Open mike 26/03/2024

69 comments on “Open mike 26/03/2024 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. bwaghorn 1

   26 March 2024 at 6:46 am

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/512573/how-free-lunch-leftovers-are-helping-beyond-schools

   Do you think seymour could see that instead of cutting lunches , incourage the redistribution of left over ones.might be a good idea?
2. bwaghorn 2

   26 March 2024 at 7:04 am

   https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350225504/tova-obrien-childcare-refund-may-be-own-goal-national

   National make a pigs ear out of the purse of child care assistance, and tova trys to paper over the cracks,
   • Sanctuary 2.1

     26 March 2024 at 8:22 am

     If Tova spent half her time wondering why our entire child care sector is a massive exercise in the transfer of public funds to people like Chloe and Wayne Wright (who then fund far right culture war media outlets to ensure their nice little earner is never threatened) instead of spending all of it endlessly analysing the courtier politics of the horse race people might respect the MSM a bit more.
     • Stephen D 2.1.1

       26 March 2024 at 10:39 am

       Nationalise the whole ECE sector.
     • Visubversa 2.1.2

       26 March 2024 at 11:44 am

       It is obviously a very profitable line of business. An ex workmate of mine is making a very good living by specialising in obtaining Resource Consents for childcare centers.

       It seems to be one of the business of choices for immigrants who have the $$$ to establish a small to medium enterprise which is a step or two up from a dairy, cafe or vape shop, but not as expensive as a full scale restaurant.

       Also – getting Childcare qualifications is seen as an easy road to NZ Residency.
3. KJT 3

   26 March 2024 at 7:22 am

   Pretending to help people, while actually just subsidising extra profits for private companies. Typical. “Restricted to commercial childcare centres”.

   Just like accomadation subsidies.

   If they really wanted to help. Which they don’t. This is just “smoke and mirrors”.
   How about family members, mostly Grand parents, who have to take up the slack with child care?
   And/or funding more places over a greater age range and times, in free to parents early child hood centres, such as Kindergarten, Kohanga Reo.

   My crystal ball sees more retirement directorships for NACT MP's, to go with those from trucking firms and banks.
   • gsays 3.1

     26 March 2024 at 8:10 am

     I agree with yr comment and it speaks to the thorny issue of all the unpaid but necessary work done in society.

     Previously, it could be framed along the lines of the working parent was paid enough so child care, the home, parents and community were able to be cared for by the other parent.

     Sadly, even the notion of a 2 parent family is becoming unfashionable, let alone having decent wages and conditions for most working folk.

     The toxic, neo-liberal mindset has permeated the family where we sub contract our love to others to look after our young and our elderly.
   • Traveller 3.2

     26 March 2024 at 1:23 pm

     I don't know where the word 'commercial' came from, but if the author meant 'private, for profit' they are wrong. There is a significant portion of the ECE sector that are not private and are not for-profit. Parents of children attending these centres will also be able to access the refund, which is great news for those families.
     • KJT 3.2.1

       26 March 2024 at 2:36 pm

       It would be even better if they had fully funded access to ECE for their children.

       Such as a place in kindergarten before their child is 4, 4 1/2, Which is the norm around here.
       • Traveller 3.2.1.1

         26 March 2024 at 3:27 pm

         Depends what you mean by 'fully funded'? Do you mean 40 hours a week? Do you mean with no top up? And where is 'around here'?
         • KJT 3.2.1.1.1

           27 March 2024 at 9:18 am

           Kindergartens locally, Whangarei, don't often have enough places to take local kids before 4 or 41/2 and havn't for some time.

           I know that from enrolling Grandchildren.

           Part of the reason is the expansion in population. Auckland refugees.

           Affordable child care is non existent apart from Grand parents, or a few who provide home based child care for a couple of children.

           After school care is almost non existent.

           That, combined with the need for two earning parents puts the screws on families.
           • Traveller 3.2.1.1.1.1

             27 March 2024 at 9:47 am

             Thanks, I understand your last comment better now.

             A lot of these things are about defining terms, specifically the term 'affordable'. The Government currently fully funds up to 20 hours per week per child of ECE. Beyond that there has been a childcare subsidy available for low-income families for many years. Some providers charge fees above the current funding, but most I'm aware of are modest, particularly those from community providers. The new policy will extend that 20 hours even further, making childcare even more affordable.
4. KJT 4

   26 March 2024 at 8:18 am

   Meanwhile. Slanted questions driving responses in a curia poll about privatisation of ports of Auckland.

   Auckland port lease: Mayor holds report yet to be made public (1news.co.nz)
   “If council could deliver a much higher return, would you support the port management being leased out, or would you prefer it to continue with the status quo and lower financial returns but keep full ownership?”

   “In fact, one of the private operators we understand has offered to not only be more efficient, but to actually shrink the footprint of the port — giving Aucklanders more of their waterfront.”

   Code for cut wages and service levels and run it into the ground for short term profit. Then run away leaving public funding having to fix it,

   We all know how that works.
   • Bearded Git 4.1

     26 March 2024 at 10:29 am

     Agree entirely on this KJT….did you hear Mike Lee on Nine to Noon today at 9.10?
     • KJT 4.1.1

       26 March 2024 at 1:23 pm

       No. Don't generally listen to radio, or watch breakfast.

       Both are not good for an old fellers blood pressure. LOL
   • Obtrectator 4.2

     26 March 2024 at 11:33 am

     Rule One for drafting questions to be included in a poll: don't use hypothetical ones!
   • newsense 4.3

     26 March 2024 at 10:45 pm

     Wait we had a bunch of the usual suspects telling us that Curia would never do a thing like that! You’d think there’d be at the minimum a perception of conflict of interest given the highly political role Mr. Farrar has had.
5. Bearded Git 5

   26 March 2024 at 8:45 am

   Idiot Savant has it right today.

   https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/03/no-credibility.html

   Corin Dann destroyed Hipkins with his first question on Morning Report this week. (paraphrasing from memory here)

   "You rejected changes to the tax system 8 months ago. Why should we believe you when you say changes are appropriate now?"

   Hipkins has zero credibility on tax, and this is the central issue facing Labour. For a start this week he should have rejected a CGT (complicated, produces little revenue, parts of a CGT are already in place) and pushed for either a Land Tax or a Wealth Tax, but he is too timid to do this. Both David Parker and the Greens have a WT ready to go.

   Hipkins has to go.

   Parker should be offered the job/role of implementing a WT policy for Labour-with this he might be enticed to stay on.

   At the moment Labour is drifting to defeat in 2026. A new leader and tax policy as above would at worst mean they went down fighting.
   • KJT 5.1

     26 March 2024 at 9:06 am

     You are correct on Hopkins, and Labours, lack of credibility on introducing a fairer and more effective tax system. That taxes all income equally.

     Your comparison of taxes on unrealised gains, Vs realised capital gains is the opposite to the reality.

     Taxes on unrealised gains are an accountants dream and the publics nightmare. A whole new valuation industry will spring up, for one.

     Capital gains on realisation. Sale inheritance or transfer are quantifiable, much easier to assess and harder to dodge. TOP's and the Greens proposals on wealth tax, are unfortunately, 7 unworkable in reality. The bugbear of the "Family home" can be overcome with reasonable tax free threshold on capital gains.

     Not to forget, over 60% of the public understand and support CGT.
     • Bearded Git 5.1.1

       26 March 2024 at 9:42 am

       "over 60% of the public understand…a CGT". Yeah right.
       • KJT 5.1.1.1

         26 March 2024 at 9:50 am

         A lot more than that. Considering those that opposed it, including those who want to claim tax off their expenses in making those gains, understand it.

         It is taxes on unrealised income that is unworkable. Enough issues with rates.
         • Bearded Git 5.1.1.1.1

           26 March 2024 at 10:21 am

           You sound like one of the people who say to me in Wanaka, "ah but my house is only worth $3 million if I sell it".

           BTW I worked as a qualified accountant for over 10 years.
           • KJT 5.1.1.1.1.1

             26 March 2024 at 12:56 pm

             Well. in fact they are correct.
             • Bearded Git …

               26 March 2024 at 2:07 pm

               No they are not.
           • KJT 5.1.1.1.1.2

             26 March 2024 at 2:19 pm

             Or rent it out!
     • alwyn 5.1.2

       26 March 2024 at 10:14 am

       Are you the same KJT as the one who made this comment yesterday?

       https://thestandard.org.nz/chris-hipkins-values-matter/#comment-1993906

       There you seemed to be advocating for a wealth tax, which I would say was unworkable. Now you seem to be against them. A Damascene conversion in just a day.
       • KJT 5.1.2.1

         26 March 2024 at 12:58 pm

         Can't remember if you were one.

         But I remember RWNJ's arguing black was white in here that Capital gains is "not income". Now you are saying they are not wealth either. Which is it. Enlighten me.
         Can always rely on right wing tragics for cognitive dissonance.

         Inheritance and capital gains are effective forms of wealth tax on realisation of wealth.
         I have always been constant in saying taxes on unrealised gains are very difficult to quantify and administer.
         • alwyn 5.1.2.1.1

           26 March 2024 at 7:36 pm

           "Now you are saying"

           Rubbish. I was arguing that wealth taxes are impossible to implement.

           I wasn't arguing for or against CGT or Estate taxes yesterday. I was only talking about Wealth taxes. If you read through what I said carefully your cognitive dissonance may be diminished.
           • KJT 5.1.2.1.1.1

             27 March 2024 at 8:08 am

             I was talking about CGT and inheritance taxes that are, in effect, wealth taxes.

             “Almost all countries in Europe have Capital gains and inheritance taxes. Wealth taxes. Because they help even up the tax people pay.”

             I will rephrase it for those with low reading comprehension levels..
             Almost all European countries have some form of tax on wealth. If they don’t have a tax on unrealised wealth, they have taxes on realised wealth, such as inheritance or Capital Gains taxes.
     • mikesh 5.1.3

       26 March 2024 at 6:14 pm

       A land value tax taxes capital gains on a regular basis, without having to wait for an asset to be sold before it can be levied. Most capital gain is probably on land anyway.
       • KJT 5.1.3.1

         26 March 2024 at 6:25 pm

         Good luck getting public support for paying a tax, before you have the cash to pay it.
         • Bearded Git 5.1.3.1.1

           28 March 2024 at 2:44 pm

           Rates on a house are a type of Land Tax/Wealth Tax/Asset Tax aren't they?

           And they bear no relation at all to the income being earned by the household.
       • alwyn 5.1.3.2

         26 March 2024 at 8:27 pm

         "land value tax taxes capital gains"

         That is a silly comment. A land value tax is a tax on the ownership of land. It is charged whether the land value rises or falls. It isn't a Capital Gains Tax at all. No gains are required before it becomes due.

         The Orchardists in Pakowhai would have to pay it this year even though their land is worth less than it was before the cyclone hit them. As long as the land has any value at all they would have to pay it, even though it may be unproductive for years.
         • mikesh 5.1.3.2.1

           26 March 2024 at 10:12 pm

           That is a silly comment. A land value tax is a tax on the ownership of land. It is charged whether the land value rises or falls. It isn't a Capital Gains Tax at all. No gains are required before it becomes due.

           Quite so. It is a tax on land. It incorporates a tax on capital gain only when such a gain occurs. I would envisage that the underlying tax on the land would be offset by an adjustment to income tax rates; such an arrangement would merely represent a shift in the tax base.

           The Orchardists in Pakowhai would have to pay it this year even though their land is worth less than it was before the cyclone hit them. As long as the land has any value at all they would have to pay it, even though it may be unproductive for years.

           In that case it would probably be worth zero dollars – who would want to buy it – and no tax would be payable.
           • KJT 5.1.3.2.1.1

             27 March 2024 at 8:28 am

             Land revaluations every six months?

             I suppose that will result in lots more employment. For valuers and accountants?
             • mikesh …

               27 March 2024 at 1:04 pm

               I think, though of course I could be wrong, that land is revalued every three years, and the valuations that the IRD would work with are made by an organization called Quotable Value, not by miscellaneous "valuers and accountants".
       • Nic the NZer 5.1.3.3

         26 March 2024 at 11:44 pm

         This land value tax sounds like rates. The problem with this is often the arguments for a LVT are that LVT's have some economic effects to discourage unproductive land use. But if that is the case we have had rates for long enough to see those effects already, because a tax by another name is still a tax and should have the same impacts even if it's named something different.

         The relationship between the bright-line test and a CGT is similar as CGT's are typically described as fixing the residential property market where the bright-line test already applies.

         So its my understanding that these tax proposals are not going to rebalance the economy in any particular manner, though they might be used to broaden the tax base.
     • Michael P 5.1.4

       26 March 2024 at 7:29 pm

       100% Bearded Git

       Labour had 6 years in office, 3 of which they held a governing majority which would have enabled them to push through any reforms/changes to the tax system they wanted to.

       Ardern and Hipkins as Prime Ministers both categorically ruled out any form of wealth tax or any major reforms to make the tax system fairer, despite their own commissioned report detailing how the very wealthy pay such a small amount of tax and despite polls suggesting a large majority of Kiwis, (including some of the wealthy) would support wealth taxes.

       This from a party that is supposed to be the champion of the poor and the working class.

       If you were conspiracy minded it might even make you question who is really calling the shots in regards to government economic / tax, etc policy …. It did seem a bit strange to me that both of them came out with such public "definitely not" statements. Is it possible they had beem told "no wealth tax or else?" (cue spooky twilight zone music…)
     • Michael P 5.1.5

       26 March 2024 at 7:46 pm

       A wealth tax isn't a tax on 'unrealised gains' (or what some might call estimated potential profit) , it's a tax on wealth, which is largely quantifiable. IRD when it wants to (and when it has the resources) is actually pretty good at tracking down and detailing all sorts of financial info.

       What do you classify as 'the family home'?

       If a person owns a residential property then that is wealth (that mostly increases in value all by itself) and should at least be included in any discussion regarding wealth taxes IMO.

       It would be up to the powers that be as to what thresholds and so on would be in place as to what amount of wealth decides inclusion for a wealth tax.

       For many people right now, home ownership is something enjoyed by the 'wealthy'. If we just keep carrying on and tinkering and never really implementing any radical change then the only path we are heading down is that where in the future only the 'very wealthy' will own property. Home ownership rates have been on a steep and steady decline over the last 4 decades. That isn't going to somehow miraculously level out or heaven forbid go back up without massive intervention in various ways. So less and less people will own more and more property until…
     • Obtrectator 5.1.6

       26 March 2024 at 11:22 pm

       “Taxes on unrealised gains are an accountants dream and the publics nightmare.”

       Taxes on unrealised capital gains were tried in the UK nearly 60 years ago, via an outfit known as the Land Commission. It was a fiasco. The way it was set up. people were having to pay a "betterment levy" on home improvements. To everyone's relief the LC was abolished after 1970 by the incoming Edward Heath administration.
   • Phillip ure 5.2

     26 March 2024 at 9:46 am

     Wot b.g. said..(long comment..)
   • weka 5.3

     26 March 2024 at 10:27 am

     who do you think should replace Hipkins?
     • Rose 5.3.1

       26 March 2024 at 10:31 am

       Same question I asked not 48 hours ago.

       will you threaten to ban yourself too?
       • weka 5.3.1.1

         26 March 2024 at 10:59 am

         and? I didn’t give you a mod warning for asking that question. If you need me to explain why you are on the mod radar please let me know.
     • Phillip ure 5.3.2

       26 March 2024 at 11:15 am

       Parker…

       .. enough with the chippy..

       ..time for some serious..
       • tc 5.3.2.1

         26 March 2024 at 1:19 pm

         +100. experience and credibility needed to restore some confidence and inspire.
         • AB 5.3.2.1.1

           26 March 2024 at 1:44 pm

           Plus he is nearer the end of his career than the start. So if it goes to custard, the party is not burning off emerging talent before its time.
           • Bearded Git 5.3.2.1.1.1

             26 March 2024 at 2:09 pm

             Plus Parker would out-debate Luxon with ease….having said that my laundry basket would….
             • Robert Guyton …

               26 March 2024 at 4:46 pm

               No one can out-debate Luxon – he doesn't engage, he obfuscates. He's been trained. Have you not watched "The House"?
       • Michael P 5.3.2.2

         26 March 2024 at 7:53 pm

         I'd prefer Parker to be Finance Minister (shadow), he's obviously committed to trying to make the tax system fair(er)

         For me, nobody is really standing out as an obvious leader at the moment. In my opinion to start with it needs to be someone at least a bit more 'gruff' and a bit less academic, nice and smiley. That probably doesn't make sense but I know what I mean lol.
         • UncookedSelachimorpha 5.3.2.2.1

           27 March 2024 at 1:12 am

           Yep, support and encourage Parker to do the job he wants to do, and we need him to do – he doesn't need the distracting hassle of also being the leader.
         • KJT 5.3.2.2.2

           27 March 2024 at 8:37 am

           Where is Piggy when we need him. LOL.
   • mikesh 5.4

     26 March 2024 at 6:02 pm

     "You rejected changes to the tax system 8 months ago. Why should we believe you when you say changes are appropriate now?"

     Hipkins should reply: When you ask questions like that, why should I not consider you a moron?
     • KJT 5.4.1

       26 March 2024 at 6:29 pm

       Labour, including Hipkins, said tax changes were needed six years ago.

       Then when it came to the crunch, they rejected most of the tax working groups recommendations.

       What makes you think Labour won't do their usual trick of baulking at the jump, at any serious changes.
     • Michael P 5.4.2

       26 March 2024 at 7:08 pm

       Seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me. Instead of your suggestion maybe he should just give an honest answer. People tend to appreciate honesty.

       Please explain why you believe it's a moronic question before calling me a moron. (Am happy to be convinced and change my mind)
       • mikesh 5.4.2.1

         26 March 2024 at 10:24 pm

         It was a silly question. Whether it is believed or not is not for Hipkins to say. It is really up to NoRightTurn, Bearded Git, or, indeed, the general public, to decide whether to believe him. It was essentially a "gotcha" question aimed at Hipkin's captain's call.

         What did they really want ? A letter of guarantee signed i blood ?
   • Michael P 5.5

     26 March 2024 at 7:03 pm

     100% Bearded Git

     Labour had 6 years in office, 3 of which they held a governing majority which would have enabled them to push through any reforms/changes to the tax system they wanted to.

     Ardern and Hipkins as Prime Ministers both categorically ruled out any form of wealth tax or any major reforms to make the tax system fairer, despite their own commissioned report detailing how the very wealthy pay such a small amount of tax and despite polls suggesting a large majority of Kiwis, (including some of the wealthy) would support wealth taxes.

     This from a party that is supposed to be the champion of the poor and the working class.

     If you were conspiracy minded it might even make you question who is really calling the shots in regards to government economic / tax, etc policy …. It did seem a bit strange to me that both of them came out with such public "definitely not" statements. Is it possible they had beem told "no wealth tax or else?" (cue spooky twilight zone music…)
6. SPC 6

   26 March 2024 at 9:28 am

   A journalist explains there is not enough working capital in the Auckland transport system budgets.

   Not enough of such funding for system connectivity, this can be worse than not just enough money for maintenance of the existing roads.

   https://archive.li/FCH3R
7. Progressive Kiwi 7

   26 March 2024 at 10:11 am

   I cannot find a list of the main community groups in Auckland.

   Does anybody know?
   • weka 7.1

     26 March 2024 at 10:41 am

     I think google and using multiple lists is the way to go now.
8. weka 8

   26 March 2024 at 10:36 am

   Reposting from DR last night.

   Good lord, did Hipkins just do a reverse ferret on Let Women Speak?

   "we should, in a country like New Zealand, be able to disagree with each other, be able to have debates, including around radical feminism, without throwing things, spitting things, and all that kind of stuff"

   starts at 6m 36s

   https://twitter.com/theplatform_nz/status/1772028116715622682

   I'm guessing he doesn't understand the difference between a radical feminist and a centrist/conservative GC, which makes me think his advisors are also still not doing their job properly.

   It's a useful reversal generally. He's turned around, now let's see if he can head in the right direction.
   • Visubversa 8.1

     26 March 2024 at 12:46 pm

     As far as I can see – people who are described as "gender critical" come in all shapes and sizes and all across the political spectrum. Most of the ones I know have been active in left wing politics for most of their adult lives. They vote Labour or Green, and like me have never voted National. Many are Lesbian, and see clearly the homophobia of Gender Ideology which denies even the existence of same sex attraction.

     We hear more about it from the right wing media – many of whom already oppose Gay rights, and are happy to use the excesses of the more extreme end of "Trans Rights Activists" to justify discrimination against what they call the "LGBTQI++++ Community" as if we were all one and the same.
9. Anne 9

   26 March 2024 at 10:45 am

   In the wake of the Chinese cyber attack on the UK, USA and Australia, Judith Collins has released information on a cyber attack by Chinese actors on NZ.

   I smell a bit of a distraction tactic going on here.

   Collins has fronted up to a live press conference on the matter followed by Luxon:

   https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/new-zealand-parliament-systems-targeted-by-china-based-hackers/RNUEMYIZFBAILLCOJ7QMIUZJ5Y/

   Both have alluded to a previous attack in 2021 when Andrew Little was the minister in charge of the GCSB and my impression: they tried to belittle the previous govt.’s response which, as far as I can recall, was exactly the same as theirs.

   https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new-zealand-condemns-malicious-cyber-activity-chinese-state-sponsored-actors
10. Joe90 10

    26 March 2024 at 3:26 pm

    Limiting the uptake to those with the readies to cover three months worth of fees and the ability to deal with the bureaucracy.

    Pricks.

    /

    "Being able to afford ECE fees can also be a barrier to entering the workforce, particularly for the second earner in a household. FamilyBoost will make it easier and more worthwhile for families with young children to work by directly assisting them to pay those ECE fees."

    She said parents and caregivers will be able to submit their ECE invoices every three months through the myIR service and get their FamilyBoost rebate refunded as a lump sum. As payments will be made every three months, those getting the full amount will get $975 every three months.

    "Parents should start collecting invoices from 1 July, so they can begin to apply and be refunded from October 2024," Willis said.

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/03/government-confirms-childcare-tax-rebate-move-some-families-to-receive-up-to-75-per-week.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
    • Michael P 10.1

      26 March 2024 at 7:24 pm

      "Limiting the uptake to those with the readies to cover three months worth of fees and the ability to deal with the bureaucracy."

      To be fair I'm pretty sure the government wanted IRD to pay the cash directly to those eligible on a fortnightly basis? Also to make it so those parents didn't need to 'claim' the cash but just received it. IRD said too complicated / expensive to implement straight away so maybe in a few years.

      I'm nowhere near a fan of Wills / Luxon or this government but surely any cash, however it's given, going back to families who need it is a good thing?

      IMO Politically the smart thing to do with announcements such as this is to try and allow them as little air time as possible. In other words acknowledge if you have to (better to say nothing unless you have to because a journalist asked the question) and move on as quickly as possible.
      • joe90 10.1.1

        26 March 2024 at 8:11 pm

        going back to families who need it is a good thing?

        And the hundreds of thousands living payday to payday who won't have the readies?
    • AB 10.2

      26 March 2024 at 10:15 pm

      And if you have the readies, you are likely to be on a higher income, which means the payment is abated and it may not be worth the effort to claim. In any case, we shall see what the uptake is.

      The whole thing appears to me like a parody of the idiotic fetish for targeting.
11. joe90 11

    26 March 2024 at 5:27 pm

    Help help me Viktor.

    @jacknicas

    NEW: Jair Bolsonaro spent two nights at the Hungarian Embassy in Brazil, just after police confiscated his passport as part of a criminal investigation. We obtained security-camera footage that shows the president's apparent bid for asylum. Full story: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/25/world/americas/jair-bolsonaro-hungary-video.html?unlocked_article_code=1.fU0.3tu-.7S0vuUOdJ3UG

    https://twitter.com/jacknicas/status/1772302823985651994
12. newsense 12

    26 March 2024 at 10:52 pm

    Imagine you worked hard to distress disabled folk and their carers and couldn’t even get into the top 5 worst ministers in this government.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350226548/cabinet-puts-disabilities-ministry-watch-after-families-blindsided

    The ironies of Willis and Luxon putting other people on notice for their performance! And then consider how absolutely ground breakingly bad someone would have to be for that to happen…

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS