Kiwiblog

I am a Xero shareholder. I invested in them early on because I thought there was a small chance they could go big. It was a risky investment as they had around 40 staff and only 100 customers in their early days. I was quite prepared to lose my investment, so kept it at a level where I could.

Since then they have kept to their targets, and I have been thinking “Hey, I may even get my money back one day”.

Then a couple of montsh ago I decided (upon urging from my staff) to transfer my business accounts from MYOB to Xero. I was a bit resistant as MYOB is a one off software cost and Xero is a monthly cost and when you own a business you don’t like extra costs.

But then I started using Xero, and my God it was a dream. The setup is easy, but the integration with the banks is seamless. Xero receives the bank statements directly so you just have to go through and code them. But even better it remembers your previous coding, so you can get to a month end and most of it is already coded.

And the invoicing is great. I am away from the office a lot. My staff can prepare an invoice, I log in from anywhere in the world, approve it, and then they can turn it into a pdf and e-mail it with a click.

It is so good to use, that my business manager said she actually is looking forward to doing the first monthly set of financial reports on the new system.

So am now a very happy customer as well as shareholder.

And very nicely, Xero has just done a deal with British Telecom who will resell their service. This put the share price up to $1.70 (initial price $1). And looking through my e-mails I see I have an option to buy more shares at a rate of 90c as a foudnation shareholder. Yay.

I can’t wait for Xero to hit the US market.

Meanwhile I love being able to log into Xero every few days and see my latest accounts – don’t even have to wait for month end anymore.

Steven Joyce has just announced a new preferred route for the Waterview connection – one that is $1.4 billion cheaper than Labour’s tunnel. Labour are campaigning now to spend $1.4 billion just so they can win a by-election, or as ACT calls it a buy-election.

The tunnel will cost:

The $2.77 billion figure was made up of $1.98 billion  for construction of the tunnels, $240 million for associated work on State Highway 16 and $550 million for finance costs during the project construction period.

And the new preferred route:

“The NZ Transport Agency has reviewed all options and has found that the Waterview Connection, together with the same amount of associated work on State Highway 16, can be built for considerably less, at an expected cost of between $1 billion and $1.4 billion, depending which of the options is taken,” says Mr Joyce.

And the cost savings get better:

“In addition, all of the options being considered by the NZ Transport Agency would be built with wide enough shoulders to allow for easy widening to three lanes in each direction.

“An appropriate comparison, therefore, is between the top cost of $1.4 billion and the $3.16 billion price of the previous government’s twin three lane tunnel option.

People will quibble over the numbers, but there is such a huge gulf between them, it is clear Labour’s tunnel is a vote buying extravagance that would cost every household around $2,000.

Also from the Q&A:

This review identified several options that are cost effective, allow for future growth and balance the strategic need to complete the Western Ring Route with concerns about local impacts. As well as costing significantly less, they could also be built 12-18 months earlier than the twin tunnel option.

And the route:

“The NZ Transport Agency’s Board is meeting today to consider the three alternative options and will announce its preference tomorrow, once it has had the opportunity to make first contact with those directly affected.

“A thorough consultation process on the form of the selected option will then commence before a final decision is made.”

I’m looking forward for Labour to keep campaigning for their pet tunnel. They may win the by-election but it will make great campaign ads in 2011.

Christine Rankin is a polarising figure, and her appointment to the Families Commission always going to be a bit controversial. Personally I still think the Commission should be abolished, but Rankin may do some good there. But what the hell is Colin Espiner on by writing the following:

Rankin has been divorced three times.

She recently married her fourth husband, whose former wife was found dead in her Wellington home six months ago.

Police said the circumstances of the death were not suspicious.

Bad enough to focus on her marriages, as if never being divorced is a pre-requisite. But what the hell does the death of the former wife of her husband have to do with it, except to almost imply she was responsible for the death.

The American Politics Appreciaton Society is the good idea of James Coyle (former President, Young Labour) with some support from myself.

We realised that there was precious little for the average fan of American politics here in NZ. Hence the purpose of the Society is to provide the exchange of ideas, enthusiasm, knowledge and opinion (however ill-informed) among all people here in NZ who consider themselves fans of the American political system in all its convoluted, yet fascinating glory. Preferably our exchanges will always take place over pints and will involve fun and convivial debate.

Our aim to hold occassional or semi-regular meetings of the Society. Each meeting will involve a guest speaker of some repute who will deliver a talk on an aspect of American politics that they have considerable experience or knowledge of, followed by questions and discussion. The intention of the Society is to secure regular American-based speakers who work in the American political system and are out here on visits to NZ for some reason or another.

Meetings will also typically involve a quiz (devised by the Society’s founders) in order to establish the current reigning New Zealand ‘American Politics Nerd Champion’. The title is challengeable every time the Society meets and a fresh quiz held.

Meetings are held upstairs at the Backbencher on Molesworth St inside Wellington’s beltway, on Tuesday or Wednesday nights, circa 6-7.30 pm while the House breaks for dinner.

The Society is a strictly bi-partisan organisation and therefore welcomes fans of all political hue – welcomes fans of all political hue – from East Coast liberals, to the foreign policy hawks of DC; from the Reagan Democrats, to the Southern State Republican who decided to give Obama a go this time. The key membership requirement is enthusiasm for the topic.

You can get news of TAPAS events and speakers in three ways:

• Follow or subscribe to our TAPAS blog.
• Register your e-mail address with out Yahoo Groups mailing list.
• Join our TAPAS group on Facebook.

The first event is likely to be in June/July with an expert commentator from the United States talking about Obama’s first 100 days.

My general stance on OIA requests and PQs is that Ministers should look to comply in a timely manner with their obligations. Yes they can be annoying fishing expeditions, but that is the price of an open Government.

So I have had some sympathy for Chris Hipkins inability to get answers out of Richard Worth.

However upon reading that Chris has filed a massive 1,500 questions already, and how braod they are, my sympathies are starting to lean back. I’m not advocating MPs should have a limit on how many they can ask, but the broadness of Hipkins’ request is very very wide. Tracy Watkins has details:

8530 (2008) Question: Chris Hipkins to the Minister of Internal Affairs (10 Dec 2008): What are the dates and titles of all reports, briefings and submissions he has received from the Department of Internal Affairs since 19 November 2008?

8532 (2008) Question: Chris Hipkins to the Minister of Internal Affairs (10 Dec 2008): Which stakeholder groups has he met with since becoming Minister for Internal Affairs and on what date did he meet them?

8533 (2008) Question: Chris Hipkins to the Minister of Internal Affairs (10 Dec 2008): Has he received any reports, briefings or submissions from any department, ministry or agency other than the Department of Internal Affairs since he became Minister, if so, what are the dates and titles of those reports?

8751 (2008): Chris Hipkins to the Minister of Internal Affairs (15 Dec 2008): What official engagements has the Minister had to date as Minister of Internal Affairs; for each, when did they occur, and what was the purpose?

Maybe National did this also, but asking every Minister for the details of every report, every meeting, and every engagement is getting close to abusive.

Now don’t get me wrong – National also did fishing expeditions – but normally more targeted ones in my memory. Stuff like “How many staff have credit cards and how much was charged to them in the last year”. This would then allow the MP to do a press release which would often get picked up.

Other questions I recall are “How many communications staffers does each agency have”. This then leads to a PR saying the Government has 872 spin doctors or whatever the amount is.

Personally if I was Chris, I would try asking more specific questions to Dr Worth, and seeing if he then got more helpful answers.

At the end of the day though an MP does have the right to ask these questions, and should get helpful answers, where practical. But as Tracy says there is a cost:

It might pay to remind MPs, however, that taxpayers are bearing the costs of this little game of cat and mouse – and the costs involved are by no means tiny.

MPs will often lodge dozens of questions, one to every minister, requiring information that, in some cases, can date back years. The man hours involved are staggering. Reams of bureaucrats have been employed throughout the public service in recent years whose jobs mostly involve responding to PQs.

My recommendation to Ministers is to do what Max Bradford did in the 1990s. Answer all questions submitted, but include in the answer the estimated cost of answering the question. And keep a running total so at the end of the year the taxpayers can find out how much money each MP has cost through PQs. That would provide an incentive to be more targeted with your requests.

To get some idea of how bad the Police investigation into the Brash e-mails was, just watch Guyon Espiner on Breakfast this morning. Guyon said:

• In my opinion, it’s a disgrace
• Almost nothing in there
• Contrasts Police refusal to release most info with the full release in other sensitive cases such as Paintergate
• Labels what the Police have released this time as a “cover up” and a “whitewash”
• Looks like Police did not want to find out
• Says file shows they only interviewed around half a dozen people

That is a damning indictment from the TVNZ political editor.

NZ Post has just announced:

New Zealand Post Chairman Rt Hon Jim Bolger today announced that the Group’s Chief Executive John Allen will leave at the end of June to take up the appointment of Chief Executive and Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

His tenure at MFAT will be much watched!

I have been amazed at how many people have jumped to wild and wrong conclusions about “loopholes” with donations disclosure because the level of donations disclosed is less than the level of spending disclosed.

Parties are not obliged to list all income. This is not a loophole – it is a deliberate design. They are only obliged to list donations abover $10,000 – the level at which it is though influence might be purchased.

Personally I am interested in the notion of whether or not a party should disclose its total income in bands (such as x donations over $10K, y donations between $1k and $10K, and z donations under $1k) but this would be a radical change to our current laws.

Anyway let us first look at what the ODT says:

The general election last year was the only one in our history to be conducted under the mysterious fog of the Electoral Finance Act, a piece of legislation brought in by the Clark government at the behest of the Green Party as an exercise in forcing disclosure of funding sources, and in hope of nobbling political opponents, but which no-one – least of all its architects – fully understood.

The intention indeed was to silence the critics. And the Greens remains supporters of the oppressive law which made it illegal to say “I don’t support the Green Party” on a non-blog website unless you disclosed your name and address.

The distance between what the major parties spent on their election campaigns and what they listed in their donations returns is so great as to suggest sufficient loopholes still existed to legally exploit.

It is not a loophole. For example National receives between $1 and $2 million a year in small donations from its 40,000 or so members. That is not some bad thing exploiting a loophole – that is a good thing.

Likewise what could well be the case with many parties is that they received many donations at just below the disclosure limit. Parliament has said we only need to know your identity if you give over $10,000. So it is not surprising many donors then give under $10,000.

The commentators who call this a loophole reveal an ignorance of the law. It has never been a law to disclose all income – political parties are in fact private bodies. It has been a law to reveal large donations over a certain limit.

So complaining that donations revealed does not match expenditure revealed is like complaining that your household expenses are larger than the interest from your investments – and overlooking yur salary. They are not comparing apples and oranges.

The EFA also supposedly prevented secret trusts from making large donations without declaring the source, but herein lies a conundrum: there was nothing to prevent one entity making many donations which were under the $10,000 disclosure barrier.

Yes there is. The ODT does not understand the law. All donations from a source are totalled up. You can not avoid the $10,000 disclosure barrier by say giving $5,000 a month.

There are some loopholes to the donations regime – such as different companies with the same shareholders all donating – but that is not the same loophole as the ODT claims above.

The need for transparency is the one aspect of the EFA which must be retained when the cross-party committee eventually reaches its recommendations.

That means all donors to parties should be named, and that what constitutes electoral advertising is clearly defined, including publicity by a government in office during an electoral campaign.

I hope they don’t mean all donors. Forcing parties to reveal every $50 donor will effectively out tens of thousands of party supporters and infringe their right to privately support the party of their choice. The disclosure level should be at the level of which infleunce could be suspected by the size of the donations.

I was amused to see myself cited with regards to the naming of the third mobile phone network – 2degrees.

I wrote an article a couple of years ago,  I think for the Dominion Post, where I said that NZ is such a small compact connected country we have only two degrees of separation between us – not the usual six.

My observation is quoted by 2degrees in their press release yesterday.

New Zealand is said to be a nirvana for social network researchers (Prof. Rob Allen – Auckland University of Technology) with anecdotal findings suggesting that we are actually much more closely connected with as little as two degrees of separation (David Farrar – Internet Commentator).

Sadly my contribution to their name doesn’t gain me a profit share. But I do welcome theur impending launch in August – more competition is a good thing.

The Herald has revealed that the anti-Asian pharmacist in Mt Albert is in fact just a locum there. The owners are on holiday. He has apologised:

Yesterday, the former NZ First voter conceded that “all groups have the right to representation in Parliament as part of the democratic process”.

Very big of him.

A friend of the pharmacy owners, K. Keys of St Heliers, has told the Herald in a letter how upset they are.

“The owners are distraught not only that their locum has made such a statement, but that he should feel that way,” Keys wrote.

I’d be ropable if I was the owner.

Very small things amuse me. I have a friend whose e-mail signature includes her job title of:

Senior BI Analyst Programmer

And everytime I see it in an e-mail, I snigger like a 12 year old. I just can’t help it. Even nine months on, I still snigger.

The good thing about having a juvenile sense of humour – I am almost always happy, and very easy to make happy!

Mai Chen has an article in NZ Lawyer on MMP. Some interesting aspects:

The skills for which the Right Honourable Helen Clark was often lauded, in governing under MMP (with a minority Government and disparate ‘support’ parties), seem to have been easily acquired by her successor, the Honourable John Key, despite Key never having been in Government. The new Prime Minister is now operating comfortably with a minority government under the MMP system after only six months in office. So comfortably, in fact, that this may be undermining public sentiment for change. It ain’t broke, Kiwis may say, so why fix it?

I’ve observed this also. The mroe sucessful John Key is at managing a minority Government, the less likely people are to vote for a change away from MMP.

Mai Chen then looks at options for reforming MMP, rather than dumping it. She focuses on the criticism that ACT got five MPs on 3.65% party vote and NZ First got none on 4.07% and proposes:

(a) Reducing the threshold to three per cent or removing the threshold altogether, which would likely result in a greater proliferation of smaller parties; or

(b) Requiring all parties to meet the five per cent threshold before they can have any List seats over and above their constituency seats. In the 2008 election, this would have meant that ACT would only have one MP, and the only minor party to obtain any List seats would be the Greens who won 6.72 per cent of the party vote.

I’ve long supported the threshold being 4%, not 5%, as recommended by the Royal Commission. If the threshold was lowered to 4%, there would be a stronger case for removing the back door method of an electorate seat to get List MPs.

Cactus Kate has done a very lengthy and detailed post on the conflicts of interest around NZX as both a regulator and a commercial player. Her summary is:

1. NZX is privy because of their Regulatory position to information that makes them a trusted source.
2. NZX charges for dissemination of this information to the marketplace and generates 45% of its operating revenue in this fashion.
3. NZX is spreading its Regulatory role of a trusted source collector and disseminator of this information into commercial publications it is planning to purchase.
4. NZX has had no permanent Head of Supervision for a year and it is arguable that this person is truly independent anyway.
5. NZX claims that its Supervisory and Commercial operations are “quarantined”.
6. NZX Supervisory staff have been financed into an employee share scheme. The NZX CEO is according to the latest accounts, the third largest shareholder in the company and has a sole financial incentive to increase the earnings per share to receive more shareholding.
7. The Securities Commission has previously raised issues of conflict with respect to NZX.
8. The Securities Commission is over stretched and under resourced, more so due to recent finance company issues.
9. The Securities Commission has called internationally for “independent, strengthened, and well-funded regulators for implementation at the domestic level” due to recent subprime crisis issues.
10. The NZX CEO has a new politicised role and is seen by political advisors as having large influence on John Key.

I suspect we will see ongoing scrutiny.

I love the tradition of the US President having to take the mickey out of himself (and others) at the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner. It is something unimaginable in non democratic countries.

The video below is the first part of Obama’s speech and links to the second part. Not as funny as Bush was (he was great at taking the mickey out of himself) but still pretty good:

ACT have put up six of these billboards, playing on the Labour ones.

New Zealand MPs and officials should be very thankful that we do not have the British system of expense claims for MPs, which has led to hugely damaging publicity over some of their more venal claims, which I will outline below.

In NZ, the system is based on a set allowance for personal expenses and a Wellington accommodation maximum expense which can only be used for rent, hotel rooms or mortgage interest up to around $480 a week.

In the UK they can designate a second home, and use taxpayer money to pay for expenses associated with it – not just rent but also utility bills, furniture, electrical goods, refurbishments and food. This has led to huge rorts, as has been revealed by bloggers and the media. Many of the worst offenders are Cabinet Ministers and UK Labour’s popularity is dropping even further to mid 20s.

What are some of the rorts. The Telegraph has a whole section on them.

• Former environment secretary John Gummer claimed 9000 pounds for gardening expenses including getting rid of moles.
• Conservative MP Alan Duncan claiming 16 hours a week of gardening expenses for a one acre property
• Gordon Brown changing his second home from London to Scotland just before he became PM, so he got maximum benefit.
• The Chancellor has changed his official second home four times, allowing him to claim stamp duty each time on each new purchase

And there are scores more. Even worse for the MPs, the details are being leaked to media, ahead of the planned public disclosure which would have details such as how many houses have been claimed for.

You can not under-estimate the disgust the public has for these revelations. One contact over there e-mails to say:

The Telegraph ran about nine full pages starting page one and then running on every consecutive page the day they broke the story. Today their Sunday edition would have devoted at least that much again I’d say and all the other papers are devoting about a quarter of that much space to it themselves.

There’s been a trickle of stuff on Tory MP’s rorting the system too but nothing like Brown’s crowd.  But, the way David Cameron replied to a BBC reporter when the story broke was interesting.  I suspect there may be some skeletons to come out of his party’s cupboards too but it is not going to damage them to anything like the disgust the man on the Clapham bus feels for Labour MP’s here at the moment.   Unless Brown can find a war somewhere,  I reckon his party could come third to the Lib Dems come election time.

The Telegraph has said they are about to focus on the Shadow Cabinet, and some of their rorts will have been as bad. But it is a reality the Government always ends up wearing more of the blame, and it is going to be a torrid time for Gordon Brown.

Trevor Mallard at Red Alert is seeking feedback on two issues:

1. If someone fails a breath test then all action related to driving while impaired with drugs ceases.  The evidence the committee got made it very clear that using booze and other drugs together had a multiplicitive effect when it came to having accidents. In an extreme case an offender would get a lesser penalty by having a quick drink when stopped at a checkpoint while high on “P”. Doesn’t seem right to me. My view is that where someone is clearly more impaired than they should be with a given breath test reading then the Police should have the right to move down the drug testing route as well.
2. When someone is hospitalised then blood taken can be used for a drink but not a drug drive charge. In my opinion anyone who has active class A drugs in their system should be prosecuted – even if they have had an accident where they have been hospitalised.

I’ve personally long been an advocate for greater scrutiny of drug driving, not just drunk driving.

However I understand that one of the real challenges is that drugs stay in your body a lot longer than alcohol, and long after it impairs you. I’m not sure if we want people charged if they drive a car two weeks after they had a joint?

Trevor though is talking Class Drugs such as ‘P”. The schedule of Class A drugs is here. It even includes Thalidomide!

Again though – how long does Cocaine effect someone and how long does it stay in the body? Is it fair to face extra charges for having taken coke two weeks before you crash the car? Some will say yes, as coke (unlike alcohol) is illegal.

Also Trevor’s proposal does not seem to be suggesting random drug testing – only for those who have failed a breath test and/or caused a crash and been hospitalised.

Overall I would tend to be in favour of the proposals, but open to arguments against.

Vernon Small in the Dom Post reports on the cost of a credit downgrade:

A credit rating downgrade could hit New Zealand hard, adding $600 million a year to our interest bill, equal to twice the cost of the new Wellington Hospital in Newtown, officials have warned.

In a background paper obtained by The Dominion Post, Treasury officials, using Ireland as a benchmark, draw a specific link between the country’s credit rating which agencies say is threatened unless debt is brought under control and social spending.

The paper cautions that, although extra borrowing is economically attractive in the short term, the cost of continued use of debt would rise exponentially.

And that $600 million a year is basically just wasted money. There is no guarantee we will avoid a credit downgrade, but I want the Government to be working hard to do so.

This was in the Western Leader last week, sent in by a reader:

Now Bob Harvey is a former President of the Labour Party, so when he talks of Labour being out of office for a decade, that’s not good. Also when he says that his Council has an excellent relationship with the Prime Minister.

Almost everyone is expecting that the tax cuts planned for 2010 and 2011 will be delayed, if not cancelled, in the Budget later this month.

I thought it would be useful to have a look at the tax cuts we have already had, and those likely to be canned, and to weigh up their relative significance. I’m going to look at each element of the tax changes:

Labour’s October 2008 package

This package has an annual “cost” (ie reduced revenue to the Crown) of around $1.826 billion. Note that Labour did not reduce any spending to compensate – in fact they increased it in their last budget by $4,5 billion. Labour did three things:

Bottom tax rate drops from 15% to 12.5% and threshold increases from $9,500 to $14,000.

Annual cost – $1.448 billion

Tax reduction on $30k – $620

Tax reduction on $50k – $620

Tax reduction on $100k – $620

Threshold for 21% rate increases from $38,000 to $40,000.

Annual cost – $0.211 billion

Tax reduction on $30k – $0

Tax reduction on $50k – $240

Tax reduction on $100k – $240

Threshold for 33% rate increases from $60,000 to $70,000.

Annual cost – $0.167 billion

Tax reduction on $30k – $0

Tax reduction on $50k – $0

Tax reduction on $100k – $600

Total October 2008 changes

Annual cost – $1.826 billion

Tax reduction on $30k – $620

Tax reduction on $50k – $860

Tax reduction on $100k – $1,460

Worth remembering when Labour goes on about borrowing to fund tax cuts for the wealthy eh!

National’s April 2009 package

This package has an annual “cost” (ie reduced revenue to the Crown) of around $1.292 billion. Also note National reduced other costs such as KiwiSaver by $1.429 billion – so the tax cuts were fiscally neutral.

National did three things:

Independent Earner Rebate for non WFF recipients earning between $24k and $48k

Annual cost – $0.500 billion

Tax reduction on $30k – $520 (if not WFF)

Tax reduction on $50k – $0

Tax reduction on $100k – $0

Threshold for 21% rate increases from $40,000 to $48,000.

Annual cost – $0.686 billion

Tax reduction on $30k – $0

Tax reduction on $50k – $960

Tax reduction on $100k – $960

Top tax rate drops from 39% to 38%.

Annual cost – $0.106 billion

Tax reduction on $30k – $0

Tax reduction on $50k – $0

Tax reduction on $100k – $300

Total April 2009 changes

Annual cost – $1.826 billion

Tax reduction on $30k – $520 (of not WFF)

Tax reduction on $50k – $960

Tax reduction on $100k – $1,260

So someone on $100k got $200 more of a tax reduction from Labour than National! Those on $50K got $100 more from National than Labour and those on $30K (if not on WFF) got $100 more from Labour than National.

So remember this again when Labour campaigns about tax cuts for the rich.

Now what are we missing out on:

Labour’s April 2010 tax cuts

These were replaced by National, but useful to look at what they would have been.

Threshold for 12.5% rate increases from $14,000 to $17,500.

Annual cost – $0.560 billion

Tax reduction on $30k – $300

Tax reduction on $50k – $300

Tax reduction on $100k – $300

Threshold for 33% tax rate increases from $70,000 to $75,000.

Annual cost – $0.061 billion

Tax reduction on $30k – $0

Tax reduction on $50k – $0

Tax reduction on $100k – $300

Total Labour April 2010 changes

Annual cost – $0.621 billion

Tax reduction on $30k – $300

Tax reduction on $50k – $300

Tax reduction on $100k – $600

Amazed the media keep repeating Labour’s spin about their tax cuts.

Labour’s April 2011 tax cuts

These were also replaced by National, but again useful to look at what they would have been.

Threshold for 12.5% rate increases from $17,500 to $20,000.

Annual cost – $0.359 billion

Tax reduction on $30k – $210

Tax reduction on $50k – $210

Tax reduction on $100k – $210

Threshold for 21% rate increases from $40,000 to $42,500.

Annual cost – $0.240 billion

Tax reduction on $30k – $0

Tax reduction on $50k – $300

Tax reduction on $100k – $300

Threshold for 33% tax rate increases from $75,000 to $80,000.

Annual cost – $0.051 billion

Tax reduction on $30k – $0

Tax reduction on $50k – $0

Tax reduction on $100k – $300

Total Labour April 2011 changes

Annual cost – $0.650 billion

Tax reduction on $30k – $210

Tax reduction on $50k – $510

Tax reduction on $100k – $810

National’s April 2010 tax cuts

These are the ones likely to canned in the Budget.

Independent Earner Rebate for non WFF recipients earning between $24k and $48k increase from $10 week to $15 a week

Annual cost – $0.241 billion

Tax reduction on $30k – $260 (if not WFF)

Tax reduction on $50k – $0

Tax reduction on $100k – $0

Threshold for 21% rate increases from $48,000 to $50,000.

Annual cost – $0.137 billion

Tax reduction on $30k – $0

Tax reduction on $50k – $240

Tax reduction on $100k – $240

Top tax rate reduces from 38% to 37%.

Annual cost – $0.105 billion

Tax reduction on $30k – $0

Tax reduction on $50k – $0

Tax reduction on $100k – $300

Total National April 2010 changes

Annual cost – $0.483 billion

Tax reduction on $30k – $260

Tax reduction on $50k – $240

Tax reduction on $100k – $540

National’s April 2011 tax cuts

These are also likely to canned in the Budget.

21% tax rate decreases from 21% to 20%.

Annual cost – $0.525 billion

Tax reduction on $30k – $160

Tax reduction on $50k – $360

Tax reduction on $100k – $360

So what do all these numbers mean? First let us look at total fiscal costs on an annualised basis

Total Fiscal Cost

• National’s total package – $4.126 billion a year
• Labour’s total package – $3,097 billion a year
• Tax cuts delivered to date – $3.118 billion

So under National tax cuts greater than Labour were promising over three years have already been delivered. And furthermore, by reducing KiwiSaver etc by $1.429b, National has reduced the impact on the books to around half what Labour’s tax cuts would have been.

What are we missing out on with the cancelled tax cuts? Another $1b a year – a fair bit – but only one quarter of the total package.

Total tax cuts for different income earners

Someone on $30,000 (not getting WFF)

• National’s total package – $1,560 a year
• Labour’s total package – $1,130 a year
• Tax cuts delivered to date – $1,140 a year
  

So someone on $30,000 (not getting WFF) has already got in tax cuts more than they would have got from Labour’s total package – but miss out on a further $420 a year.

Someone on $50,000

• National’s total package – $2,420 a year
• Labour’s total package – $1,670 a year
• Tax cuts delivered to date – $1,820 a year

So someone on $50,000 has already got in tax cuts more than they would have got from Labour’s total package – but miss out on a further $600 a year.

Someone on $100,000

• National’s total package – $3,620 a year
• Labour’s total package – $2,870 a year
• Tax cuts delivered to date – 2,720 a year

Interestingly it is only the so called rich pricks on $100k who have recieved less to date in tax cuts than they would have from Labour’s total package.

So remember these facts, when you hear myths:

1. National has not borrowed for tax cuts. National’s additional April 2009 tax cuts of $1.292 billion a year was offset by $1.429 billion of expenditure reductions.
2. Future tax cuts were promised by both Labour and National, and were both around $1b – $1.271 Lab and $1.010 Nat.
3. Labour’s future tax cuts were worth $1,410 for someone on $100k and National’s future tax cuts $900 for someone on $100k.
4. By having an additional round of tax cuts in April 2010 (when the economy most needs it as a stimulus), National has delivered in six months greater tax cuts than Labour were going to deliver over three years.

In the sadness of the Napier shootings, one can onoly find some light in the text message Lenny Holmwood sent a friend:

“Jan busted. 3 cops shot. Me leg. Can you feed Scrappy.”

Scrappy is his cat. There is something about Kiwis and our pets. I think more people were concerned about Fi the Police Dog, than whether Molenaar lived or not.Mind you Fi didn’t shoot three cops!

I was genuinely saddened to read on Poneke’s blog that Janice Moria Graham died a few days ago.  As Poneke explains:

Janice was a legend in the New Zealand Usenet newsgroups in the 1990s, posting hundreds of articles a day some days, most of them attacking the then National Government (and David Farrar, who worked for it and posted regularly in Usenet in those pre-blog days).

She strongly believed in the causes she espoused, to the point of standing for Parliament for the party that best represented her. Our democracy is as strong as it is because of energetic political activists like Janice.

I regret I never met Janice in person. By coincidence I did meet Daniel Silva a few days ago (after knowing him online for 13 years) who had met Janice in person.

Janice was relentless in attacking National online in the late 1990s – almost with missionary zeal. And she would often have a go at me. In fact she often emailed the Prime Minister complaining about something I had posted or done online. Fortunately for me, those e-mails actually came to me

Janice also caused much merriment when in her early days online she posed the question on Usenet “Who is the Master of the Internet?”, so she could complain to him or her about me. I helpfully provided an email address for Bill Gates, and there were many other unhelpful responses. I recall these encounters with affection, not malice. Also some wit (I never learnt who) started posting as “Master of the Net” for the next few years).

So farewell Janice and rest in peace.

Sent in by a local:

I like it. Mind you, would be more efffective in a centre-right seat but good for their brand.

The tagline is quite good – make Lee your local MP.

And Labour using the “Putting Mt Albert first” tagline.

Anyone seen a Greens one yet?

UPDATE: In the Herald this morning:

Not bad either. Plays on their ability to advocate and influence. Incidentially if I was National, I would use that theme for Melissa at some stage – play up that she will be a voice in Government and be able to have more influence.