Open mike 24/03/2010

20 comments on “Open mike 24/03/2010 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Pascal's bookie 1

   24 March 2010 at 6:35 am

   Jaffas to get hit with new ACT tax.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10633963
   • Armchair Critic 1.1

     24 March 2010 at 8:20 am

     I think the tax isn’t new, it is just that the way the ATA has reorgansied the services to be provided through the new council (i.e. CCOs) means that those services attract tax now. So rates paid for council services will rise to pay more tax to central government. Which is yet another crappy thing about the reorgansiation of Auckland.
     • Armchair Critic 1.1.1

       24 March 2010 at 11:08 pm

       http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/auckland+ccos+will+not+pay+more+tax
       And having had a look, this looks like more lies from Rodney and Peter. C’mon Labour, please challenge this rubbish.
       I’ve had a quick look through the financial statements from three of the current CCOs, Watercare, Metrowater and Manukau Water. They appear to have paid an average of $2.5M, $2.0M and another $2.0M respectively, as well as deferring some pretty big amounts of tax. Bring in the equivalents from the north shore, waitakere, rodney, papakura and franklin and there is about the same amount of extra tax per year that could become payable, i.e. about $13M per year in tax from selling water. Then there are the other CCOs.
       And imagine if the new water supply company was sold to a private operator and run to maximise the return to its shareholders, rather than the current situation where the three water CCOs nominally are managed to minimise the cost to their customers. A much bigger tax take awaits when this happens, yet another reason for NACT to push its privatisation agenda. I can see the day coming where it is imperative to privatise the CCOs.
2. lprent 2

   24 March 2010 at 11:10 am

   Damn… Left my iphone at home today. That means I’m stuck behind a slow extreme firewall (no major javascript for instance)and I’m less able to do anything fast on this site…

   I’ll bug off home at lunch for the iphone and get my online status upgraded
3. rainman 3

   24 March 2010 at 12:13 pm

   From http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=172978 :

   However, former ACT MP and former beneficiary, Muriel Newman, says the rorts in the system are everywhere. She says she worked out a decade ago that about a third of people on benefits could have been working and that situation is much the same today. Dr Newman says the critics of reform forget that welfare is seductive and it saps a person’s energy and drive.

   “When people get out there and realise that the world’s their oyster and it’s up to them, then all sorts of wonderful, creative things emerge where people set up business and become entrepreneurial again.”

   She worked it out, a decade ago, and the situation is the same today? And all I have to do is get some more world-is-my-oyster-ism? Glad she cleared that up.

   Grrrrrr.
   • prism 3.1

     24 March 2010 at 1:43 pm

     The smart people look for all the opportunities and go for them. Muriel Newman wrote a book about how to earn money and add handy dollars to a low budget. She and her husband had a lifestyle block and applied to have it classified as a farm, as no doubt there would be opportunities for rates and tax juggling, better write-offs, depreciation whatever. Keep an active mind that’s the idea, try out projects, and it is good advice but not at all easy or likely to succeed in adding to your income.

     It’s hard to be smart in that way when you are a beneficiary. Get a job and your benefit’s cut, or one of the add-ons to it is cut – which tend to go down $ for each gross $ earned, then you pay tax on your dollar and so end up with less. There are transport needs, clothing and appearance needs, childcare etc which all cost and hey presto you have less time for your house and family, no time to shop around for useful second-hand clothes and shoes, and less money coming in than before you started on this work circus. And you are the clown that gets laughed at, if you are a parent you get no respect for the many and varied responsibilities you undertake.
4. marty mars 4

   24 March 2010 at 1:18 pm

   How disturbing

   “The China Jin Hui Mining Corporation – recently renamed Natural Dairy (NZ) Holdings have agreed to buy crafar New Zealand farm assets, farm land, livestock and milk powder production plants, for a reported 1.5 Billion.”

   I wonder why they changed their name?

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/3500408/Crafar-farms-sold-to-Chinese
5. freedom 5

   24 March 2010 at 1:50 pm

   supposedly 22 farms are in this new farming deal.

   just the other day i was wondering when private land sales would show up as mining pits?

   Perhaps the reason the Canterbury deals collapsed was it really wasn’t about dairy after all and they knew they couldn’t answer the questions on cows because they did not plan to have any!
6. marty mars 6

   24 March 2010 at 2:05 pm

   what does this mean

   “National’s flagship welfare reforms have been found to unfairly discriminate against 43,000 solo mums and dads.

   In a report just tabled in Parliament, Attorney-General Chris Finlayson says the reforms breach the Bill of Rights Act on three grounds by discriminating on the basis of sex and family and marital status.

   He finds the breaches cannot be justified under the Act.”

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3501044/Welfare-reforms-discriminate-Attorney-General-finds

   a stick in the spokes?
7. Olwyn 7

   24 March 2010 at 2:35 pm

   @ Marty Mars: it looks to me more like a deliberate strategy for catching those who escape work-testing under the status quo, and hence for treating widows and women alone the same as everyone else, because “that’s fair.” “Fair” for the nats, when directed at the lower orders, never means “this person should not suffer privation” but rather, “get rid of any excuse that might let anyone escape the privation we mean to visit on others.” “Well, we can’t go against human rights,” Bennett will proclaim, “so we will work-test the widows as well.” Stop off for your work seminar on the way home from the funeral.
   • Zorr 7.1

     24 March 2010 at 6:00 pm

     Olwyn, I have to disagree on this case because both Widows and Women Alone are very discriminatory based on gender. You CANNOT be a widower and recieve Widows Benefit.
     • Olwyn 7.1.1

       24 March 2010 at 8:39 pm

       These benefits almost certainly date back to when the man was commonly the family breadwinner, and the one with the developed career, in which case the woman would be more financially disadvantaged by the death or disappearance of her spouse. Things have changed in this respect, though probably not to the extent that we imagine. Women’s pay still lags behind men’s, and there are probably more stay-at-home mums than dads. That said, a widower, especially one with dependent children, should be entitled to the widow’s benefit.
   • marty mars 7.2

     24 March 2010 at 6:13 pm

     “Social Development Minister Paula Bennett says she thinks it is a discrimination that most New Zealanders will see as fair and reasonable.”

     http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2010/03/24/1247f8aea2e6

     That seems very wrong to me.
8. thiscountryhasnotgonemad 8

   24 March 2010 at 4:35 pm

   Well done supreme court !

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10634070
   • corkscrew 8.1

     24 March 2010 at 9:05 pm

     I presume you mean well done as, opposed to the Herald’s impression, this is actually a bloody nose for the SST. Thanks to Grant McVicar it is now harder for those victims like Susan Couch to gain exemplary damages for negligence than in the past.
     Before this descision ewemplary damages in negligence was available for any negligent act so long as the tortfeasor acted with a level of outrageousness that was deserving of extra-punishment by the community. Now the tortfeasor will have to actually turn its mind to the concious appretiation of harm.
     I had wondered why the Supreme Court had taken an appeal in such a hopeless case on. I can see now that it gave Justice Tipping a chance to overturn the Privy Council’s decision in Botrill v A, and in effect replace it with his own judgement he gave in that case at the Court of Appeal stage.
9. felix 9

   24 March 2010 at 11:29 pm

   What’s wrong with this picture?
   • BLiP 9.1

     24 March 2010 at 11:35 pm

     The DOC icecream concession has been removed from the beach. Pity, really, they would have made a killing from all the passing traffic.
   • Armchair Critic 9.2

     24 March 2010 at 11:44 pm

     Is it that there is no sign of surgeons, or anything remotely surgical?
     Or is it that the NACT proposal is so loose a truck could be driven through it?
   • felix 9.3

     25 March 2010 at 2:13 am

     Nah I’m serious, I think it’s a terrible picture to use. Sends exactly the wrong message.
   • felix 9.4

     25 March 2010 at 2:19 am

     (sorry for double post)

     It’s very cleverly worded but visually it’s essentially a picture of the National fantasy of mining and conservation, side by side and happy ever after.

     Really needs a rethink.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS