rdytdy 5,343 Report post Posted March 2, 2019 Examples of Coalition government’s ‘Fairness’ by Guest Post Bob and Jim By Owen Jennings Brothers Bob and Jim are left $25,000 in their parents’ will. Bob goes on holiday, spending his inheritance offshore to no one’s benefit but his own. Jim starts a business, employs staff and pays them well, grows the business into a medium-sized company, donates to local causes, pays company tax every year and then decides to sell. Capital gains taxes take a third of his proceeds. Yep, that sounds fair. Spend it – don’t invest it. Pam & Jean Pam and Jean both work in a professional office in the city. They earn above-average salaries and both pay tax on their income. Pam enjoys the good life, parties most weekends and rarely has any accumulated surplus. Jean lives comfortably and is a good saver. She buys her own apartment and then buys a house in the suburbs because her parents needed rental accommodation. Her parents pass away and Jean sells the house to a young couple seeking a first home. She loses a third of the proceeds to the government. Yep, that’s really fair. Live it up and forget about helping your family. Jack is a bit of an inventor. He spends hours trying to perfect an idea that will improve wheelchairs for the disabled. He needs capital to launch the idea. His uncle is well off and invests in the deal for 60% of the shares. The business is a success, sales take off all around the world and profits soar. A large international company buys them out but Jack and his uncle get hit with capital gains tax. A third of their reward from the ingenuity and hard work building the business goes into the government coffers for the likes of cabinet ministers to buy themselves votes at the next election. Yep, you gotta say that’s fair. Don’t bother being an entrepreneur – the state doesn’t want innovation any more. Mary and Alan are sharemilkers. They work long hours and save hard. They own a couple of herds and keep expanding. Then later they buy a farm. They are smart. They set aside some wetland and native bush into a covenant for the good of the community. They plant up the stream through the property with manuka to stop leaching and provide honey for sale. They use natural fertilisers and win awards for good practice. The farm grows in value through their efforts and desire to do the right thing. Then Alan has a motorbike accident. They are forced to sell the farm to help with Alan’s health issues. The government helps themselves to a third of the sale’s proceeds. Yep, that sounds pretty fair? Forget hard work and trying to be a leader in your profession – the government will whack you. Terry started saving when he was at school. With help from his family, he bought his first rental home at age 18. He was very careful with his money, understood leveraging and set about building a strong relationship with his bank. At age 22 he bought his second rental unit, moved in for a few weeks and did it up, renting it out to a needy but reliable solo mum. By age 30 he had six rentals. He was a hands-on landlord, priding himself on having the best tenants and looking after them well. When he hit 40 he had doubled his holdings and paid down a heap of debt. He prided himself that although his tenants all had issues that meant renting was their only option he was committed to helping them. Single men with a strong asset portfolio don’t stay single forever. Terry married a horse loving woman and they decided to shift to the country. Selling his rentals was the obvious way to go but he was shocked to find a third of his carefully built savings went straight to the state. Yep, Jacinda, that is really fair isn’t it. Doesn’t even deserve a conversation. Just label all landlords as “rich pricks”. The nub of the problem is the socialist’s notion of fairness. There is a whale of difference between fairness and equity. Any government’s primary role is to enable its people the maximum opportunity to pursue their own happiness and well being. It is not the state’s role or the elected representative’s business to impose its own interpretation of happiness and wellbeing on its people. Socialists want everyone to finish life’s race at the tape together – that is their definition of “fairness”. To do so requires penalising the ambitious, the entrepreneurs, the creators, the innovators, holding them back by taxes and regulations so the slowest and least motivated can maintain the pace. It is more equitable for all – go getters and the least privileged – if the state focuses on everyone having equal opportunity to start the race. Its equality of opportunity not equality of outcome that produces the most happiness for the greatest number. Fairness occurs because the fastest pull the slowest along, even without trying – something a socialist can never get their mind around. Sadly, “fairness” is the smokescreen. It is projected as a panacea for all economic and social ills. James Shaw, whose understanding of basic economics is embarrassingly absent, proposes that CGT will fix all the Coalition’s problems. Such inane puerility should be ignored. The smokescreen is used to cover the expanding tax grab, the lust for more revenue and the overwhelming fire of envy that consumes the left. A reasonable government would begin its management by seeking ways to reduce expenditure, clear debt and lower taxes, not hunt for new and suspect ways to raise new taxes. Maybe Cullen, in his haste to attack “rich pricks”, has done us a favour by overkill. We are now in Winston’s quixotic hands. Will he simply water down Cullen’s viciousness and claim himself the king of compromise leaving us a tangled web of regulations and exemptions at a lower rate or does he have a remaining vestige of courage and common sense to kick the whole devastating package into touch? Now that would be “fair”, yep, really “fair”. Postscript: The examples used are based on real life situations known to the author with fictitious names and predicted outcomes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdytdy 5,343 Report post Posted March 2, 2019 Jacinda’s vast business experience by Christie Photoshopped image credit: Rick H You may remember that, while discussing CGT, Jacinda implied to Mike Hosking that she had some considerable business experience, including running an NGO. This was news to most of us, who had believed that she had never worked outside of the public sector, except for a few after-school jobs. A reader on Kiwiblog decided to find out and made an OIA request. Here is the result. quote. The Prime Minister on Mike Hosking’s show said: “Again, well again I would speak to my… you know, to my own experience. Yes, I haven’t been an owner/operator I have um… I have run a small NGO, um… I have worked in small businesses and I have been a small business spokesperson, I even worked in a small business in the UK.” One of my readers sent the following OIA to the PM’s Office: 1. What was the business you have claimed to run that was not an NGO? 2. What were the small businesses you worked in? 3. What was the business you were a spokesperson for? 4. What was the small business you worked in while in the UK? end quote. All perfectly reasonable questions. I would have thought that, if Jacinda really did have some real business experience, we would already know about it. Perhaps we have all missed something important? It seems not. quote. The response has to be seen to be believed: 1. The Prime Minister was the President of international political youth organisation IUSY. So yes the Prime Minister told Mike Hosking she understood small business due to her having been the president of the International Union of Socialist Youth!!! end quote. Yes. That, unfortunately, is what we thought she might have meant. Nothing new there then. quote. 2. The small businesses the Prime Minister worked at were a fish and chip shop in Morrinsville and a gift shop. She has also worked at a supermarket. Oh dear. Your experience in small business is limited to your after-school jobs 20 years ago. end quote. After-school jobs count as small business experience? She was not managing the cash, paying the wages, working out how to pay the bills, coping with purchase orders and with staff who didn’t turn up for work, paying the GST… she just served fish and chips to customers. quote. 3. The Prime Minister was referring to the fact that in Opposition she was Labour’s spokesperson for Small Business from 2014-2017. A spokesperson for small business who has never worked in one, apart from after school jobs. end quote. Being a spokesperson for small business is not being a small business owner. She has no idea what it is like being a small business owner. quote. 4. In the UK the Prime Minister was an assistant director in the Department for Business and Enterprise which involved working with small businesses. With respect, working for our equivalent of MBIE is not the same as actual business experience. Kiwiblog end quote. No. It is just a public sector role. One of the criticisms we often have about civil servants is that they have no relevant business experience. We are always saying this about IRD staff. Jacinda is a career politician and, while I prefer politicians who have had a bit of world experience, she is certainly not the first. Helen Clark was a career politician too, and had a very successful career. What is totally wrong here is her trying to make herself out to be something that she is not. She does not have business experience in any shape or form. Being the president of an international youth organisation doesn’t count for anything, nor does serving fish and chips, or stacking shelves in a supermarket. It is an insult to those who lie awake at night wondering how to pay the bills or deal with difficult staff issues to imply anything else. If Jacinda really thinks, with a CV like that, that she has business experience, then I don’t know what to say. All it does is to demonstrate that she really has no idea about anything at all. But we know that already. Trump and Midget 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdytdy 5,343 Report post Posted March 2, 2019 In its ‘year of delivery,’ the government can’t get its story straight. by Suze Stacey Kirk writing for Stuff is suspicious about this government’s ability to deliver on its promises. We could also ask if they will ever reach a consensus on their stories. Quote. This is the so-called “year of delivery”. And with that, surely, comes the expectation that the Government has developed a position or plan to deliver on its promises. But a flurry of announcements, some made when they shouldn’t have been and some buried when they should probably have been declaimed in bold to the sound of ringing sirens, has done little to deliver the sense that there’s a plan. There’s been a string of issues that have flown mostly under the radar in the past couple of weeks – relatively minor in isolation, but together they paint a picture of artful dodging.” End of quote. Let’s take a look at Shane Jones’ Provincial Growth Fund which Kirk discusses. Quote. It emerged on Thursday that the Treasury advised Jones against giving a $10 million loan to private firm Westland Milk, on the basis the company couldn’t get a bank loan and thus the Government ran the risk of looking like a “lender of last resort”. Stuff They [unanswered questions] were only added to, this week, when Jones was asked to justify the Government’s reasons for pressing ahead with a loan that the Treasury had effectively branded a shonky deal. (Unsurprisingly, there was no Government fanfare to accompany this announcement.) End of quote. Spending taxpayer money badly is never a good look but disregarding Treasury advice is pretty stupid too. But wait, there’s more. Quote. The number of jobs bandied about at the time was 10 and, although there’s an escape clause if the company’s ownership structure was to change, it emerged a little more than a month later that Westland Milk had entered discussions to be sold in part, or wholly, to a Canadian company. What of due diligence, when there are regions to save and the chance to look good while doing it.” End of quote. We are already apprehensive about Ardern’s “well-being” budget given her socialist tendencies combined with her lack of aptitude to be able to quote actual costs when asked. Quote. We know from Ardern touting it on the international stage that every cent will somehow be run through a filter to show how it contributes to “intergenerational wellbeing”. What we don’t know is how that applies to things like intelligence and security spending, or the important but completely unvirtuous funding of an unaccountable slush fund that doles money out to struggling private businesses. Even if the Government manages to tell an effective story to explain how it works, it’ll have a job on its hands explaining how it all adds up to help any single struggling family.” End of quote. This government says it will attribute a monetary value to pretty much everything in weighing up its “wellness budget”. Exactly how they will do this is not known. Quote. The fact that befriending a neighbour appears to hold more value than curing diabetes appears ripe for mischievous exploitation from the Opposition. The argument that it’s merely an “accounting function” didn’t count for much when Labour was feigning outrage over the last government’s use of the term “liability” to describe the total welfare bill on the state.” End of quote. Wouldn’t you think health would be at the top of the “well-being” budget spend? Quote. About the time the Tax Working Group was dropping its CGT-shaped bomb on the completely suspecting country was the time Health Minister David Clark chose to reveal that every single district health board had finally made it into the red – a $200m national deficit. This, after months of ministry blocking and refusal to release the numbers that used to be made public on a quarterly basis. With his release was the assurance that the proactive minister had put them all “on notice” and an attached letter he’d sent, to DHB chief executives, expecting them to prioritise saving a non-specified amount, in non-specified areas. Oh, and he was most displeased that services were also slipping for specialist waiting times, elective surgical waiting times, and those for radiology or cancer services. Most displeased indeed.” End of quote. The final example Kirk commented on is Whanau Ora, supposedly a success story but who would know? Quote. Journalists expecting the report had expected a press conference and possibly even the release of embargoed copies – a common practice that allows detailed stories to be done justice in their first iteration. But no such forward planning was allowed. Puzzling, until it’s considered that Whanau Ora doing well goes against NZ First’s principles of “one law for all”, and even against some elements of the Labour Party’s own views of universality. So when the Government ordered a review into the flagship Māori development funding model under the last government, everyone held their breath that it was the beginning of the end. It may well still be. Except that the review which came back called for nothing really, except more resourcing of a policy programme it said was making a real difference to individual families.” End of quote. When will this nonsense and confusion end? Roll on 2020 and the next election. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdytdy 5,343 Report post Posted March 3, 2019 CGT is not an attack on the Kiwi way of life… by Christie Kiwis are an aspirational lot… well, most are. Some like to sit back, do as little as possible and expect wealthy New Zealanders to pick up the tab. The expectation that ‘the rich’ will pay most of the tax is a very real one, but the problem is that New Zealand does not have a large number of really wealthy people. Far and away, the bulk of the tax burden is borne by middle New Zealand, mostly people who earn less than $100,000 a year. Worse than that, really wealthy people have the means to be able to restructure their affairs to pay as little tax as possible. Think of activists like Bono, from U2, who preaches to the world about poverty and inclusiveness, but moved his own band to take up tax residency in the Netherlands because it pays less tax there. As we already know, activists are the biggest hypocrites of all. Damien Grant writes at Stuff, that far from being an attack on the Kiwi way of life, Capital Gains Tax is part of the Kiwi way of life. By this, he means that we have a habit of knocking down those that work hard, do well and end up having more assets than the rest of us. You know what? I think he has a point. quote. Simon Bridges is wrong. A Capital Gains Tax isn’t an attack on the Kiwi way of life. It is entirely consistent with it. The one thing we love to do is live at the expense of others and this avarice, self-interest and hunger for the wealth of our betters is being pandered to by our prime minister. Only four percent of taxpayers will be impacted after ten years, she helpfully points out. Not her voters, in other words. end quote. The prime minister is wrong about that. All holders of Kiwisaver accounts will pay CGT on an annual basis, and that is a lot more than 4% of taxpayers. The problem is that many people simply will not realise it until it is too late. quote. National is also on a losing battle because, once the dust settles, even most of their voters will realise that once you take out the family home few will have significant assets to be captured by a capital gains tax. end quote. I disagree again, because lifestyle blocks and houses with rooms rented out or those used as a home office will not be exempted. Many family homes will be caught in the tax net. quote. The fact that such a small minority will be forced to surrender up to $8 billion over the next five years puts paid to the lie that this is about fairness. It isn’t. It is a straight-out grab for the assets of a small minority in order to fuel the demands of the many. end quote. Again, I need to point out that many not so well off New Zealanders will pay CGT. This is most certainly not the domain of the rich alone. quote. In order to take someone’s assets you first need an inventory of who owns what. This will be done by means of a ‘Valuation Day’, a voluntary self-audit of all assets owned. This may seem benign. It isn’t. We are being required to value our assets in the currency issued by the state. A currency that is consistently devalued, through inflation, by two percent per annum, and is subject to additional precipitous devaluation should the whims of the sovereign demand it. A third of the nominal increase in those assets will be forfeit to the state upon realisation. This isn’t a recent phenomenon. In 1085 the English monarch known as William the Conqueror commissioned what became known as the Domesday Book. This detailed all moveable and immovable assets, down to the last chicken, in his kingdom. It formed the basis of an extensive taxation regime. Close to a thousand years later, in a successor state to a realm still under his descendants’ reign, we are to repeat this pernicious exercise. All in the name of fairness. To further insulate those who, despite a cradle-to-grave welfare state, where every permutation of inadequacy is pandered to, still cannot seem to manage the basics. end quote. Fair comment. This attitude that ‘the rich’ should pay for everything is endemic in our psyche. I wonder how many people will be happy when they realise that their Kiwisaver accounts are being hit by CGT as well. quote. This government is whipping up the public into a baying mob demanding that assets, accumulated over a lifetime of toil, are stripped from the productive few to fuel our insatiable appetites. This isn’t the politics of kindness. It is the politics of envy, of greed, of pettiness. It is, tragically, the very heart of the Kiwi way of life. stuff. end quote. Well said, Damien… and it is our very own Fairy Princess who is playing Robin Hood here, taking money from middle New Zealand and giving it to people who could do better for themselves… but just never will. What exactly is fair about that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack 431 Report post Posted March 4, 2019 $3.7m in travel and annuities paid out to former Prime Ministers, Governors-General and spouses over past five years LUKE APPLEBY 1 NEWS NOW REPORTER MON, MAR 4 More than $3.7 million in travel perks and annuities has been paid out to former Prime Ministers, Governors-General and their surviving spouses over the past five years. Latest Department of Internal Affairs figures, obtained under the Official Information Act, show full details of the payments made to sixteen people claiming their entitlements under the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Act. Under the Act, former Prime Ministers and Governors-General receive a yearly payment after they leave office, called an annuity, as well as taxpayer-funded travel, public transport, and a new taxpayer-funded car every 60,000km. The perk extends to the surviving spouses of the former PMs and GGs, and there are currently four people claiming the spouse annuity - Lady Norma Beattie, Lady Beverley Reeves, Lady Glen Elna Rowling (Bill Rowling's widow) and Margaret Pope (David Lange's widow). The Department of Internal Affairs would only release the latest figures after they had consulted with those receiving the entitlements. To view a larger version of the the chart below, click here. A spreadsheet showing total annuity and transport privilege payments made to former Governors-General, Prime Ministers and their surviving spouses between 2013-2018. Source: 1 NEWS A total of $834,977 was claimed in the 2017/18 year, made up of $173,804 in transport and $661,173 in annuity payments. The figures show Sir John Key has begun claiming his yearly annuity, collecting $51,964 in the 2017-18 year, as well as a pro-rata payment of $10,792 the year before. He has also claimed about $11,000 in travel for each of the past two years. Former New Zealand Prime Minister Sir Bill English. Source: Luke Appleby/1 NEWS NOW Sir Bill English claimed $5,764 in travel costs for the 2017-18 year - but is not entitled to a life-long yearly annuity. The yearly annuity is only paid to former PMs or surviving spouses who held office for more than two years, meaning four of those receiving perks are not eligible, including Sir Bill. A change to the travel perks legislation in 2017 made it so Prime Ministers - from Bill English onwards - are required to prove their travel costs are related to their former role - but for those who held office before 2014, no such justification is needed. Former Governor-General Dame Sylvia Cartwright spent the most on travel last year at $20,315, while Sir Anand Satyanand was next with $12,479. Of the former PMs, Jim Bolger spent the most on travel last year, with $27,610, followed by Jenny Shipley with a spend of $18,547, Geoffrey Palmer on $17,469 and Helen Clark on $13,607. The 2017/18 total is up 3.9 per cent on the 2016/17 total of $803,436, and a total of $3,727,393 has been paid out to all parties over the past five years. The annuities paid out are generally increased each year in the Parliamentary Annuities Determination and the maximum claimable yearly annuity has increased by 8.6 per cent over the past five years for Prime Ministers and surviving spouses, while for former Governors General and spouses, the increase has been 10.2 per cent. News tip or more information? Email Luke Appleby or Taxpayers funding past leaders present-day perks Play Video02:32 Former Prime Ministers and Governors' General were paid million in annuities last year. Source: 1 NEWS The Chosen ELITE ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crustyngrizzly 1,702 Report post Posted March 4, 2019 Should be a rule that once you take up employment outside the Govt you lose your perks. That would include Helen,Jenny,John,Geoff,Bill,Jim etc. These guys are privy to so much information when in power that if they cannot make a go of it in the real world then maybe they shouldn't have been in the first place. jack 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdytdy 5,343 Report post Posted March 4, 2019 Times are tough for Taxcinda's cronies. Macron in France, Maduro in Venezuela and Trudeau in Canada. Trudeau knee deep in the poo!! Canada’s unicorn prime minister becomes a pinata by Lushington D. Brady Caption: Trudeau’s fall is nothing if not spectacular. Image by kliempictures on Pixabay. Is this the end for King Cuck? Liberal pretty boy Justin Trudeau is rapidly finding that all the hair product in the world isn’t enough to cover the stench of corruption. For the left-wing media who’ve spent the past three years swooning over their snowboarding poster-boy, in the memorable phrase of The Guardian (of all places), it was like watching a unicorn get flattened by a lorry. An astonishing political scandal has exploded in Trudeau’s pretty face: his own former attorney-general has testified to Canada’s parliament that the Liberal government all the way up to Trudeau himself tried to improperly pressure her to drop charges against a political crony. Trudeau’s cabinet is haemorrhaging. The happy prince himself is on the ropes. Quote: Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, is facing the biggest political scandal of his administration. The affair centres around allegations that his former attorney general, Jody-Wilson Raybould, was improperly pressured by some of his closest advisers to prevent the prosecution of a large Canadian engineering firm over accusations of fraud and bribery. End of quote. It all centres around a prime minister apparently determined to do a favour for a political mate, in order to shore up his electoral chances in a particular province, in the lead-up to the next general election. Quote: SNC-Lavalin, based in Montreal, is accused of paying C$48m worth of bribes in Libya to Muammar Gaddafi’s family, in order to secure lucrative contracts. The bribery is alleged to have occurred between 2001 and 2011. If found guilty, the company would be barred from bidding on federal projects for a decade. SNC-Lavalin employs nearly 50,000 people worldwide, with 3,400 in Quebec. Company executives have been lobbying for a “deferred prosecution agreement”, which in effect allows them to pay a fine in lieu of a criminal prosecution, with no ban on bidding for contracts. But federal prosecutors have decided to pursue a trial. This is where the scandal is centred: the prime minister and his aides, along with the finance minister, have been accused of pressing Wilson-Raybould to intervene and asking prosecutors to accept a deferred prosecution agreement. Wilson-Raybould declined to override the judgment of her top legal team. End of quote. Wilson-Raybould was determined to exercise the letter of the law. The Liberal government was equally determined to see the law bent. Quote: In searing testimony in front of parliament’s justice committee, Wilson-Raybould detailed “consistent and sustained” efforts to change her mind. Despite repeated assertions by Wilson-Raybould that she would not bend, she told a justice committee on Wednesday the pressure intensified – and included “veiled threats” by aides that she was on course for a clash with the prime minister…Her testimony also marked the first public assertion that Trudeau lobbied her – to the point that she felt obliged to warn him what he was asking was improper. End of quote. It’s a scandal that’s not going away quickly. Dressing up in a Halloween Bollywood costume and dancing like a fool for the cameras isn’t going to get King Cuck out of this one. Quote: The leader of the opposition, Andrew Scheer, has called on Trudeau to resign –something Trudeau has rejected. Other political leaders have called for more investigations into the affair – and the country’s ethics commissioner is investigating…On Thursday, Wilson-Raybould’s testimony was on the front page of every major paper in the country, with most running large, dramatic photos of the defiant former attorney general. End of quote. theguardian In the short run, Wilson-Raybould is copping the punishment from her former colleagues. Dumped from her job as attorney-general, she resigned from cabinet altogether a month later. Now, Trudeau is threatening to kick her out of the party altogether. Quote: Canada’s former attorney general…could find herself ejected from her party after refusing to confirm she has confidence in his leadership, it emerged on Thursday. End of quote. theguardian But piling on to a popular politician – an indigenous woman, no less – who is being widely hailed for integrity and steadfastness in the face of corrupt political pressure is not a good look for a self-rigtheous “male feminist”. In the long run, Trudeau will be the one lucky to survive this scandal. Because it’s 2019. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdytdy 5,343 Report post Posted March 4, 2019 For Jack. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
100 1 1,386 Report post Posted March 5, 2019 David Moffett http://thedailymoff.com/the-ardern-disaster/ rdytdy 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdytdy 5,343 Report post Posted March 5, 2019 The madness of this government by Christie Photoshopped image credit: Pixy The government is approaching the halfway mark of its first term. Perhaps it is time to take a look back at the last 18 months and see what they have achieved, what they are in the process of doing and to give them a bit of a report card. This could be an interesting exercise. Free Tertiary Fees. So the first thing a socialist government did was to engage in middle class welfare and give free first tertiary year fees to the children of millionaires and wealthier people. They also gave all superannuiants, including millionaires, a free heating allowance of $400 each per year, but they cancelled National’s planned tax cuts, which would have benefited all taxpayers… not just John Key’s ‘rich mates’. Working groups. There are approximately 130 of them and they are all going to report back this year. Apart from the obscene waste of money, no government is going to be able to deal with this well; some of the proposals will contradict others and will produce a Gordian knot of policy issues. Destroying the Oil and Gas Industry. Climate change may be Jacinda’s nuclear moment, but it would be worth her while remembering that the nuclear moment never actually happened. In the meantime, the government has destroyed a profitable industry and thrown away our energy security; all in an effort to look good on the world stage. The Provincial Growth Fund. Giving an obscene amount of taxpayers money to a rogue minister desperate for an electoral seat was always a bad idea. So far, the PGF has lent money to risky schemes, such as Westland Milk and was the reason for 190,000 tree saplings being mulched. Apparently, however, it has created a massive 54 jobs. The benefit to regional New Zealand so far is questionable. Karel Sroubek. Our most ‘open and transparent government’ told us to ‘read between the lines’ when it decided to grant residency to a drug dealing, wife beating Czech, while hard working restaurant owners were told to leave. We were never sure what sort of ‘lines’ we should be reading, but this was a debacle of epic proportions. Banning plastic bags. Yep. Makes complete sense. UN Migration Compact. The government that campaigned on reducing immigration then signed up to a UN agreement that allows absolutely anyone who arrives on our shores the right to live here… but it is okay… the compact is not binding. Yep. That makes complete sense too. Kiwibuild. The government’s flagship policy, designed to provide affordable housing for those ‘locked out’ of the housing market, ran aground very early on. After promising a modest 1,000 houses to be built in the first year, they then decided that measuring their progress was ‘not helpful’. In other words, the scheme is failing badly, with $2 billion of taxpayer’s money involved and no one wanting their houses. Another stunning success for the government. Health deficits. The Minister of Health has managed, until now, to keep quiet the fact that every single district health board is now in the red, creating a $200 million national deficit. He kept this quiet by refusing to release data that used to be published quarterly. Nothing like ‘open and transparent’, is there, David? Capital Gains Tax. In spite of the majority of the electorate being opposed to the idea, the government is hell-bent on forcing CGT on New Zealanders. There have been various reasons given for this, most of which have been refuted, but these days we seem to be down to ‘because it is fair’ (although no one will tell us who it is being fair to), or ‘we are the only OECD country without one’. Apparently, Belgium doesn’t have CGT, so there goes that excuse as well. “Because it is fair” seems to be all that we have. Reducing the MMP threshold to 4%. All of the above demonstrates how very badly this government is performing, and it seems that they are actually aware of it. Fearful of an electoral disaster next year, they are now proposing to drop the MMP threshold to 4% without a referendum, and without even the usual requirement of approval of 75% of parliament. This should guarantee two of the government’s coalition partners that are currently on life support at least one more electoral term. Nothing like democracy, is there? The people are most definitely NOT getting the chance to speak on this one. I give the government a total score of 0/10 on all of the above. They are a disgrace. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdytdy 5,343 Report post Posted March 6, 2019 This probably explains it best: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdytdy 5,343 Report post Posted March 6, 2019 It is a simple question, Prime Minister … by WH There is an art in creating vocal sounds which appear to be words but which actually do not say anything. It must be something learned in a Communications degree. Yesterday, the House was given a master-class in the art of obfuscation, question-ducking, interference running (by others), general smarmy sarcasm and complete lies. Quote. Hon Simon Bridges: Does she agree with Grant Robertson, who said yesterday the Tax Working Group report did not include recommendations of taxes like a “capital gains tax, a water tax, a fertiliser tax, a nitrate tax, and agricultural emissions tax.”? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I sat in this House when member Nathan Guy rattled off a series of taxes where there was no commentary in the Tax Working Group on any of those issues. I am happy, as I said, to debate the facts of the report if there was accuracy around it. End quote. There was NO commentary in the TWG [report] on any of those issues. Really? Quote. Hon Simon Bridges: Is it the Prime Minister, not me, who hasn’t read Cullen’s report? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. Hon Simon Bridges: Well, has she read pages 16 and 17 of volume one under the heading “Summary of recommendations of the report”, which recommends not only all of those taxes I outlined before but also recommends here an environmental footprint tax and a natural capital enhancement tax; aren’t all of those taxes recommended in this report? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It would be good to have a rational discussion about the Tax Working Group’s recommendations—all of which, in the environmental section, ask us to consider the entirety of what’s happening in the environmental space without the scaremongering that is coming from that side of the House, and the inaccuracy from that side of the House, and, I have to say, the environmental inaction that we are having to deal with on this side of the House because of nine years of an absolute failed Government. End quote. “I have not actually read the report because of nine years of neglect in my education.” (Perhaps I am reading between the lines here?) Quote. Hon Simon Bridges: So is she so brave that she’s going to give New Zealand—page 16: an agricultural emissions tax, a nitrate tax, a water tax, a fertiliser tax; page 17: an environmental footprint tax, and a natural capital enhancement tax, given this is, in her words, our “nuclear-free moment”? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: At least I recognised we have a nuclear-free moment. On that side of the House, we had such inaction that the Tax Working Group felt the need to have to traverse an entire range of issues because we are dealing with environmental degradation that has built up over years—first point. Second point: we, of course, are still considering all elements of the Tax Working Group, and when we have a response, we will share it. But if the member wants to be a responsible politician, he might engage in a debate based on fact, not fiction. Hon Simon Bridges: Can we just clear up, given that Grant Robertson doesn’t accept that those taxes are in the report, that she does indeed accept factually there is a nitrate tax, a water tax, an agricultural emissions tax, and the various other taxes I’ve mentioned actually in this Cullen working group report? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: When that member releases his workings on KiwiSaver, then let’s talk. SPEAKER: No. [Interruption] Order! I think it wasn’t an invitation to talk. It was a direct question, which will have an appropriate response. End quote. Mallard actually called her to task. Quote. Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I accept very few of that member’s assertions based on his record. End quote. It is a simple question, “Are these taxes mentioned on pages 16 & 17?” It has nothing at all to do with Bridges’ record. Quote. SPEAKER: The Prime Minister mightn’t have been in the House yesterday—I can’t remember—at the stage when I did admonish Tracey Martin for, essentially, answering a question indicating that she didn’t accept the word of the member. It was a factual question. It was properly prepared. If it was inaccurate, it’s a matter of privilege, and the Prime Minister will answer it. End quote. Well done again Mr Speaker. Quote. Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: For clarity, I do not accept the member’s characterisation of the Tax Working Group’s report. Hon Simon Bridges: It’s pretty simple: are there the taxes I have mentioned listed as recommendations on pages 16 and 17 of volume one of Cullen’s Tax Working Group report? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In the interim? Hon Simon Bridges: Yes or no? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Not with the specificity that the member has detailed. Hon Simon Bridges: Has she read this report? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course I have. End quote. Hansard Of course she has, just not pages 16 and 17 because as she clearly stated,“there was no commentary in the Tax Working Group on any of those issues.” For the avoidance of doubt. Here are pages 16 & 17 of the Tax Working Group report. Tax Working Group report page 16 Tax Working Group report page 17 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tripple alliance 1,026 Report post Posted March 7, 2019 Cindys certainly looking after former labour party min of finance Cullens well being . Finance minister Grant Robertson has defended the ongoing involvement and payment of Sir Michael Cullen, who it emerged this week has had his role as chairman of the Tax Working Group extended. He will be paid up to $1062 a day in the role, based on doing a maximum six-hour day. Although the role is unlikely to be full time, the Government has revealed nothing about the extent of the work Cullen is expected to carry out. Professor Bob Buckle, the former dean of the Victoria University of Wellington business school chaired the 2010 tax working group. Buckle said on Thursday that he was not paid at all for his work developing a report or after it was released. Yep cronyism at the worst and proof cindy is unable/incapable to defending her tax ambitions . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdytdy 5,343 Report post Posted March 7, 2019 Jacinda retains Michael Cullen’s services by Christie Jacinda Ardern Taxes meme In my article yesterday, I opined that Michael Cullen, as the chairman of the TWG, should quietly go off into the sunset and leave the politics to the government. I implied, quite deliberately, that he just couldn’t keep out of the political issues raised by the TWG report, particularly around Capital Gains Tax (CGT). I was wrong. Michael Cullen has been retained by the government, at a rate of $1,062 per day, to defend the government’s position on the tax, for reasons only clear to the government. quote. This week it emerged that while the Tax Working Group has disbanded, Cullen has had his contract extended by the Government. Cabinet papers show Cullen was to be paid $1062 a day in his role as chairman of the TWG. “We extended his appointment as the chair of the TWG to 30 June because we were aware there would be extended public discussion on the report, and this has played out,” Finance Minister Grant Robertson said in a statement. end quote. There are only a couple of possible reasons for this. The first is that the government wants to distance itself from the debate while they work out their strategy. The second, but more likely scenario is that they are simply not competent enough to be able to handle all the questions that the media and other interest groups will have over the report. Because of their propensity to hand everything over to ‘experts’ and do very little themselves, my money is on the latter scenario. quote. In his latest statement, Cullen said the TWG had provided a framework for environmental taxes and how to use taxes to address environmental challenges. “It does not, however, recommend immediate adoption of specific environmental tax instruments. Nor does it make recommendations about specific levels for any environmental taxes, other than to note that the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has under-priced the cost of greenhouse gas emissions,” the statement said. end quote. This illustrates my point. Jacinda clearly knew nothing about these other taxes recommended by the TWG, which was why she could not give a straight answer to Simon Bridges’ questions on the subject in the house this week. Shameful, but not surprising. quote. The statement said CGT would not be paid when ownership was transferred in certain circumstances. “For example, if a farmer dies and the property is passed down through inheritance, no tax would be payable at that time.” The statement does not mention what happens in the event that multiple family members inherit a farm but opt to transfer the ownership to one child, a common practice in family farms. Critics have warned that even if a sibling sold their stake to another sibling for a $1, the transaction would trigger the same CGT bill as if the shareholding had been sold at market value. end quote Yes. You have to watch out for this. All sales to ‘associated persons’ are deemed to be made at market value and any taxes are payable at that rate, regardless of the actual sale price. CGT on asset sales between family members, such as farms, will be no different. quote. Earlier on Thursday, Federated Farmers renewed its appeal for the Government to reject most of a “raft of new taxes” proposed by the TWG. “Small business would pay the costs, large business would spend thousands avoiding the costs and tax advisors and valuers would have a field day,” Federated Farmers vice-president Andrew Hoggard said. Stuff. end quote. Maybe not. One of the few statements that Winston has made on the subject is that he is not going to allow accountants and valuers to make a fortune on the back of this tax. This suggests one of two things. Either he is planning on watering it down so much that the tax will only apply to investment property (possibly including holiday homes and lifestyle blocks) or he is going for the ‘grandfathering’ option, meaning that only assets purchased after the introduction of the tax will be liable for CGT. All assets owned on 31 March 2021 will be unaffected by CGT. It is impossible to second guess Winston. It is like trying to nail jelly to a tree. In the meantime, though, the government is quite safe from all the nasty attacks on them. Michael Cullen has got their back, and is being paid handsomely for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdytdy 5,343 Report post Posted March 7, 2019 Mike Hosking: Weak Government contracting out the too-hard decisions 8 Mar, 2019 7:20am 3 minutes to read Sir Michael Cullen has become the defacto Finance Minister. Very interesting political developments to report: If you have missed it, we have a new Finance Minister. Sir Michael Cullen returns to the role he had under the Clark government, given the current minister, Grant Robertson, has decided to contract it out. It is widely accepted by political watchers Labour was not prepared for government based on the fact they weren't expecting to actually win. Thus we got the 100+ working groups on everything from tax, to mental health, to what sort of sandwiches we should eat. The tax group was specifically set up to find a saleable form of a capital gains tax, they couldn't do it. When they told labour they couldn't do it, they were told to go work harder. They get there in the end, presented the report, and that was supposed to be that. Except it wasn't given Labour, who not only didn't have a proper tax policy, also had trouble with New Zealand First over getting it across the line. So they played for time, pretended they hadn't made up their mind, which they had, because Ardern actively campaigned on a CGT being in place by now, but got convinced of the political madness of that by more sensible operators, so shoved it off to Cullen and his working group. So while they're getting Winston across the line, which I am assuming they won't, given he's supposed to be a man of his word, and has very clearly stated he doesn't like CGTs because they don't work. But while they're dining at the Green Parrot twisting that particular arm, there has been a vacuum which in itself is a hopelessly naive way to operate a debate on anything, far less something as serious and politically charged as tax. A debate by the way the Prime Minister herself called for before she then vanished claiming no decision had been made, and she had nothing to say. Only to reappear briefly to whine about all the people in the Herald who were writing things she didn't agree with. It's got so bad now that Sir Michael Cullen, who presumably had snapped his briefcase closed on this particular project, gets his contract extended to go out and lobby on behalf of his mates who can't, won't, or don't know what to do. Any impartiality he might have had, which to be frank was negligible from the start, is now out the door. He's a Labour hired gun, paid a grand a day to fill the hopelessly large void left by a Government that is floundering at every major policy hurdle. Here's what should have happened, tax is dynamite. Don't stall on it, fob it off or mess with it. Pick your argument, be omnipresent, arm yourself with facts, and go hard. Believe in what you're selling, stick to it, speak in a universal voice, and do it from day one. This lot have done none of that. They took a hard sell and blew it. They took an emotive issue and ballsed it up completely. They took what ever chance they had to get it across the line and literally fell over themselves with ineptitude. And what makes it worse is it comes off the back of KiwiBuild, another major policy plank that you thought was about as bad a cock-up as you could get. Well hold my beer, you and I are now paying Cullen to do the job of people who clearly can't do it for themselves. What's next? They going to contract out the Prime Minister's job? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloke 1,232 Report post Posted March 7, 2019 Gee Ted you post some shit. I see you are still trundling out The Prize Wanker, Hoskings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdytdy 5,343 Report post Posted March 8, 2019 2 hours ago, bloke said: Gee Ted you post some shit. I see you are still trundling out The Prize Wanker, Hoskings. The truth hurting a bit is it Bloke? You won't like this either. Just more truth though. Matthew Hooton: Capital Gains Tax debate shows Jacinda Ardern's weakness All talk of a National Party leadership change has evaporated, at least for now. The Opposition senses the Government has serious problems, with its inept handling of Michael Cullen's Tax Working Group (TWG) report a mere symptom. Put simply, National has never bought Labour's positioning of Jacinda Ardern as a policy wonk. In Opposition and as Prime Minister, her approach has not been to tackle complex issues herself, but to emote while outsourcing policy work to so-called experts. As her plethora of working groups begin reporting, Ardern and her ministers appear as ill-equipped to confront difficult questions as National always suspected. The management of the TWG report is a case study in incompetence. From the moment its terms of reference were announced in November 2017, it was obvious the TWG would recommend some kind of Capital Gains Tax (CGT). Since September's interim report, it has been obvious it would recommend a tough CGT and a wide range of other new taxes. The Government had access to the final report for at least three weeks before it was published. Despite all this, Ardern and Grant Robertson failed to agree on any confidence-inducing initial position or to achieve even rhetorical alignment with their NZ First coalition partner and the Greens. Ardern's performances in Parliament and the media have been so woeful that she has either not been properly briefed on Cullen's recommendations or she does not understand them. She continues to promote the CGT as a panacea for property prices despite Cullen, Robertson and every credible commentator saying it would have marginal effects at most. She appeared unaware the report also proposed the long list of other new taxes gleefully read out by Simon Bridges in Parliament. National believes this bungling is not a one-off. The Government's decision late last year to establish another mental health working group to advise it on how to respond to its first mental health working group indicated that it lacks decision-making grit. It better decide soon what it thinks about the working group recommendation to squeeze all schools into one-size-fits-all education hubs if it wants to avoid that contentious issue hanging around in election year. Jacinda Ardern answers questions about capital gains tax in Parliament this week. Photo / File As the avalanche of working group reports arrive, the Opposition detects panic. Whether or not it was co-ordinated with Labour, the ill-fated attempt by Green MP Golriz Ghahraman to reduce the MMP threshold to 4 per cent in time for the 2020 election was seen by National to reflect grave concern the party can reach the current 5 per cent mark. National insiders say their polling has NZ First consistently below the 5 per cent threshold, the Greens dicing with death by bouncing around it, and Labour and National locked in a tight battle, both above 40 per cent and within the margin of error of each other. Aware that lowering the 5 per cent threshold before the election would invite a ferocious backlash, Ardern has ruled out any change before 2023, making the prospect of a two-party parliament after 2020 very real. All National needs is to beat Labour by a single vote and Ardern would be gone. Bridges' unpopularity continues to be National's main problem but Ardern's flakiness on policy is doing much to mitigate it. Repeats of the CGT fiasco on every other topic on which working groups will be making recommendations risk knocking off the crucial couple of per cent from Labour's tally to put National back into power. The growing plausibility of this scenario makes Bridges safe for now. There is no interest within National in distracting voters from Ardern's woes by turning inward. Plus, his prosecutorial style is working against Ardern's lack of depth. Ardern, though, has an obvious strategy to make all this moot. It is clear that the Prime Minister's popularity, and that of her Government, has nothing to do with policy or her much heralded "year of delivery". Arden is a symbol of something more ethereal. While Robertson keeps promising transformation, there is no obvious demand for it by voters, and change brings only political risk. After 18 months of almost complete failure by the Government on everything from Kiwibuild and child poverty to the relationship with China, it is clear that, for many of her supporters, it doesn't matter what Ardern does, it is enough that she is. Labour's best strategy is therefore to clear the decks of anything remotely controversial. New Zealand voters might like their leaders talking about knowledge waves, step changes or economic transformation but they don't want the disruption those things might cause. Like John Key on steroids, Ardern is well advised to keep well away from anything difficult and, for the next 18 months, just smile and wave. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack 431 Report post Posted March 8, 2019 On 3/5/2019 at 11:35 AM, rdytdy said: For Jack. DR JIAN YANG List MP based in Auckland Newsroom Investigation: National MP trained by Chinese spies A National Party MP who studied at an elite Chinese spy school before moving to New Zealand has attracted the interest of our Security Intelligence Service. The list MP Jian Yang did not mention in his work or political CVs a decade he spent in the People's Liberation Army-Air Force Engineering College or the Luoyang language institute run by China's equivalent of the United States National Security Agency. That agency, the Third Department, conducts spying activities for China. Newsroom has been told that to have taught at the Air Force Engineering College, Yang would have almost certainly been an officer in Chinese military intelligence and a member of the Communist Party, as other students and staff have been. Yang studied and then taught there before moving to Australia where he attended the Australian National University in Canberra. He migrated to this country to teach international relations in the politics department at the University of Auckland. He was hand-picked by National Party president Peter Goodfellow to become an MP on its list in 2011, wooed directly by the former Prime Minister John Key and has been a key fundraiser for National among the Chinese community in Auckland. As an MP he variously served on Parliament's Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (from 2014 until last year), Commerce, Transport and Industrial Relations and Health and Science select committees and is prominent in New Zealand's interactions with the Chinese community and diplomatic and consular missions in Wellington and Auckland. He remains a Parliamentary Private Secretary for ethnic affairs. Yang confirms Newsroom has worked with the Financial Times in Hong Kong to investigate Yang's background. We can reveal Yang confirmed in a recorded interview in Chinese with the Financial Times that he attended both military institutions. In his comments to the FT researcher, Yang twice urged her to concentrate on the New Zealand election. "You don't need to write too much about myself," he said, adding later: "As for me myself, actually I don't feel it's necessary to include so many detailed things." Interviewed today, by Newsroom, Yang refused to comment, saying repeatedly on camera: "Talk to my boss" and "I have nothing to hide". He then drove away. Yang later released a statement saying he refuted "any allegations that question my loyalty to New Zealand". The statement said he had been "nothing but upfront and transparent" about his education and employment. Yang challenged those who were "propagating these defamatory statements" to front up and prove them. "This is a smear campaign by nameless people who are out to damage me and the National Party 10 days from an election, just because I am Chinese." An expert in Chinese intelligence Peter Mattis told Newsroom from the US that someone who attended and then taught at the Air Force Engineering College and attended the language institute would almost certainly have been an officer in China's PLA and member of the Communist Party. SIS interest Newsroom understands New Zealand's Security Intelligence Service has scrutinised him at times over three years, including interviewing one person about him last year. The SIS said today it would not comment on operational matters, especially investigations involving individuals. A hearing of Parliament's Privileges Committee into intelligence surveillance protocols for MPs occurred in late 2013. If an intelligence agency has cause to monitor an MP, the SIS director or Inspector-General of Intelligence is to brief the Speaker of the House. The Privileges Committee, chaired at the time by Attorney-General Chris Finlayson, polices contempts, which can include anything that could impede or restrict the rights of MPs to conduct their business unimpeded. A Memorandum of Understanding between the SIS and Parliament's Speaker from 2010 says: "The only circumstances in which collection may be directed against a sitting MP is where a particular MP is suspected of undertaking activities relevant to security." It is not known if the Speaker, David Carter, or Prime Ministers John Key or Bill English, who were the ministers in charge of the SIS, have been briefed on Yang's background or the SIS interest. Comment is being sought from Bill English. National Party President Peter Goodfellow claimed in an interview with the Financial Times this morning that Yang's education in China was widely known in New Zealand. Goodfellow said he had “no idea” about any SIS investigation into Yang. “He certainly gave us his full resume with the two universities – an air force academy and the other one,” Goodfellow said. “You’re making a number of assumptions based on his background and I’d be careful unless you have proof of what you’re saying.” He also said Yang’s background was “covered in a review of candidates” by a government relations consultancy, Saunders Unsworth. Interest in Yang's background precedes his moving to New Zealand. It is understood some officials at ANU were suspicious of his close ties to China when he worked there. China-watchers suggest someone educated at an elite PLA Air Force Engineering College and then at the Luoyang Foreign Languages Institute would have had to be a member of the Chinese Communist Party to be allowed to stay on and teach. It was considered unusual for someone with intelligence connections to be allowed to leave China for Australia to study, or to have done so without the backing of the party or PLA. MP Jian Yang beside National leader Bill English and with 'Blue Dragons' supporters at a party policy launch. Photo: Tim Murphy Missing decade Yang's maiden speech to Parliament did not mention his education at the military establishments, although he noted that in 1978, the year Deng Xiaoping began China's economic reforms, "I passed the newly-restored higher education examination and became part of the small group of high school graduates who went on to university". The missing decade in Yang's CV is reflected in that speech. After saying he entered university in 1978, the next date he gives is: "In April 1989, a great opportunity was opened up for me when I received a scholarship to Johns Hopkins University in the United States." The Tiananmen massacre and global controversy in June that year prevented him from leaving for that study. Chinese sources do not discuss where he worked for the next five years but he did attend the Johns Hopkins centre for American-Chinese study in Nanjing for one year. Active politics In 1994 Yang began postgraduate studies at the ANU, achieving a doctorate and then taking the job in Auckland. He credits professors Barry Gustafson and Raymond Miller with helping him in his political education in New Zealand and colleagues for encouraging the move from political theory to professional politics. In his maiden speech Yang outlined the failure of socialist economic policies in China before 1978 and its success in introducing capitalism with socialist characteristics, lifting millions from poverty, encouraging entrepreneurialism, personal responsibility, and reward for achievement. "Reflecting on the way in which China has achieved its positive change and development gives me a firm belief that the policies of the National Party are in the best interests of New Zealand," he said. Yang's involvement in the foreign affairs and trade select committee at Parliament did not require security clearances because elected MPs are not subject to the normal public service requirements. He is said to be a central figure promoting and helping shape the National government's China strategy and responsible for its engagement with the New Zealand Chinese community. In 2014, former Prime Minister John Key attended a fundraising dinner organised by Yang for wealthy ethnic Chinese voters, which the New Zealand Herald and Stuff websites reported raised $200,000 for the party's election campaign. Studying intrigue The emergence of Yang's study and work at the military intelligence institutions in China has intrigued China-watchers in both Australia and this country. The engineering college is reputedly one of China's 10 top military academies. The Luoyang 'Foreign Language Institute' is part of the Third Department of the Joint Staff Headquarters of the PLA - one of two main military intelligence agencies. The institute, in Henan province in central China, has around 500 teaching staff for 29 languages and has had 50,000 graduates including 100 generals. The Third Department is responsible for China's signals intelligence operations and for providing intelligence assessments based on information gathered. According to author Mark Stokes in his 2015 The PLA General Staff Department, Third Department, Second Bureau, linguists assigned to that section are sent to Luoyang for language training "then assigned to a Third Department bureau for mission specific technical training". Yang is understood to have met his wife, Jane, an IT specialist, at Luoyang. The China expert Mattis, author of the book Analysing the Chinese Military and a former staffer of the US National Bureau for Asian Research told Newsroom the Third Department covered all forms of signals intelligence. "It could be direction finding for signals, it could be encryption, it could be trying to break the codes of other countries, other militaries - and today that involves computer network exploitation." Asked if it was conducting spying, he said: "Yes. This is the national signals intelligence authority that pretty much every country has. In the US it is the NSA, in the UK it is GCHQ and in Australia the National Signals Directorate." Yang's time at Johns Hopkins Nanjing was a strong indicator of his intelligence involvement as in the era he attended many of the Chinese students were from military intelligence. "It is not definitive, but it is certainly a signal indicator that when combined with others will cleanly identify someone as being a part of Ministry of State Security or military intelligence." Australia and New Zealand He said there were two equally plausible scenarios for Yang leaving China for Australia. One was to escape his homeland and put his past behind him to create a new life. The other was to have worked for military intelligence, most likely China's Second Department, dealing in human intelligence. Since coming to New Zealand in 1999, Yang had been active in semi-official New Zealand discussions and events with China, Japan and Southeast Asian countries. In the National Party, Yang is prominent with a large group of Chinese members calling themselves the Blue Dragons and campaigning enthusiastically at events during this campaign, including National's launch at the Trusts Stadium in Henderson on August 27. Asked if it was unusual internationally for someone with a military intelligence background in one country to be an MP in another, Mattis said: "It is something I would have hoped that his colleagues in the National Party would have put to him in the vetting process ... because certainly on its face, it would be quite disconcerting." "There are countries with whom we are friendly, but there are no friendly intelligence services." Ni hao Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohokaman 5,851 Report post Posted March 8, 2019 And you just knew she would stick her oar in here, despite having fark all to do with it...... https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/watch-touching-moment-jacinda-ardern-gives-young-metallica-fan-tickets-auckland-gig?variant=tb_v_1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdytdy 5,343 Report post Posted March 8, 2019 Three globalists in a spot of bother by Suze See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil Photoshopped image credit: Boondecker Theresa May, Justin Trudeau and Jacinda Ardern are globalist leaders who still think they have the character of the three wise monkeys; but their actions prove otherwise. All three supported the recent UN Global Compact on Migration to open their borders and let the great unwashed go country shopping, and all three are now under pressure from their constituents. All three support the notions of climate change and the imposition of carbon taxes, despite scientists arguing about whether we can actually change the climate. All three support ‘diversity’ despite the fact that, in practice, it doesn’t work. Can you imagine a trannie and a devout Sharia-law enforcing Muslim living peacefully side by side? Trudeau has veered furthest away from centre left and went on record in 2013 for supporting communist China’s regime and then in 2016 for commending Castro. Quote. “There’s a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say, ‘We need to go green … we need to start investing in solar.’” In November 2016, Trudeau praised Cuban dictator Fidel Castro upon his death as a “remarkable leader” who “served his people for almost half a century.” Try explaining that to the families of the tens of thousands of people arbitrarily arrested or murdered by the state in Cuba at the whim of Castro.” End of quote. Calgary Herald It was reported recently that Trudeau’s radical stance will cost him his leadership. Quote. Justin Trudeau has been warned his days in office “are numbered” after Canadians went to the polls in three by-elections.” End of quote. Express Theresa May has been battling anarchy at home after decades of EU open-border policy attracted the very worst that Europe and Africa could throw at it. The social and financial costs are crippling, so it’s no wonder a public referendum was overwhelmingly in favour of Britain leaving the EU. May never wanted Brexit but she was forced to demonstrate to the public that she was at least attempting to make it happen. She was unsuccessful at both and, as a result, her leadership was challenged during a party showdown. Quote. MPs present at the tense meeting of the Tory party said May told them that “in my heart, I would like to fight the next general election” – to make up for the Conservatives’ poor performance in 2017 – but signalled that she would step down before 2022.” “She recognises a lot of people are not comfortable with her leading us into a future general election.” End of quote. The Guardian Trudeau will be pushed out of office and May has promised to jump. So what of our own little globalist? Despite media reporting to the contrary, does she recognize an international trend against globalism? It didn’t help globalists when Donald Trump set a glaring example of the power of public groundswell when he was unexpectedly appointed as an advocate of nationalism. Does our socialist prime minister recognize that the majority of New Zealanders still support capitalism over socialism? Jacinda Ardern’s socialist roots first showed very early on when she forewarned what was to come by saying “capitalism has failed New Zealand” and “it’s been a dismal failure.” This is blatantly untrue. Without capitalism, socialism would have no money to spend. We have a prime minister who is determined to fleece taxpayers and then spend the money unwisely. We pay for the first year of tertiary fees for all students, regardless of whether they need it. This financial incentive to attend university has more to do with increasing the influence of the academic left who control our universities, than helping kids from poor families to get educated and ahead in life. Her socialist ideals closed charter schools, not because they were performing badly; on the contrary, measurement of Maori performance in charter schools outstrips performance by Maori in state schools; but charter schools defeat Ardern’s objective of state control of youth. Her socialist ideals saw our oil and gas industry crushed under her heavily booted feet. “No exploration licences for you dirty little capitalists” she effectively said. No jobs either, with the industry setback concentrated in Taranaki. No worries, she will get the tax income elsewhere. She promised a capital gains tax in her first term and is on track to make that happen to ensure government coffers are topped up. Her socialist elitism is evident in the 130 working groups sent off at great expense to come back with ideas that support her own. Why bother? Working groups only confirm what we already guessed – the Coalition of losers is either not equipped or it is too lazy to do its own work. It’s only money after all, when you pay someone else to do your work for you. And there will be plenty more money; they will see to that. But the more Ardern imposes her socialist policies on us the more she loses her hold on leadership. The more promises she makes but fails to keep and the more she talks about fairness but demonstrates unfairness, the weaker she becomes. We are still a democracy and we still hold the power in the face of injustice. Roll on 2020. 100 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdytdy 5,343 Report post Posted March 9, 2019 17,000 lifestyle blocks in Hawkes Bay could attract CGT by Christie Cartoon credit: SonovaMin The unintended consequences of the TWG’s report keep rolling in. In an effort to maximise the tax grab, the report recommends exempting the family home, but only if it stands on a pocket handkerchief of land. Any family home that stands on more than 4,500 square metres of land will not be exempt from the tax. In the Hawkes Bay alone, that means over 17,000 family homes will attract CGT on sale. 4,500 square metres may sound like a lot, but it equates to approximately half a rugby field. You may think that is plenty, but if you have always lived in a rural area, it is normal to have a property with a few acres of land. Now such landowners are ‘rich pricks’, even though the property they own may be worth only a few hundred thousand dollars. Never fear though; the million dollar apartments in central Auckland and the $2.5 million mansions in Herne Bay are protected from the tax. They are family homes, you know. quote. National Party leader Simon Bridges says more than 17,000 lifestyle blocks in Hawke’s Bay could be affected by a proposed capital gains tax. While the Tax Working Group has recommended an exemption to the family home when it comes to a capital gains tax, lifestyle blocks over 4500 square metres would not be exempt. “The reality is, that’s a little over half a rugby field,” Bridges said. “There are 17,657 properties in Hawke’s Bay alone which fit into that category. end quote. Let’s face it, this is not just about Hawkes Bay. What about Wairarapa, Manawatu, King Country, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Northland, Tasman, West Coast, Central Otago…. we are talking a lot more than 17,000 family homes in total; all caught in the CGT net. quote. He said multimillion-dollar properties in the Auckland suburb of Remuera, or Wellington’s Oriental Bay, would be exempt from a capital gains tax. “But those in the Hawke’s Bay with a few sheep and some cows will be hit. Labour claims this is about fairness, but how’s that fair?” end quote. Lifestyle blocks are not always worth a lot of money; it depends on the location. In some of the remote areas, owning a few acres of land is quite inexpensive and, while it is a lifestyle choice, it is still the family home. If a lifestyle block is a holiday home, it is caught by the tax already. quote. The recommendation to not exempt properties over 4500 square metres is based on existing laws around what is considered a “main home” when selling properties under the brightline test, a tax introduced by National in 2015. A Newspaper. end quote. The rule around 4,500 square metres was to establish an ‘economic unit’ for tax and GST purposes, and has nothing to do with CGT. If a block is less than 4,500 square metres, it cannot be considered to be an economic unit. The TWG had no reason to apply this particular threshold to the definition of a lifestyle block, and could have made it, say, 10 acres (40,569 sq m), which would have been a more reasonable threshold. This provision is clearly intended to exempt as few family homes from the tax as possible, but if fairness is the supposed object of this exercise, no one can say that taxing lifestyle blocks that are also family homes is fair in any way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdytdy 5,343 Report post Posted March 9, 2019 CGT debate shows Jacinda’s weakness by Christie Credit: SonovaMin The publication of the TWG’s report has laid bare the truth about this government. They appointed all those working groups (around 200 of them now, I believe) because they are not competent enough to be able to formulate policy themselves. Nor are they able to answer questions about proposed policy either, if Jacinda’s snarly performance in the House opposite Simon Bridges is anything to go by. Of course, she wouldn’t be so snarling and sarcastic if she weren’t constantly found wanting; and she knows it. quote. The Opposition senses the Government has serious problems, with its inept handling of Michael Cullen’s Tax Working Group (TWG) report a mere symptom. Put simply, National has never bought Labour’s positioning of Jacinda Ardern as a policy wonk. end quote. And they are right… Jacinda can smile and wave, talk to kindergarten children and wax lyrical about kindness, but she is not an achiever. She clearly has no idea about taxation policy, and it is becoming embarrassing. quote. In Opposition and as Prime Minister, her approach has not been to tackle complex issues herself, but to emote while outsourcing policy work to so-called experts. As her plethora of working groups begin reporting, Ardern and her ministers appear as ill-equipped to confront difficult questions as National always suspected. The management of the TWG report is a case study in incompetence. From the moment its terms of reference were announced in November 2017, it was obvious the TWG would recommend some kind of Capital Gains Tax (CGT). end quote. They were instructed to propose a CGT. Apparently, when they told Grant Robertson that it was too complicated, he sent them back and told them to try harder. quote. The Government had access to the final report for at least three weeks before it was published. Despite all this, Ardern and Grant Robertson failed to agree on any confidence-inducing initial position or to achieve even rhetorical alignment with their NZ First coalition partner and the Greens. end quote. That’s right. They had time to put together some kind of cohesive plan, but that would have required actually reading the report, and clearly, that was never going to happen. quote. Ardern’s performances in Parliament and the media have been so woeful that either she has either not been properly briefed on Cullen’s recommendations or she does not understand them. She continues to promote the CGT as a panacea for property prices despite Cullen, Robertson and every credible commentator saying it would have marginal effects at most. She appeared unaware the report also proposed the long list of other new taxes gleefully read out by Simon Bridges in Parliament. end quote. I’m fairly sure the sarcasm and snarly comments, all while refusing to answer any of Bridges questions, was because she didn’t have a clue as to the answers. She must have known the questions that would be asked. Obfuscating just makes her look incompetent and weak. quote. National believes this bungling is not a one-off. The Government’s decision late last year to establish another mental health working group to advise it on how to respond to its first mental health working group indicated that it lacks decision-making grit. As the avalanche of working group reports arrive, the Opposition detects panic. Whether or not it was co-ordinated with Labour, the ill-fated attempt by Green MP Golriz Ghahraman to reduce the MMP threshold to 4 per cent in time for the 2020 election was seen by National to reflect grave concern the party can reach the current 5 per cent mark. National insiders say their polling has NZ First consistently below the 5 per cent threshold, the Greens dicing with death by bouncing around it, and Labour and National locked in a tight battle, both above 40 per cent and within the margin of error of each other. Repeats of the CGT fiasco on every other topic on which working groups will be making recommendations risk knocking off the crucial couple of per cent from Labour’s tally to put National back into power. A newspaper. end quote. I think Judith is right not to make a move too soon. The government’s incompetency is clearly on show and she is doing a brilliant job of exposing Phil Twyford for the dolt that he is. Later in the year, when most of the 200 or so working groups have presented their reports and the government is really floundering under the weight of it all, might be the time to strike. Whatever happens, one thing is clear. This government came into power creating an expectation of being a ‘transformational government’. Clearly, they are not up to the task. Slogans and fairy dust will only get them so far. At some point, they are going to have to perform… and if they can’t, they will be a one term government. Photoshopped image credit: SB Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdytdy 5,343 Report post Posted March 10, 2019 The unloved capital gains tax by Christie Photo credit: South Island Independence Movement Most people now accept that Capital Gains Tax (CGT) will do very little to make housing more affordable. Most people, that is, except Jacinda Ardern. She continually parrots the claim that it will help young people get into the housing market; when all the evidence is that it will not. I’m not sure if she is untruthful or incompetent, but she is one or the other. quote. As the debate over the introduction of a comprehensive capital gains tax rages in the media, it has mostly been reduced to arguing about its effect on the housing market and who would be stung by it and who wouldn’t. But one thing most commentators agree on is that it wouldn’t dent house prices significantly. Interviewed on The Nation over the weekend, Jacinda Ardern seemed unaware of these inconvenient truths. Asked about a capital gains tax, she said: “There is a large group of New Zealanders — particularly young New Zealanders now — who, if their aspiration has been homeownership, [it] has just become harder and harder.” It is extraordinary that the Prime Minister — whose “captain’s call” for a capital gains tax backfired on her so spectacularly in the 2017 election campaign — still doesn’t appear to understand the negligible effect it would have on housing affordability and is continuing to use it as a selling point. end quote. This is because she doesn’t understand the issues. Most owner-occupied houses are family homes and, even though the TWG has tried to include as many as possible, there will still be a huge number of properties where capital gains can still be tax free. quote. In a clumsy effort to downplay the opposition to the mooted tax, Ardern also told The Nation, “There’s a large group of New Zealanders who don’t have columns in the Herald, who might not be having a chance to have their say on this [tax].” In fact, it’s not just Herald columnists criticising the proposal. Even media sites that represent a younger and less conservative readership than the Herald’s haven’t enthusiastically supported the proposed CGT. Unfortunately for the government, it is caught both ways. It appears the pushback against a CGT is fiercer than it expected from property and business owners and it hasn’t sparked obvious support from poorer and younger voters. end quote. No, because nobody is really benefiting from it. Taxpayers may get a few extra dollars each week as a result, but they would have got that if National had been kept in power anyway. quote. With opinion ranging from apathy and disappointment to virulent opposition, there is no easy way out for the government from this tax imbroglio. Even if the government decides against taxing the gains from shares, farms and businesses and restricts the tax to residential investment property alone, it will still be on treacherous ground. There are more than 600,000 rental properties in New Zealand and their owners and their families represent a big chunk of the voting public. Many of them undoubtedly won’t take kindly to being singled out for the taxman’s attention. end quote. Singled out even further, you mean. Landlords get the worst treatment of all taxpayers. I’m surprised there are still 600,000 rentals, but I’ll bet that number will drop like a stone if CGT is ever brought in. quote. A big part of her appeal to younger voters rests on the belief she will deal to the housing market. If a capital gains tax is rejected, it will mean that what were perceived to be the government’s three main weapons to lower house prices — implementing a capital gains tax, using KiwiBuild to vastly increase housing supply, and cutting immigration to dampen demand — are all likely to be viewed as fizzers. Noted. end quote. They have done nothing about immigration. Kiwibuild is a complete fail. Now CGT looks to be a complete failure too. Jacinda came in as the head of a ‘transformational’ government that was going to solve all the problems of the world. Now everyone is beginning to see the truth; that they never had a clue what they were doing and they simply made promises; promises that they had no idea whether or not they could keep. What a joke this ‘transformational’ government has turned out to be. crustyngrizzly 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crustyngrizzly 1,702 Report post Posted March 10, 2019 Like him or dislike him Simon Bridges has pointed out a glaring anomoly in the CGT if approved in its current form. A couple with a million plus home in Remmers can sell and pay no CGT,but a couple in Wyndham with a house and 2 acres sell for 260k and have to pay CGT How can that be fair. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohokaman 5,851 Report post Posted March 11, 2019 Trump 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaceCafe News