish, low-key coffee-table book featuring interviews and photographic portraits of 38 Wellingtonians. In this extract, Revill profiles Eboni Waitere, owner and executive director of Huia Publishers. The Residents features names like Monique Fiso ...
Pacific Media Watch correspondent The pro-independence conflict in West Papua with a missionary plane reportedly being shot down at Intan Jaya has stirred contrasting responses from the TNI/POLRI state sources, church leaders and an independence leader. A shooting caused a plane to catch fire on 6 January 2021 in the ...
“Last year ACT warned that rewarding protestors at Ihumātao with taxpayer money would promote further squatting. We just didn’t think it would happen as quickly as it is in Shelly Bay” says ACT Leader David Seymour. “The prosperity of all ...
Our kindly PM registered her return to work as leader of the nation with yet another statement on the Beehive website, the second in two days (following her appointment of Anna Curzon to the APEC Business Advisory Council on Wednesday). It’s great to know we don’t have to check with ...
A Pūhoi pub is refusing to remove a piece of memorabilia bearing the n-word from its walls. Dr Lachy Paterson looks at the history of the word here, and New Zealand’s complicity in Britain’s shameful slave trading past.Content warning: This article contains racist language and images.On a pub wall in ...
Supermarket shoppers looking for citrus are seeing a sour trend at the moment – some stores are entirely tapped out of lemons. But why? Batches of homemade lemonade will be taking a hit this summer, with life not giving New Zealand shoppers lemons. Prices are high at supermarkets and grocers that ...
You’re born either a cheery soul or a gloomy one, reckons Linda Burgess – but what happens when gene pools from opposite ends of the spectrum collide?In our shoeboxes of photos that we have to sort out before we die or get demented – because who IS that kid on ...
Summer reissue: Prisoner voting rights are something that few in government seem particularly motivated to do anything about. Could a catchy charity single help draw attention to the issue?First published September 1, 2020.Independent journalism depends on you. Help us stay curious in 2021. The Spinoff’s journalism is funded by its ...
Hundreds more Cook Islanders are expected to begin criss-crossing the Pacific, Air NZ will triple the number of flights to Rarotonga next week, and about 300 managed isolation places will be freed up for Kiwis returning from other parts of the world. When Thomas Tarurongo Wynne took a job in Wellington at ...
SPECIAL REPORT:By Ena Manuireva in Auckland It seems a long time ago – some 124 days – since Mā’ohi Nui deplored its first covid-19 related deaths of an elderly woman on 11 September 2020 followed by her husband just hours later, both over the age of 80. The local ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Turnbull, Postdoctoral research associate, UNSW A global coalition of more than 50 countries have this week pledged to protect over 30% of the planet’s lands and seas by the end of this decade. Their reasoning is clear: we need greater protection ...
The Reserve Bank Governor’s apology and claim he will ‘own the issue’ is laughable given the lack of answers and timing of its release. Jordan Williams, a spokesman for the Taxpayers’ Union said: “It’s been five days since they came clean, ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Olga Kokshagina, Researcher – Innovation & Entrepreneurship, RMIT University Are too many online meetings and notifications getting you down? Online communication tools – from email to virtual chat and video-conferencing – have transformed the way we work. In many respects they’ve made ...
The Reserve Bank acknowledges information about some of its stakeholders may have been breached in a malicious data hack. The Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand has commissioned an independent inquiry into how stakeholders' information was compromised when hackers breached a file sharing service used by the bank. “We ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caitlin Syme, PhD in Vertebrate Palaeontology, The University of Queensland This story contains spoilers for Ammonite Palaeontologist Mary Anning is known for discovering a multitude of Jurassic fossils from Lyme Regis on England’s Dorset Coast from the age of ten in 1809. ...
A tribute to the sitcoms of old? In the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Yup. Sam Brooks reviews the audacious WandaVision.Nothing sends a chill up my spine like the phrase “Marvel Cinematic Universe”. Since launching in 2008 with Iron Man, the MCU has become a shambling behemoth, with over 23 films (not ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Clare Corbould, Associate Professor, Contemporary Histories Research Group, Deakin University The alt-right, QAnon, paramilitary and Donald Trump-supporting mob that stormed the US Capitol on January 6 claimed they were only doing what the so-called “founding fathers” of the US had done in ...
The Point of Order Ministerial Workload Watchdog and our ever-vigilant Trough Monitor were both triggered yesterday by an item of news from the office of Conservation Minister Kititapu Allan. The minister was drawing attention to new opportunities to dip into the Jobs for Nature programme (and her statement was the ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andreas Kupz, Senior Research Fellow, James Cook University In July 1921, a French infant became the first person to receive an experimental vaccine against tuberculosis (TB), after the mother had died from the disease. The vaccine, known as Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG), is ...
The first Friday Poem for 2021 is by Wellington poet Rebecca Hawkes.While you were partying I studied the bladeI your ever-loving edgelord God-emperorof the bot army & bitcoin mine subsistingon an IV drip of gamer girl bathwaterfinally my lonelinessis your responsibility………. you seeI need a girlfriend assigned to me by the ...
The arming of police officers in Canterbury was inevitable with the growing numbers and brazenness of the gangs across the country – this should be a permanent step, says Sensible Sentencing Trust. “It is unfortunate that we have come to the point ...
Celebrations in Aotearoa New Zealand to mark the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) will begin on Thursday 21 January with ICAN Aotearoa New Zealand’s Wellington and online event, and continue on Friday ...
Hardly anyone is using their Covid Tracer app. Something needs to change.As the mercury approaches 30°C in Aotearoa, there is a good deal of slipping and slopping, but, let’s face it, piss-all scanning. As few as around 500,000 QR codes are being scanned by users of the NZ Covid Tracer ...
On the East Coast, a group of Māori-owned enterprises is innovating to create new revenue streams while doing what they love.New Zealand’s remote and sparsely populated regions are typically not the best places to create thriving brick-and-mortar businesses. In small communities miles away from any major centres, there are so ...
As we reach the height of summer, it’s not too late to do a safety check on your gas bottle. The Environmental Protection Authority’s Safer Homes programme has some tips and tricks to keep in mind before you fire up the grill. "If you’ve ...
The only published and available best-selling indie book chart in New Zealand is the top 10 sales list recorded every week at Unity Books’ stores in High St, Auckland, and Willis St, Wellington.AUCKLAND1Troy: The Siege of Troy Retold by Stephen Fry (Michael Joseph, $37)If you’re in any way unsure about ...
“We may as well knock on the gang headquarters around this country and tell them we all give up," says Darroch Ball co-leader of Sensible Sentencing Trust. “It is simply outrageous that violent offender, James Tuwhangai, has been released from ...
Analysis by Keith Rankin. Ireland, Israel, and Lebanon. Chart by Keith Rankin. The countries with the most recent large outbreaks of Covid19 are those with large numbers of recent recorded cases, but yet to record the deaths that most likely will result. In this camp, this time, are Ireland, Israel ...
RuPaul is in Aotearoa, kicking back in managed isolation to await the filming of an Australasian version of her hugely popular reality show Drag Race. But not everyone is happy about, explains Eli Matthewson. The world’s most famous drag queen, RuPaul, is in New Zealand, the government confirmed earlier this week ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gregory Melleuish, Professor, School of Humanities and Social Inquiry, University of Wollongong What can we make of Clive Palmer? This week, he announced his United Australia Party (UAP) would not contest the upcoming West Australian state election on March 13. After a ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gisela Kaplan, Emeritus Professor in Animal Behaviour, University of New England Have you ever seenmagpies play-fighting with one another, or rolling around in high spirits? Or an apostlebird running at full speed with a stick in its beak, chased by a ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jen Jackson, Program Director, Centre for Policy Development, and Associate Professor of Education, Mitchell Institute, Victoria University Childcare centres across Australia are suffering staff shortages, which have been exacerbated by the COVID crisis. Many childcare workers across Australia left when parents started ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Barrett, Senior Lecturer in Taxation, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington Rhetoric plays an important role in tax debate and therefore tax policy. If your side manages to gain traction in the public imagination with labels such as “death ...
*This article was first published on The Conversation and is republished with permission* Whoever leads the Republican Party post-Trump will need to consider how they will maintain the rabid support of his “base”, while working to regain more moderate voters who defected from the party in the 2020 election. In a historic ...
Gareth Morgan’s TOP is creeping back into the news with more controversial proposals. So I reckon it’s time to take another look at their Comprehensive Capital Tax proposal, and I really don’t like it. It’s crap enough to completely put me off TOP, even though I would otherwise be quite enthusiastic about the proposal to tax capital, and their environment policies really appeal to me.
http://www.top.org.nz/top1
My objections to the CCT are:
1) Social effects on the asset rich/cash poor. Already thrashed to death and gets the most attention, but I don’t really want to go over it again right here. I’ll just say the suggested mitigations are unconvincing to me.
2) Because it’s a continuous drain on cashflow regardless of profitability, it may cause the collapse of businesses going through lean times that would otherwise survive. Just glibly waving that away by saying they can defer payment while building up debt to the IRD doesn’t cut it with me.
3) Discourages foreign investment. Why would any business want to set up where they start getting taxed long before they earn a penny of profit? Come to think of it, even home-grown start-ups like Xero would have a strong incentive to start up elsewhere if they’re going to be taxed long before they’re profitable.
4) It favours low-capital businesses. The likes of 42 below, Charlie’s, Trademe, Infometrics are low-capital businesses that built up enormous capital gain in value at time of sale that the CCT would not capture (but a CGT would). Importers are also low capital businesses that would have low liabilities under the CCT. It discriminates against businesses that need expensive capital equipment, ie businesses producing complex tangible goods such as Buckley Systems, Magritek, F&P Healthcare etc.
5) Because land is such a high-capital item, it pushes farmers towards a high-intensity high-input farming model. Which is a high-pollution low resilience model, exactly the opposite of what we want
6) The proposed CCT also only applies if the entity is not earning enough income to pay more income tax than the CCT. If an entity pays more in income tax than their CCT liability, their only tax liability is their income tax. It’s the highest of their income or CCT liability, it’s not a combined levy. While it’s wrong in our current system that the asset-rich/income poor escape tax, a fair system would tax the asset-rich income-poor at a lowish fair level, the income-rich asset-poor at a lowish fair level, and the income-rich asset-rich at a somewhat higher level. But TOP’s proposal lets the income-rich asset-rich off of contributing at a level equitable to their doubly good fortune.
7) The CCT is levied only on equity. So it encourages the use of debt as a tax-minimisation strategy. I can’t see anything good about encouraging that.
All up the CCT proposal looks like something that would be dreamed up by an economist that only sees value in things in terms of the income that can be produced. That has no appreciation of the differences between a service business and a business that produces tangible goods. And that is siloed amongst a group of like-minded economists. To me, that’s a real shame because the main point of the policy, that capital needs to pay a fair share of tax and doesn’t pay any at all currently, is absolutely spot-on.
On the other hand, a simple Capital Gains Tax like the one I’m familiar with from the US as it stood in the 90’s strikes me as a fair way to tax capital. In particular, levying the tax at time of sale when there’s the cash in hand to pay the tax is a much better way to go than the continuous cash demands of the CCT.
TOP is creeping back in the news because the rightees in the media are worried the Green Party is getting a lot of traction. They probably would prefer TOP to siphon off some potential GP votes.
Yeah I cant see $200 for every young adult making the news…
Yep Carolyn,
That is the express function of TOP, to tip the tables of the election.
Gareth Morgan is not electable material, more like a boil on Bill English’s arse!!!!!
Fact is Maori party are aligning themselves closer to the Green Party now, and that is scarring the hell out of National.
As our family are traditional Labour/NZ First voters we don’t have any interest in TOP or other minor parties now as they are more of a distraction we feel.
We used to like the Green Party when Rod Donald & Jeanette Fitzsimmons/ Sue Kedgely were running it, but now we are confused at them as they sometimes loo like a youth Gatsby era gig.
I think TOP is a bit weird. It’s just a sort of nebulous feeling I have about them.
Or it might be that they promote changing our welfare system rather than trying to fix the underlying problem which is opportunities for those at the bottom are almost non existent. Their party name is offensive rich person satire.
I agree that Gareth Morgan is a little different, odd even. I find his ‘cerebral’ super-rational ‘common sense’ approach a bit difficult to digest even though some of his ideas do appeal. Sometimes he comes across as an economist on steroids but his rationality is ‘cleaner’ or more ‘objective’ than that of the likes of Don Brash, Shamubeel Eaqub, or Eric Crampton.
Maybe it’s a bit of his worldview and philosophy isn’t as noxious as the likes of Brash, Crampton et al, but like them he puts his economist training and arguments in service of motivated reasoning.
I guess it can only be expected that after 40 years of bad neo-liberal economics, the left is now deeply suspicious of ALL economics.
Yet this paranoia is not serving us well in a world where the extremes of wealth and poverty lie firmly at the root of so many problems we want to address.
To give Morgan and TOP credit, they openly put their worldview front and centre for all to see and critique:
“At TOP, we acknowledge that all productive assets generate income (either in cash or kind) and by deeming that they produce
a minimum level of assessable income, such capital will be deployed in the most efficient manner. This is critical for maximising jobs and incomes. Those that already declare at least that level of income will be unaffected. Those that don’t, will pay more.” – from the link at my comment 1.
I just think it’s a really crap limited economist’s worldview that ignores the social value many people derive from secure home ownership. Or even the social value derived from the many businesses started and run by people that care about what they’re doing and for whom earning a living from the business, while absolutely necessary, isn’t the major reason for doing what they do.
I just think it’s a really crap limited economist’s worldview that ignores the social value many people derive from secure home ownership.
If you read the KMPG link above, they make the point that this idea is really nothing new, it was first proposed in the 2001 Tax Review. Imagine if instead of chickening out the Labour govt of the day had gone ahead. We may well have avoided the worst of the crazy house price ponzi scheme we’ve seen this past decade or more.
Sure homes do have a social value, but you have to be able to afford one first.
From another angle, I’ve paid a lot of capital gains taxes in the US, including on what was a family home. It’s no more irritating than paying any other income or sales taxes, the cash flow is there to support it, and the reason for levying the tax is instinctively “fair enough”.
I’ve also paid a lot of deemed rate of return tax, in the form of New Zealand’s Foreign Investment Fund tax (thank you very fucking much Michael Cullen). It pisses me off every time, because the cashflow isn’t necessarily there. I’ve had to pay it in lean times when I’ve had to sell something to raise the cash, and that really grated. To levy a similar tax on a literal necessity of life, the shelter of my home, would really really grate hard.
But to levy a Capital Gains Tax at the point of sale, when my former home becomes purely a financial instrument, just doesn’t carry the same oppositional emotional reaction.
Step back from the CCT specifically and look at the entire package as a whole. Only the top 20% would pay more tax overall, the bottom 80% pay less.
Good comment Andre,
I Iike the point that you raised “limited economist’s worldview that ignores the social value many people derive from secure home ownership.”
I have always placed a high value on Public residential health and well being.
We are hot on this bloody government pushing our country into a road freight empire and killing off rail as the prime mover of freight as rail should again be the prime mover today.
NZTA cost of one road death is now set at $3.4 Million each death and rising.
So if we run all our freight on the single lane roads we will kill many more in future and government don’t even cost this loss against our productivity yet!!!!
Most overseas countries do so but not good old dumb NZ eh!!!!
It would also push far more farmland into overseas ownership. Farmland is worth a false value far in its excess of its productive value for a whole lot of complex reasons,
mostly distortions and non-productive reasons.
If a 2million dollar property earning 200k gross and probably only 80k net was taxed on its capital value it only option is to go tits up or sell to dirty money from offshore.
Absolutely correct Adrian, and I expect that’s exactly what would happen – mass sell down to overseas interests.
The TOP Meetings seem to be drawing big crowds and from the photos there are many non-grey heads among them.
If TOP gained 5% of the vote I wonder how that would affect the balance?
I don’t think there’s any show of TOP getting anywhere near 5%. Although it doesn’t sound like that great a barrier, previous elections have shown that it is a hell of a hurdle to overcome.
Then again I have no idea how Colin Craig got 4% last time making a huge jump from 1% in a couple of months.
Maybe his poetry and prose struck a chord?
He could hold a reading together with Prostetnic Vogon Joyce.
“If TOP gained 5% of the vote I wonder how that would affect the balance?”
Or more importantly, if TOP gained 4.9% how would that affect the balance 😉
That would hand the Nats a 4th term. Hopefully enough people see the risk and vote accordingly.
Too many lefties still thinking it doesn’t matter (i.e. that it doesn’t help Nact).
Correct Sacha.
Gareth Morgan is a dyed in the wool tory always was.
I see TOP’s communications guy (Sean Plunket) is still trolling the #IamMetiria thread on Twitter – in company with the likes of Hooton, etc. Not giving the impression Morgan and other’s in his party have any empathy for those struggling with a broken social security system.
Only if you assume that all their votes come from the left. Well it’s too soon to tell if this is true or not, but it’s a claim in stark contrast with the idea that Morgan’s a ‘dyed in the wool Tory’.
If you really believed that you’d welcome TOP wasting 4.9% of right wing votes.
Dyed in the wool tory who’s somewhat good at convincing progressives that he’s not.
As you already know, I was convinced back more than a decade ago when I started donating to Gareth and Jo’s various UNICEF projects, and have been doing so ever since. The total number over the years is starting to add up to some real ding. And they’ve matched it dollar for dollar.
And in every case the projects are all about making concrete differences to some of the most impoverished, struggling and truly vulnerable people in the world. Especially for women and girls.
I’ve read his books, followed his blogs on and off for years. My conclusion is that they’re actually way radical people who are good at convincing Tories they’re safe to invite around for a barbecue.
Besides anyone who has at the core of their tax policy a commitment to slug the top 20% with more tax and make the other 80% pay less is by definition NOT a Tory. Really.
https://home.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/nz/pdf/Dec/taxmail-issue1-december-2016-kpmg-nz.pdf
The proposed asset tax is not all that onerous. For your $2m farm with say a $1m mortgage the net value is $1m. The minimum deemed rate of return would be say $50k. This is less than the $80k of income already being taxed, so nothing extra would be paid by this business.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11762096
Disclosure: Personally I would pay more tax under this policy. I don’t hate this policy because I want NZ to be a safer, saner and happier place to live for everyone.
Roughly the top 20% would pay more, the other 80% would be better off. Hard to see quite why so many lefties see this as a bad thing. Really.
“The minimum deemed rate of return would be say $50k. This is less than the $80k of income already being taxed, so nothing extra would be paid by this business.”
That scenario highlights another problem with Morgan’s tax. Despite having assets, the farm’s assets won’t be captured by Morgan’s CCT. As a result, the farm won’t pay any extra tax.
Yet, a good number of home owning pensioners and low income earners will.
@ The Chairman
That scenario highlights another problem with Morgan’s tax. Despite having assets, the farm’s assets won’t be captured by Morgan’s CCT.
In this case because it is already paying tax on productive income in the normal way. Because this exceeds the deemed CCT income, then it doesn’t apply.
Someone above put this scenario up complaining the CCT would put this farm out of business. Now when it’s clear that it wouldn’t, you grizzle that it’s not being taxed enough. Sheesh … you really just don’t want this to work do you?
“Someone above put this scenario up complaining the CCT would put this farm out of business.”
That wasn’t me. Nevertheless, it’s another hurdle a struggling, asset rich income poor business would have to deal with or possibly face going under.
As for my initial comment, the income rich asset rich largely get to avoid this new tax burden but the income poor get “punished” by it. Ergo, the rich continue to get richer, hence the problem.
Therefore, when all is taken into account, its got negative impacts whichever way you look at it.
Morgan needs to take it back to the drawing-board.
the income rich asset rich largely get to avoid this new tax burden but the income poor get “punished” by it
In every scenario the income cash rich still get to pay MORE tax than the cash poor. Your argument is a total fail at the point where it ignores the usual tax on income or profit involved.
If you have a sodding great asset that’s hidden away from tax because you’ve arranged for it to earn no taxable cash income … then exactly what is your excuse again?
There are so many people here so exercised by this scenario I’m beginning to wonder exactly just how many of you have unspoken motives here.
Your argument overlooks one of the touted reasons for introducing a CCT, that being, to tax the capital of assets that aren’t currently taxed.
Yet, as you yourself pointed out, this tax won’t capture the assets of the rich. Thus, it’s a fail.
And as a result, it fails on tax redistribution (from the rich to the poor).
this tax won’t capture the assets of the rich. Thus, it’s a fail.
The only fail here is the way you cannot seem to work out how the CCT and normal income/profit tax work together. They don’t exist in isolation, they’re just two aspects of the same thing … total tax paid.
And that is all that matters is it not? And in every possible instance the wealthy would pay more total tax than the poor.
There is a close parallel here with the same uncomprehending response I used to get years ago when I first tried explaining how a UBI and a flat PAYE tax regime would combine to produce a progressive total tax regime. Most people have worked it out by now, but it took time.
what unspoken motives could anyone have?
My caution about this policy is how it deals with your home – on a 200K home that’s ten grand a year in tax I would need to pay regardless of whether I have a job.
Similar to Andre at 10:33, I’m ok with paying tax on profit if I sell up. But if I lose my job I’ll be paying tax on profit I’ve not gained yet -which might actually force me to sell the damned house. That would piss me off.
what you don’t have several homes and could just simply quickly sell one to make some cash?
You mean you are not Garreth Morgan? doh then, and suck it up butter cup.
The number I have heard TOP saying recently is your home would be taxed at around 1.5% every year.
If you’re unemployed you wouldn’t have to pay the yearly tax, but the combined amount would come out when the house is sold.
so farms are one rate, personal homes another, deferrments for pensioners and the unemployed… this is getting a bit convoluted.
Your home and/or farm would be deemed to produce an income of 5% of capital value. That deemed income then gets taxed (real money not deemed money) at your personal income tax rate. So 5% deemed income rate x 30% income tax rate = 1.5% for a moderate earner with a low value house.
ah, ok – not quite so convoluted, still odd lol
Bloody messy Mc Flock.
“Getting a bit convoluted”
One of TOP’s big problems currently is that it can’t explain its policy clearly and consistently to people who aren’t boffins.
I had another go on twitter last night trying to get clear about the UBI and the youth UBI. I was tweeting to one of the TOP candidates (so not ‘fuck off punter’ Morgan/Simmons), and he was happy to engage, but he simply couldn’t answer the questions (which were very basic).
I think the issue is that their people talking about policy are economists or numbers people and they find it easy to talk about this stuff where a lot of regular folks don’t.
In saying that I think Morgan and Simmons are good at explaining things to regular people. UBI and a tax on property aren’t difficult concepts to get across. Personally I think concepts like Working for Families are more complex and my grasp of that still isn’t great.
Yes, but then if you set up a political party you bring in people who know how to talk to people and explain things. The number of times I’ve seen Morgan and Simmons not be able to explain policy and end up telling people to just go read the policy (or worse, Morgan’s book). This alone tells me they shouldn’t be in government. It’s elitist.
Maybe Morgan and Simmons are better in person. Online they’re really bad at it.
Anyway, see if you can answer my question on the youth UBI. How much would a 19 year old currently on SLA get under the TOP policy (excluding supplementary benefits which are untouched for now afaik)?
How much would they get under the current Green Party UBI policy that they’ve had for more than a decade?
Current answer = nothing.
One thing they’d get is a 20% increase.
Funny how you can’t even explain TOP policy to me.
http://www.top.org.nz/top11
It wasn’t hard to find.
“he was happy to engage, but he simply couldn’t answer the questions (which were very basic).”
MMMMMMMM = perfect bloody politician isn’t Morgan! WEKA!!!!
“If you’re unemployed you wouldn’t have to pay the yearly tax, but the combined amount would come out when the house is sold.”
With interest adding to the fiscal burden.
The tax will be another cost of home ownership.
My caution about this policy is how it deals with your home – on a 200K home that’s ten grand a year in tax I would need to pay regardless of whether I have a job.
From the KPMG link above:
Of course almost no-one owning a home outright has NO income. If you are drawing Super the second item above covers you off. If you are on a very low income then TOP’s policy has decreased your PAYE already.
The ONLY people worse off are bastard landlords like me who have substantial assets not returning a taxable income more than the deemed rate of return.
If you’re going to slag a policy at least make an effort to understand it before typing. It’s not ‘boffin’ territory at all, just different to what everyone is used to. And while I understand most people are change resistant, I’ve always imagined progressive people were less resistant than most.
I am trying to understand it. But if something is different from what everyone is used to, then don’t expect everyone to pick up all the details immediately – especially when the actual tax amount is a % of a projected “revenue” % of the value that you’re not actually making from the home you just live in.
So what’s TOP’s proposed income tax rate? Doesn’t seem to be on their website, other than to say it’s “slashed”.
Again the KPMG note explains it well. Or at least I think so:
And there is the crux; essentially a CCT is a charge on the use of capital. Money is after all a public good, and when used for private profit there is an argument for the collective to claim some share back to the public domain.
It’s an interesting, and I accept for many people a challenging thing, to get their heads around. But essentially it’s about motivating people to use capital for productive purposes. We’re very used to the idea that once we have paid for something, we get exclusive use and profit from it. This is the essence of capitalism, private benefit from private ownership.
The family home is of course most ordinary people’s biggest asset, so it has by far the most visibility. And naturally the closet capitalist in all of us struggles to understand.
Look, you argued that the top plan offsets any pain for someone who reduces their income but keeps their house because TOP reduced their PAYE.
All I asked was how much they’ll reduce the PAYE by.
http://www.top.org.nz/top1
Download the Full Policy Document. It’s only a couple of pages long. Clearly the numbers would have to be political decisions made by the govt of the day, but the principles are clear and detailed enough to understand how it works.
The bottom line is that the changes will be tax neutral, that 80% will either pay no more or even less tax, while the top 20% will pay more.
Again, hard to see quite how so many lefties find this objectionable.
I already did download it. It didn’t have anything on PAYE.
Morgan has talked about 5% for his new tax, hasn’t he done the numbers for the old tax?
I don’t find it “objectionable”. There’s not enough information to object to – or to support. The “fiscally neutral” tax change promise we’ve heard before.
How can they have an 80/20 “bottom line” when they don’t even have the actual numbers to base it on? What range of tax cuts are they at least estimating? Is “80:20” and absolute, or a nice to have? Or are we just supposed to trust that gareth morgan’s back of the envelope arithmatic is correct?
If you start with 80/20 as the goal, it’s not a difficult exercise for the govt of the day to derive numbers to achieve tax neutrality.
But of course a left wing govt may well go about achieving this with numbers different to a right wing one.
So if you can tell me right now what sort of govt TOP might finish up working with, then maybe we could make some educated guesses on the numbers.
But if you have reason to think TOP is lying about the stated intent and goals of it’s policy, now would be a good time to present the evidence.
Exactly. The devil is in the details. But if they can give an indication of the rate of their capital tax, they can do the same with paye.
Lying? Nah.
Presenting improvised numbers that morph into gospel based on the conceit of of a leader who strikes me as having an inflated sense of his knowledge of the NZ economy and a predisposition to simply assuming he’s right rather than adapting to the opinions and analyses of other people? That’s the possibility that makes me cautious.
“If a 2million dollar property earning 200k gross and probably only 80k net was taxed on its capital value it only option is to go tits up or sell to dirty money from offshore.”
It probably wouldn’t make that much difference actually.
I haven’t really kept up with the latest tweaks in Gareth’s proposal but he was originally talking about an effective tax rate of about 1%. Thus you would have to pay $20k/year on the $2 million, out of your proposed $80k/year net income. That is probably what you would have to pay nowadays under the current system.
His original proposal, if I remember what I read in the Big Kahuna correctly, talked about a deemed income of 5% or so which would then attract tax. You would be deemed to have an income of $100k rather than the actual $80k you surmise but the tax rate was going to be lower.
I refuse to be judged on the accuracy of this though. I read it a long time ago and my memory could easily be astray.
I agree that CCT has problems when applied to ¨productive¨ businesses, since it seems counterproductive to apply an extra tax to businesses which may just be going through hard times. I made a comment to this effect on the Morgan Foundation website, and received a reply that allowances would be made for businesses in this position. They did not say how.
However the proposal would seem to have merit when applied to residential property; Susan St John came up with a similar scheme to levy such a tax on such property, both owner-occupied and rented, which would have the advantage of taxing the untaxed benefit of home ownership.
The “untaxed” benefit of home ownership is what’s keeping a number of pensioners and low income earners above the poverty line.
Therefore, removing that advantage would have a devastating effect upon them and the rate of poverty (and all it’s ills) within society as a whole.
You say you were informed ‘allowances’ would be made for businesses, it’s a shame ‘allowances’ (exclusions) can’t be made for pensioners and low income earners.
See my comment at 1.3.2.2.3 above.
Anyone over 65 is not required to pay until the property is sold.
Most people on very low incomes are likely renting anyway it doesn’t affect them.
And if they do own the property TOP policy has reduced their PAYE tax to compensate. Only people in the top 20% of wealth are affected.
“ Anyone over 65 is not required to pay until the property is sold”
Yet, in many cases it’s the downgrading (selling and buying a cheaper home) that allows them some savings which produces the interest that helps to keep them above the poverty line going forward.
“Most people on very low incomes are likely renting anyway it doesn’t affect them.”
Most but not all. Moreover, do you honestly think in this largely overheated market landlords won’t attempt to pass the cost burden onto tenants? Of course they will be impacted.
“And if they do own the property TOP policy has reduced their PAYE tax to compensate. Only people in the top 20% of wealth are affected”
The tax compensation falls short. Offhand, owning a home valued at around $400,000 or more while being on a low income will lead to one being fiscally worse off.
OK so you have an asset worth $400k. How poor are you again?
it is only worth 400.000 if you sell it at that price.
it might be more, it might be less, it might be fuck all depending on where you are in NZ.
Well only if you could afford the damn house in the first place.
The median house in NZ right now at about $550k and the median household income around $45k pa this ratio of about 12:1.
Historically and globally it should be in the range of 3-5:1, or in other words the median house price in NZ should be around $180k. Do you remember when house prices were that level?
And a CCT on that sort of number is probably less than $3k pa.
sorry to be so mean
but i bought a house for much less then that.
a year ago.
but it also has no big city where i live, just a really small community with no jobs 🙂
and three thousand of nothing is three thousand you don’t have.
heck at 200 a week UBI, that would be 1 third of your UBI.
Yes. I’ve often said more people should consider buying in regional towns. We lived in Masterton for some years and still own property there. So I completely agree with you on this.
So on say $100k equity in house in Masterton the CCT would amount to roughly sod all.
But on such low incomes the effect of TOP’s proposed UBI across a household and their reduction in PAYE or other taxes would make up the difference.
The core idea is that people in the bottom 80% would either be better off or stay the same.
also what i would like to know,
can this tax be used as a write off – business expense?
“It is only worth 400.000 if you sell it at that price.”
Dead right. Which highlights another flaw in Morgan’s tax. He plans to tax assets on their estimated value and not their true market value, based on an estimated and then set annual increase, which may or may-not reflect the market reality.
“…received a reply that allowances would be made for businesses in this position.”
Following links on TOPs website to a fuller explanation of the CCT, I seem to recall there was one bit saying businesses going through a rough patch would be able to defer paying the CCT and build up the deferred payment as a debt to the IRD for up to three years. I don’t recall what would happen if the business failed with a CCT debt owed to the the IRD. Personally, I’d find that a strong incentive to just pull the plug early on a struggling business.
I’m a bit disappointed. I made 6 substantive criticisms of the CCT that aren’t to do with family homes (points 2 to 7). But so far, only point 2 and partially point 6 have been addressed in comments and yet again family homes have taken up most of the discussion.
But it seems to me that the effects of the CCT mentioned in those other points would be seriously damaging to the economy and particularly the startup entrepreneurial part of the economy.
Anyone want to tackle those points?
Sorry been busy but I’ll give it a go.
1) Social effects on the asset rich/cash poor. Already thrashed to death and gets the most attention, but I don’t really want to go over it again right here. I’ll just say the suggested mitigations are unconvincing to me.
I’m surprised the left gives this so much prominence. As I’ve said above the ONLY people this really has any impact on will be bastard landlords like me who have a substantial asset base returning less taxable income than the deemed rate of return. I appreciate your concern, but I assure you it’s misplaced.
If you are over 65 then payment is deferred until sale of the property and it effectively turns into a CGT, something that most lefties enthusiastically embraced when Labour proposed this a while back.
If you are on a low income, your PAYE tax reduction will compensate. I should go away and clarify the exact numbers here, but that’s my understanding. Only the top 20% will pay more, everyone else is better off.
Point 1 was mostly about family homes, already thrashed to death and taken even more of a beating today.
I’m really interested in people’s views about points 2 to 7, which have a lot to do with how the CCT imposes inequities on different kinds of businesses and looks likely to stifle startups and be a general drag on the economy. Particularly in comparison to the effects of a capital gains tax.
2) Because it’s a continuous drain on cashflow regardless of profitability, it may cause the collapse of businesses going through lean times that would otherwise survive. Just glibly waving that away by saying they can defer payment while building up debt to the IRD doesn’t cut it with me.
Any business making less than the deemed rate of return on it’s assets for more than the 3 years beyond which they can defer it, is likely to go under anyway for reasons that have nothing to do with a CCT.
The upside is that it would weed out a lot of fake businesses that get set up to hide assets and manipulate tax liabilities. I see this as a good thing.
Again it’s important to look at the whole package. The intention is to gradually push investment away from ‘farming for capital gain and tax minimisation’ into genuinely productive activities. Introduced over time, the business environment would adapt quite readily.
3) Discourages foreign investment. Why would any business want to set up where they start getting taxed long before they earn a penny of profit? Come to think of it, even home-grown start-ups like Xero would have a strong incentive to start up elsewhere if they’re going to be taxed long before they’re profitable.
Given that foreign investors are notorious for paying as little tax as possible, I’m impressed to see you going into bat for them like this.
Tax regimes are different the world over, but if an overseas investor shies away from coming to NZ just for tax reasons alone, it’s safe to say it was never a viable business model that we wanted here in the first place.
Let’s consider the example of Core Composites, Oracle’s boatbuilder. (For the sake of this argument let’s ignore the $10M plus R&D giveaway they got from the govt which I seem to recall came after the were already set up).
The attraction to them of moving operations to NZ (from the US) is a large resource of skilled boatbuilders. They invested a lot into the likes of big 5-axis CNC machines, curing ovens. I know nothing about their finances, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Tim Smyth and Paul Turner sunk a hefty chunk of their own savings into it. But I really doubt they would do anything like that if making that investment immediately triggers a tax liability. Instead they would have simply stayed in the US. Or they would have done something like keeping the ownership in an offshore holding company to ensure there was very little capital here, which would also make a convenient structure for sucking profits offshore as well.
I can think of several other companies that would have similar considerations about whether to invest capital into NZ to take advantage of skilled workers here. But they would be severely discouraged if they were to be immediately taxed on that capital investment. But if the tax is on profit, then it’s not a consideration until profits are actually made, so there’s less of a risk to come here to make use of the resource of skilled workers.
If Core Composites are not returning more than the RFRR (ie more taxable profit than govt bonds) … exactly what’s so great about this business model?
If they’ve put a huge lump of equity in, then they logically have very low debt, low interest costs, and really should be able to to turn a profit. In which case the CCT consideration vanishes.
Your objection about sucking profits into overseas holding companies applies right now in any case. It’s a big problem that needs addressing quite separately to any CCT.
4) It favours low-capital businesses …
An interesting point. I think we could have a complex discussion unraveling all the interacting factors here. But at a first stab it’s worth noting that a low asset companies also cannot claim depreciation and finance interest on the assets.
In general I suspect when you take everything into account, the effect you are thinking of may well be less (although not zero) than you might expect.
Stands a bit more thought; if I find anything more I’ll add it here.
Notably low-capital companies like TradeMe and Infometrics attract very little tax as their worth grows and then get sold under the current regime and under the proposed CCT. But would get captured by a Capital Gains tax.
Now if Gareth Morgan had the ethics of the average Nat I’d suspect that would be by design. But Gareth being Gareth, I’m more inclined to the view that’s a consequence he just hasn’t fully thought through.
5) Because land is such a high-capital item, it pushes farmers towards a high-intensity high-input farming model.
Quite the opposite I would expect. The big problem for agriculture is that for decades they’ve literally been ‘farming for capital gain’ rather than cash flow. A typical cockie takes very little cash out of the farm, until the day he/she retires and then makes a massive tax-free windfall.
In many ways farming has the same disease that our housing market has, grossly over-inflated land values that have nothing to do with their productive value. If a CCT takes the steam of farm values, so much the better.
Keep in mind that if the declared taxable income is greater than the CCT, then it doesn’t apply. Nothing is paid. And frankly if your farm isn’t returning more than Govt Bonds, you are running a failed business model. Period.
The thing about farming for capital gain is that it’s quite easy to do just ticking along with lowish stocking rates, then you don’t need massive grass growth so you don’t need lots of fertilizer. You’re just sorta pretending to be busy until you sell up and reap the capital gain. I don’t see that farming for a capital gain is inherently a bad thing, as long as the government gets a fair share at some point. Capital gains tax levied at time of sale makes sure the government gets a fair share.
But if you’re being charged a hefty tax on an asset, then you want to make sure it’s working as hard as it can making money for you. In fact, that’s the explicit stated goal of the CCT. So in the context of farming, that means jamming as much stock on as you can, which then means you need lots of fertiliser to stimulate feed growth, as well as buying in feed.
Two parts to this:
1. Current land values are grossly over-priced. This is a direct result of decades of farming for capital gain. Get land values back into line with productive value over time, and the CCT on it reduces as well.
2. Then if land values return to sensible levels, and you still cannot pay CCT you really aren’t trying. If you really do run into a bad patch, the 3 year deferment idea kicks in. Hell if a farmer needs 5 or more years … the policy can be altered to suit any special case they care to justify.
It’s actually quite generous really. You try asking IRD if you can defer PAYE liability because you’ve hit a bad patch.
… But TOP’s proposal lets the income-rich asset-rich off of contributing at a level equitable to their doubly good fortune.
Well not really. As you correctly say, the CCT is best thought of as a minimum level of taxation based on how much economic capital you are tying up in assets. Given that money is really something that only has value in the context of an entire collective economy a CCT can be seen as a charge for it’s private use.
So yes if you are silly enough to tie up a lot of capital in an asset that produces very little return, then you are going to be penalised for this.
If on the other hand you are smart enough to make a zillion-load of dosh from it, then you get to pay a stonking great income tax bill in the usual way.
I sort of get where you are coming from, but honestly I’d say you’re over-thinking it.
Ok, take several acquaintances of mine with high incomes. They’re in the habit of purchasing expensive properties. Under the current regime, the ones with high salaries pay high PAYE, while those with businesses are successful in claiming lots of expenses so their income tax isn’t quite so much. Nevertheless, they are able to enjoy those properties tax-free, with tax free capital gains. Under the proposed CCT, they would still be able to enjoy those properties tax-free, since their income taxes would be higher than the CCT on their property portfolios. Their capital assets would still not be contributing to the tax base.
However, with a capital gains tax, the government would get a fair share of the capital income when those properties get sold. In contrast to the current system and in contrast to TOP’s proposed CCT.
So what … they’re on high incomes and pay high taxes. Don’t see the problem really.
It’s just that a CCT means there is no incentive to hide that income into non-productive assets that currently pay no tax.
It’s a case of the CCT giving an extra reward to the already successful, while delivering a fresh kick to those that are struggling through a rough patch.
That makes no sense at all. The successful continue to pay taxes, and those who hit a bad patch have a chance to recover. You seem to be determined to get this backwards.
I’ve done my best to answer your questions as you asked but I’ve other things to do now.
No, those going through a rough patch don’t get a special chance to recover. At best, the kick is simply deferred, to be delivered as they climb out of their rough patch (if they make it that far).
7) The CCT is levied only on equity.
Yet above you were trying to argue that startup companies … typically loaded to the gunwhales with debt …. are unfairly penalised. Well this answers that issue does it not? Because they have so little equity, they also have a very low CCT. Problem solved.
Does it encourage debt to minimise tax? Probably not so long as the commercial interest being charged on the debt exceeds what might be avoided in paying the CCT.
Given the deemed rate of return is proposed to be the same as the interest paid on Govt Bonds, then using debt to minimise the CCT seems unlikely.
The companies I saw that weathered the GFC comfortably were those that owned their premises and had little or no debt. Some were fairly fresh startups, funded by family wealth or a wealthy investor. I also saw a lot more businesses, young and established, that ran on borrowed money and leased premises go under or just barely scrape through. So I really think structuring a tax system to discourage capital equity and encourage borrowing is a really bad idea.
Again you are contradicting yourself and reaching a bad conclusion.
If as you say a company has loads of debt and no assets … then by definition it will pay little or no CCT. Your objection vanishes.
So I really think structuring a tax system to discourage capital equity and encourage borrowing is a really bad idea.
As long as commercial interest rates on debt exceed the rate of interest paid on Govt Bonds, or what is termed the Risk Free Rate of Return (RFRR), this objection vanishes also.
Paying down debt and reducing interest will always be better than minimising CCT liability.
Surely you’ve had the experience of seeing otherwise intelligent people do strange things because it reduces their taxes? No? You’ve been a lot luckier in the managers you’ve had than I have, then.
Yes, as long as the CCT liability is less than commercial interest rates, then it still makes sense to pay down debt. But the CCT really reduces the benefit of paying down debt. Even under our current tax regime, reducing taxes gets given as a reason to take capital out of a company and take on debt instead. That will happen a lot more if a CCT is implemented, which will make those companies much more vulnerable in adverse conditions.
Well if people want to throw good money away in some pathological pursuit of minimising tax, is that Gareth Morgan’s fault?
If Gareth Morgan designs and implements a tax system that encourages them to do so, yes it is his fault. Particular if there’s an alternative that’s widely used around the world that achieves the same goal of taxing income from capital without encouraging strange behaviour. Such as a Capital Gains Tax.
So as you say, people if people already mismanage their affairs so they throw away good money in order to just not pay tax … whose fault is that?
And what makes you think they won’t do idiotic things to avoid a CGT? Is Gareth Morgan to blame for all the idiots in the world?
Besides experience clearly demonstrates that the deferred nature of CGT means they are not very effective in reducing asset inflation bubbles at all. And besides the political problem is that when you sell a house and want to buy in the same market, a whacking CGT liability at that point is extremely unpalatable.
Governments can make policies that discourage stupid behaviour. And they can make policies that encourage stupid behaviour. Personally, I prefer the discourage stupid behaviour ones.
My preferred option for dealing with the problem of CGT liability for people moving their family home is simply a rollover provision.
I have my doubts a CCT will be fully effective in preventing bubbles either. Particular if the capital tax part of it goes away if your income is high enough or you’ve borrowed enough money to make it go away.
Besides who has a CGT that would apply to your $20m family home? No-one.
Well, the Greens exempted family homes from their proposed capital gains tax, presumably as a concession to electability.
Give them a chance, and a good argument around rollover provisions for family homes, and I think there’s a good chance they would try to bring family homes into the tax net in a way that didn’t harm vulnerable people.
So TOP is being upfront about the need to tax asset wealth hidden in family homes. And this according to you is a bad thing.
The Greens want to do much the same, but they’ll keep quiet about it until maybe after they get into power. And this according to you is a good thing.
Oh and you keep making up shit about a CCT ‘harming vulnerable people’ when it’s been clearly, repeatedly established it will do no such thing. Because I tell you who really ARE vulnerable … it’s a whole fucking generation of young people who at the moment are stuck renting their whole bloody lives because we’ve allowed house prices to become utterly unaffordable.
That crumpled little thing lying on the floor under your computer desk may be the needle off your moral compass.
I’m saying that TOPs proposed way of charging a tax on capital has a lot of downsides. Which may explain why nowhere else in the world uses a similar tax.
I’m also saying there’s a better way to tax capital than TOPs proposal, which is widely used in the rest of the world. Which is a capital gains tax, that includes the family home.
Sorry that was excessively grumpy of me.
Now essentially you have boiled it down to a choice of CCT or a CGT, the difference being essentially one is a pay as you go, and doesn’t apply if the asset is decently productive … while the other accumulates over time and then hits you in one whacking lump.
If you sell the family home and need to buy in the same market, suddenly you have a big tax liability that leaves a shortfall on the day. That’s the reason why CGT’s on the family home are a tough sell politically.
You point to the effect of CGT’s around the world as evidence of their success; yet I only have to point to house prices in Sydney and Melbourne to suggest otherwise.
All good, I managed to choke down some snark in reply 🙂
As far as family homes go, the concession I favour for people moving home is a rollover provision. So CGT isn’t payable until the final estate sale or some cases of downsizing.
No, a CGT won’t stop a bubble. I really have my doubts any tax provisions can prevent bubbles, at best they’ll slow the inflation and maybe reduce the maximum size. Since the tax provisions around housing have been the same for a long time before the bubble inflated, I think we should be mostly looking at other factors for the causes and mitigations of the bubble.
Overall, my view of a capital tax is a fairness argument: for capital to retain value or grow, a stable just society is necessary, so it’s fair that those who benefit from capital growth contribute back to that just stable society when they enjoy the benefits of that growth. Which means at the time of sale, when the gains are realised.
It’s important the tax system retains legitimacy in the eyes of the taxpayers. Earlier I mentioned a time when I needed to sell something to pay a FIF levy. As it happened, that year I was out of regular work, my US investments actually lost money in US dollar terms although a dropping NZ dollar meant the NZD value went up. So I ended up thinking “I’m fucking being charged a fucking wealth tax on something losing fucking money?!!!?! You fucking IRD Cullen cunts really fucking need to go fuck yourselves”.
Now imagine the CCT gets implemented, and it works as intended to bring down property values. So then we’ll get around 60% of the population thinking “I’m continually being fucking charged a fucking tax to live in my own home that is losing value because of this fucking tax !?!!?!”. Happy times all around!
Whereas even in a bubble situation like we’ve got now, a CGT will just take a bit of the edge off the enthusiasm of investors expecting future gains. So I expect it would lead to a long plateau in prices rather than a crash. Which isn’t as good as those wanting to buy now but is a lot better for those that have recently bought and would really be harmed by a crash.
It’s important the tax system retains legitimacy in the eyes of the taxpayers
Just because it’s a new form of tax you aren’t used to, doesn’t automatically mean it’s wrong or illegitimate. It just means like most people you’re resistant to change. If you had grown up with with a CCT all your life it would be like the furniture, and someone coming along with a ‘nutty’ new idea like a CGT would be shouted down.
And as I keep explaining, but everyone chooses to ignore, TOP’s CCT cannot be considered in isolation. For 80% of the people, and this includes all the vulnerable, cash poor and elderly the complete TOP tax reform package would ensure no change or they’d be better off.
The only people it would have significant impact on are people just like me who have substantial assets that return less cash than the RFRR. And exactly why all the lefties here are getting so excised about this, when people like Morgan and myself are actually happy to pay more … kind of baffles me really.
As I said above, your concern is appreciated, but entirely misplaced.
Nats now giving each other advice in public. Reading between the lines Todd Barclay is a megalomaniacal alpha type and unrepentant, so I’m sure he won’t enjoy reading Chris Bishop’s paternalisms.
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/07/get-your-mental-health-right-national-mp-s-advice-for-todd-barclay.html
Didn’t know Chris Bishop was also a tobacco peddler.
They better not be using mental health as a scape goat narrative for dodgy Todd.
Cheers for the link Muttonbird.
Hey Todd, WHAT WAS ON THE TAPES? Scared to tell the public, because we both know the contents of the tapes will shock the public more than the fact you were illegally taping people.
“They better not be using mental health as a scape goat narrative for dodgy Todd.”
If he is having mental health issues why not?
“Hey Todd, WHAT WAS ON THE TAPES? Scared to tell the public, because we both know the contents of the tapes will shock the public more than the fact you were illegally taping people.”
really? got anything to back that up. since you KNOW I assume you have heard the tapes?
Hey Muttonbird (2) & Cinny (2.1)… our elusive Mr B has been very busy improving the roads in Queenstown. Whew that’s a relief. And here was I thinking he was skiving off on full pay avoiding public scrutiny for being a very naughty boy!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/94913867/todd-barclay-says-hes-hard-at-work-tackling-roading-issues-in-queenstown
Another sneaky way big pharma rorts us all and boosts their profits: unreasonably short expiration dates.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/07/the-myth-of-drug-expiration-dates/
Generally speaking you can tell when drugs go off. That’s what I go by…*opens tube of locoid exp 2010 and still good*
Ummm…..okaaay…personally I prefer a more objective standard based on actual measurements, but hey, whatever works for you.
The placebo effect never expires 😉
Mike Hosking: Most New Zealanders could not, should not and would not stomach Winston Peters as PM
Someone’s is panicking!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11892403
Oh, the irony!
I suggest you mean labour who’s options look rooted, especially as greens will also tumble at next poll, as trump would say Sad
I wonder what part of 20% youth unemployment in Northland can be considered as a regional boom?
Late news on 3 last night, Nick Smith was spruiking the new “Great Walk ” from Blackball to Punakaiki that runs past the Pike River mine entrance as a “commemoration” trail and ,I kid you not , ” ..it should be on everybodys BUCKET list”.
For fucksake Nelson, wake up and get rid of this clown.
Wow, that is crass. But then it’s Nick Smith.
What a prick Smith is, an utter prick
National Party List MP Maureen Pugh for West Coast Tasman, does nada for the region, no doubt she will be using this announcement to appear like she is doing something.
Will this ‘great walk’ have a budget blow out, like the million dollar over spend on a cycle way when Maureen Pugh was Mayor of the embattled Westland District Council?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/west-coast/83412015/westland-district-council-could-end-up-15-million-over-budget-for-cycle-trail
What is it with these bike trails running over budget? Is someone running a wee scam?
Maybe it should be on the National parties BUCKET list first. Fuckers.
“Sanitised Democracy”
It’s good to see Labour taking action on this:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/94896547/intercepting-politicians-email-a-constitutional-outrage
Find out if your local council’s code of conduct could be used to quieten criticism from elected members.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/94838375/cathy-strong-some-councils-using-code-to-quash-dissent
I can’t even – 😀
Maori Party sets out scheme to send immigrants to regions http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11892773
Might be an improvement on all the Aucklanders with too much money we’re getting currently.
NOTHING TO SEE HERE _ MOVE ALONG!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/tritium-nuclear-plant-tokyo-electric-power-company-nuclear-regulation-authority-japan-a7842931.html
So by now they have already done this, umm and we still have relations with this government?
Despite the fact that I am opposed to nuclear power, there is some truth in the fact
that tritium produces only a low energy beta electron. See the graph in the link below.
http://www.radioactivity.eu.com/site/pages/Tritium.htm
From the same article referred to above:
Luminous dials
Tritium has replaced radium in the luminous paint used in the dials of watches and navigational instruments. Today, the luminescent letters contain tritium as well as fluorescent substances which glow under the beta radiation emitted by the tritium. The manufacture, as well as the use, poses no problems to health. The beta electrons do not leave the paint and no gamma radiation is emitted.
I am more concerned about the amount of plastic that is entering the food chain via the water,
Adam, I share your rage at the attitude that some large corporations have that the ocean is a convenient place to get rid of their waste, regardless of the impact that this has either on the environment or the local population.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1707/S00281/press-release-by-kim-dotcom-20-july-2017.htm
Court acts to protect GCSB from kim dotcom liability.
+1 Shocking. The government agencies needs to be held to account as much (if not more) than the public! One law for all in this country!
What possible “national security” reason could there be for witholding this info (that has not already been canvassed on wikileaks). The only reason i can think of is the US would not like it. This is just not yood enough
Isn’t ACT a fan of euthanasia?
Dutch Euthanasia – Dutch doctor drugged patient’s coffee and got family to hold her down
http://bobmccoskrie.com/?p=19902#
I think there was a damn sight more to the case than McCoskrie and the daily fail would have you believe.
https://translate.google.co.nz/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=https://www.euthanasiecommissie.nl/binaries/euthanasiecommissie/documenten/publicaties/oordelen/2016/niet-gehandeld-overeenkomstig-de-zorgvuldigheidseisen/oordeel-2016-85/Oordeel%2B2016-85.pdf&prev=search
It baffles me the wording “[SNP]..almost won an outright majority for a second time”
What really happened in Scotland is the SNP lost seats in the last two elections .
Is that so hard to say?
Holyrood election ..down 2.3% -6 seats
Westminster ….. down 13% -21 seats
A system designed to not produce outright majority ? You mean they had a weird version of MMP where the country was divided into 8 regions with equal numbers of seats, and proportionality was only in those regions not the country as a whole.
The gerrymandering to get the rural regions having the numbers meant they are had parts of the Central Strathclyde regions hived off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_election,_2016
SNP had 46% of electorate vote but won 59 seats, party vote they got 42%, so the final result was nearly 49% of the seats
[This is how national will re juggle MMP at some stage]
[TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
I mean the voting system was designed to avoid majority government. And I was very specific about the elections I was referring to because UK Labour breaking to a Social Democratic platform had an obvious impact in Scotland that was absent when Miliband was leader.
Anyway.
From the Scottish Government site
http://www.parliament.scot/gd/visitandlearn/Education/16285.aspx (my emphasis)
Portugal – their success shows with the lowest rate of drug induced deaths in the EU.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-19/which-european-nation-suffers-most-drug-induced-deaths
So let’s see if I have it right if you want to change the government at the general election.
As it stands, in the electorate seats, you have to vote for the labour candidate, unless you’re in Epsom, where you have to hold your nose and vote for the nat to block Smeghead.
Then you party vote the greens or labour, unless you want to risk a 50/50 toss up, when you’ll vote NZ1st.
If you wish to keep the nats, you vote blue, act, uf or Maori party or waste your vote by chosing Top or Mana.
Simple, right?
All the houses in the world can’t save France’s nastiest man from being a laughing stock…
http://normanfinkelstein.com/2017/07/11/isis-arent-the-only-barbarians/
Here’s France’s nastiest man in a less salubrious moment…
http://normanfinkelstein.com/2017/05/11/bhl-has-gotten-so-inured-to-the-cream-pies-that-it-might-be-time-to-leaven-them-with-dog-feces/
This is essentially an open letter to the media asking why is it that the media, in all its manifestations, continue to promote the party line on politics and economics. Time and time again the institutional view is presented as fact, oblivious to any possible alternative and most disturbingly, without any critical review of either what drives these views or what agenda is being promoted. In accepting these institutional positions, without question, the media is effectively abrogating their obligations as the fourth estate.
So what specifically, am I referring? Firstly the institutional view of sovereignty, that Parliament has sovereign supremacy. Given that the Treaty of Waitangi explicitly recognises and enshrines the sovereign authority of both Maori and the Queen, any legally constituted Parliament must recognise this in order to have a mandate to govern. Quite clearly, Parliament only recognises the Queen’s sovereign authority and further has conflated this sovereign authority into own juristic person. This is a flagrant rejection of the Treaty and can only be viewed as a post-colonial power grab. This position then frames all aspects of politics and society, where this self-proclaimed sovereign authority is presented as the legal authority by which the people are governed. This firmly places the Government as the masters, not the servant of the people. This is precisely why a third of the voting public have turned their backs on the political system, as no matter which party attains power, all seek to be the master, all seek to wield the whip.
The media are complicit in this post-colonial affirmation of parliamentary sovereign supremacy, none question the rejection of Maori sovereign authority, all accept, without question, that Parliament is legally constituted. This is an aberration given that Parliament’s very own court of inquiry has upheld the Treaty of Waitangi as the sovereign agreement between two peoples, an agreement that affirms the sovereign authority of each, thus as Parliament does not acknowledge its subordination to this authority, it surely has no legal mandate to govern. So why does the media continue to promote this institutional position?
If we as a nation “honour the Treaty”, we recognise the Sovereign relationship between the Māori and the Queen. In honouring the Treaty, we acknowledge the sovereign authority of Māori and in doing so, implicitly reject un-mandated, self-proclaimed Parliamentary sovereign supremacy. This immediately re-establishes the social contract between the people and the sovereign entity and in doing so demands the subordination of Parliament to the Sovereign and by extension to the people. In separating sovereign authority and governance, political intrigue is removed from the directorship of the nation as the office of Sovereign is not subject to a political process. Matters of sovereignty and principles of governance are mandated by the sovereign office, in turn directed by the obligation to effect the social contract. In effecting governance, Parliament is directed by the Sovereign. The Sovereign reigns and Parliament rules, just as it is envisaged today, however now Parliamentary rule is by the true mandate of the people, the Government truly a servant off the people.
Secondly, the economic system that underpins our national economy. This is indirectly related to the first subject, sovereignty. On the premise that whomever controls the money supply controls the economy, [happy to argue this point], quite clearly it is not the Government who does this, rather it is the banks, be they foreign or New Zealand owned. An economy is a closed system and is a measure of the goods and services in circulation. As a tool to aid efficient trade, the money in circulation, must clearly equate to the same measure of goods and services. As the value of these rise or fall, the amount of representative money must be controlled to maintain equilibrium. To ensure this happens with an eye to benefitting society, this control of the money supply must be managed by an entity that has the welfare of society at its heart. One could argue that the best entity to do this is the Government, on behalf of the Sovereign authority. Quite clearly this is not the case in New Zealand, where it is the banks who control the money supply and at the heart of their control is the monetary return to the shareholders, most certainly not the welfare of the people. In order to accrue this wealth, a debt based model is employed, where ever increasing debt is encouraged so that in its repayment, interest is accrued. This interest is wealth over and above the initial debt and can only be repaid by additional productivity, either a person’s labour or the mining of resource [timber, milk, meat, fish, water, etc]. This model is thus the principal pressure on our environment. Again, this is no secret, yet the media continue to give succour to those who promote the institutional view that economic control is the purview of the banks rather than the Government. GDP is held up as the Holy Grail, the OCR slavishly reported and the TWI determines the prosperity of the nation. Immigration, tourism and foreign investment are all metrics of growth, lauded as necessary for the prosperity of the nation.
However, any objective assessment must recognise that this economic model is damaging to society and the environment, yet the media allow commentary that explicitly promotes this as the only economic model available. There is a clear alternative, that of a sovereign reserve that creates [and destroys] money and injects the money into the economy, controlled to ensure equilibrium of the economy. There are many benefits to this model but the most important being that now economic growth is not important, rather it is equilibrium that is the driver of monetary policy. A further difference, taxation is not generally required as a means to accrue revenue, meaning that GST, PAYE, Business taxes etc. are not required. This totally changes the role of Government, now charged with delivery of public services and the administration of the state.
Finally, the health of the environment. The pressure on the environment can be managed without the dependency on the need to extract wealth to service debt. National resources, are just that – belonging to the nation, the people. The Sovereign, as the manifestation of the people’s authority, is charged with the guardianship of all the nation’s treasures, both natural and manmade, for the benefit of the nation. This identifies the true “owner” of the resources, the people. Gone are the contentious issues of seabed and foreshore, of water rights, conservation areas and customary fishing rights. As national treasures, all are managed on behalf of all the people.
Today, the indoctrinated media adhere, without question, to a framework that is predicated on a self-proclaimed, parliamentary sovereign supremacy. As a result, all commentary and discourse deals exclusively with the activities that are a result of such a system, none question the voracity of a different frame of reference, that of sovereign authority, as enshrined in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The automatic acceptance of such a framework also prevents the consideration of a sovereign economy and thus binds the state within a debt based monetary system, a system controlled by third party entities that are not motivated by economic equilibrium, rather are only motivated by the need to increase the wealth of their shareholders, at the expense of the nation’s people.