Which one’s true, Bill?

13 comments on “Which one’s true, Bill? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. r0b 1

   6 August 2009 at 2:43 pm

   Curiouser and curiouser!

   And I’ve lost track in the avalanche, but what has happened with the apparently incomplete register of pecuniary interests again?
2. cocamc 2

   6 August 2009 at 3:02 pm

   John
   The companies act states A reference in this Act to an address means,—
   (a) In relation to an individual, the full address of the place
   where that person usually lives

   Lots of people have lots of residences. Bill English wouldn’t be the first.
   • Tigger 2.1

     6 August 2009 at 4:35 pm

     ‘the place where that person usually lives’ = one address, not ‘lots of residences’.
     • cocamc 2.1.1

       6 August 2009 at 5:01 pm

       Tigger I know that. John is trying to link the address Bill used to a breach of the Companies Act and it doesn’t read that way.
3. ben 3

   6 August 2009 at 3:02 pm

   John, you forgot to mention Bill’s Wellington address in your post. Without that full context nothing else makes sense.
   • vidiot 3.1

     6 August 2009 at 4:16 pm

     Which one ? The Companies office URL in the post shows 2 different Wellington addresses for service.
4. Policy Parrot 4

   6 August 2009 at 5:29 pm

   I wonder if English paid the gift duty tax, for transfering ownership of his Wellington residence to the trust controlled by his wife. Any transfers exceeding $27,000 in a single financial year attracts gift duty.

   Only charitable trusts registered with the Charities Commission are exempt from this type of treatment.
5. sausage fingers 5

   6 August 2009 at 5:31 pm

   PP, no need for the “gotcha” tone. He seems pretty well advised. I think you’ll find he did what everyone else does in this situation and transfers it and takes a debt back for the purchase price forgiving $27k each year until the debt is forgiven. It’s pretty standard stuff.
6. Ron 6

   6 August 2009 at 6:50 pm

   “Pretty well advised”??! hahahahahahahahahaha
   Let’s see….is this how the advice went…..?
   “Ok, Bill, just tell them you’re entitled” “Oh, tell them you’re entitled because you want to keep your family together” “Oh, tell them it’s a tough job being a Minister and……………. you’re entitled”
   “Hong on…no, no….tell them you can see how it looks so you’ll a little bit back”
   “Try to spot one point so you don’t get dizzy spinning around”
7. Rich 7

   7 August 2009 at 2:32 am

   One may have several houses, but one can only “usually live” in one of them.

   The choice of which might be a matter of appreciation, but one is obliged to provide an honest answer, and not reference your grannies house in Hamilton if you only stay there at Christmas. Equally, an MP is expected to give Parliamentary Services an honest answer for his main residence, and it’s hard to see how these could differ from the answer for other purposes.
8. sukie damson 8

   7 August 2009 at 9:05 pm

   so let me get this striaght,

   Bill English + Financial minutae x honesty = fraud. Authorised by John Key. QED.
9. RedLogix 9

   7 August 2009 at 10:15 pm

   Now almost buried under all of the spin and misdirection from Key and English is one plain fact.

   The taxpayer was funding Mr English’s mortgage on a private home whose real ownership he tried to hide in his wife’s trust.

   There can be no objection to public funds being used to properly and decently house MP’s and Ministers while they reside in Wellington. The ideal solution (and one that USED to be the case for decades) would be for Parliamententary Services to own a number of appropriate homes and appartments in the city. Yes it would cost public money to purchase and maintain the homes, but they would remain public assets. Over time the actual cash flow would reduce to maintenance, insurance and rates… a sum far less than the many thousands per week being shelled out at present.

   I can understand why we pay Minister’s well, I can understand that we reimburse them for expenses incurred in the course of their work, I can accept the allowances for travel and so on, but ask yourself… how many employers also buy their employees a house and let them keep it as well?

   There is no question that someone has cooked the rules to allow Mr English to get away with this rort. Yes he ‘broke no rules’, that’s only because someone re-wrote them for him. Potentially if this scam had not been uncovered, if say he had remained Minister of Finance for two term’s he would have received almost $300, 000 from the taxpayer towards paying off a house. At the end of his political career he gets to determine whether he keeps, sells or rents that property, entirely for his own family trust’s benefit.

   This wasn’t a small beer scam.
10. outofbed 10

    7 August 2009 at 11:07 pm

    Red you have hit the nail on the head
    We pay, he gets to keep the property, the capital gains everything
    it is a F%$!g disgrace
    Its also the arrogance about it that gets my goat
    He doesn’t think it is wrong
    I can imagine the thinking ” I work hard pay lots of taxes I am going to get some of it back”
    Put the house in the wife’s name
    and with tax cuts for the rich ,that should recoup $1500 per week

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS