On that, perhaps we can agree.

Not at all, maybe you need to read a bit more of your history to see how the USofA operated and how it was virtually a command economy. GB also played a rather significant role, and it was even more of a command economy the USA.

Yeah WWII history in all its aspects has been one of my lifelong hobbies, billy.

Please be more specific, so I can pretend I’m a fighter pilot on the Mariana’s “Turkey Shoot.”

Rent is for the use of a property and its chattels not for the supply of council services. End of story.

Who says?

reid, you are abysmally ignorant. What has capital gain and or losses have to do with citizens paying for the services that they use in the community?

I disagree with your first sentence. But I would say that, wouldn’t I.

RE: the rest of your post, you sound like someone vigorously defending a vested interest disguised as an intellectual conviction.

BTW, self-disclosure: I myself am a property owner, but not of rentals.

The Second World War was won by a command economy.

Bzzzzt.

Again, billy, you are quite wrong. Very wrong indeed. WWII was won by the United States’ industrial might. See, although the major fighting occurred on the Russian Front, THAT DIDN’T MEAN the materiel was supplied by Russia. Au contrare billy, it was supplied by the US of A.

Oh dear, you really are quite confused aren’t you, billy.

Especially the ones who lose thie jobs or the business owners who lose a major portion of their business.

Gotta love how the more efficient the right makes things the more private enterprise loses out.

[DPF: You don't understand that little part about how reduced govt spending leads to more private spending, savings and investment as peopel keep more of their own money. North Korea and South Korea are good examples of the different approaches]

June 13th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
reid if your argument works we should have a command economy.

The Second World War was won by a command economy.

the Nat plan gives us another $46M per year

Is that ALL???????

Hot damn.

reid if your argument works we should have a command economy. The problem with centralisation (even in local govt procurement) is that while economies of scale favour bringing everything together, innovation declines and coordination problems increase.

The reason a command economy doesn’t work Simon, is because the govt is both the supplier and purchaser.

I’m not suggesting that, in any way.

All I’m suggesting is that the govt is the largest purchaser in town, so why not use its buying power?

The problem with centralisation (even in local govt procurement) is that while economies of scale favour bringing everything together, innovation declines and coordination problems increase. The duplication that comes from mulitple players is the price of innovation and dynamic efficency. That’s why monopolies get regulated.

One should argue that the burden of rates should fall on the residents for they are the people enjoying the services etc provided. To argue that ratepayers should shoulder the burden allows that about 25% of the community will pay the increased costs. That 25% being the legal rate payers i.e. property owners. Now can anyone tell me why only property owners should shoulder the rates burden?

Property owners take the risk and reap the benefit of the capital gain. It’s their choice. Rent should be priced so as to incorporate rates into that and newsflash: I believe they are.

The fact that property owners are no longer getting the unrealistic capital gains they’ve come to expect, is not the tenant’s problem. This is the downside of the risk they take.

Cry me a river.

One should argue that the burden of rates should fall on the residents for they are the people enjoying the services etc provided. To argue that ratepayers should shoulder the burden allows that about 25% of the community will pay the increased costs. That 25% being the legal rate payers i.e. property owners. Now can anyone tell me why only property owners should shoulder the rates burden?
To say residents will gave to pay increased rents because of increased rates charges defies reality. Rents have been under pressure for several years now and are currently declining so no room for an increase there and in any case the Residential Tenancies Act specifically prohibits landlords from charging rates to a tenant. So how does she anticipate those increased costs will be paid by the ratepayer?
The landlord can charge metered costs such as water or electricity but for a council the does not separately charge those services then the landlord pays for the tenants living expenses.

The RTA is being reviewed currently so feel free to make submission to the select committee asking for the law to be changed to allow landlords to charge rates to tenants.(who are the users of the services etc provided by thew council.)
You can make the submission at
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/SC/MakeSub/3/4/4/49SCSSresidentialtenancies200907031-Residential-Tenancies-Amendment.htm

Further information can be seen at;
http://www.propertytalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21501&highlight=residential+tenancies

reid I trust your comments on centralisation were tounge in cheek. Why stop at the public service?

I’m perfectly serious, Simon.

Well reid you have got more confidence in local govt then me

All I’m saying is that the SuperCity outcome stands or falls on the operational efficiencies it brings, not the governance adjustments that are required to enable that.

It’s therefore primarily an operational question, not a political one.

The operational processes that require integration are very well known (not rocket science). This is a one-off opportunity to ditch legacy systems and processes that don’t work and implement world best-practice across the board.

Important features in that last sentence are: well-known processes and one-off opportunity.

Let’s be quite clear: there are multiple opportunities for fuck-ups here, and the politics of it tend toward someone deliberately planting those fuck-ups in order that when unforeseen time-bombs explode in future, those who disagree with the proposition can turn around and say “I told you so.”

My point is. This does not need to happen. It can become a beautiful thing, with elegance, grace, efficiency, magnificence. I’m not joking, this is within our grasp.

All the politicians have to do, if they want to avoid a time-bomb, is to expose the operations to sunlight, to give everyone a chance to see what’s going on, as it’s happening, so that everyone who knows about for example, waste management, can have a public chance to call bullshit on a plan that doesn’t make any sense.

That’s all they have to do.

Will they do that?

I don’t know.