Questions answered
I blogged this morning on the case of Bruce Burgess, as reported in the Herald, and said there were questions about how one is facing losing a property you purchased in 1989, because of a job loss four months ago.
Well either as a result of that post, or by coincidence, the Herald has updated their story and answered some of the questions. We now learn:
Mr Burgess told the Herald today the couple own two properties in Auckland – a house in Papakura and an apartment in central Auckland purchased “in 2004 or 2005″ – but they were not currently returning any money.
This is presumably on top of the lifestyle block in Helensville. So the story now is that if you lose your job, and own three properties, you may have to give one of them up.
He said he paid about $385,000 for the Papakura property, though it was now worth about $340,000.
The apartment was purchased for “$260-something”, but he did not know the current market value.
So assuming the lifestyle block is worth at least $500,000 their propoerty assets come to over a million dollars.
But about four months ago, Mr Burgess – whose case was brought to the Herald’s attention by the Labour Party – lost his Avondale-based engineers job – and with it a $750-a-week paycheck.
And this was not disclosed in the earlier story. Now did Labour disclose to the Herald that Burgess owned three properties? Either Labour or Mr Burgess did not think this was relevant, or they did disclose it and the NZ Herald did not think it was relevant.
This is exactly why so many people are cynical about trusting what they read in the media. The Herald took a Labour planted story and ran it without checking the facts or even putting it through a logic check.
And Labour have shown us exactly what their priority is for all the money their pixies are printing. It is to give out welfare to a couple where one partner is working, and they have over $600,000 of investment properties.
This is not turning into a good week for Phil Goff. It seems he literally does advocate welfare for millionaires.
We see from this Twitter shot, that the story was obviously part of a Labour comms campaign. Goff twttering on it this morning, and asking questions in the House. So did Goff know this couple actually owns three propoerties worth around $1.4 million when he held them up as an example of why we should pay the dole to everyone?
I think Whale pointed out a couple of days ago TVNZ were running figures with the source being Labour. I hope they checked the figures before running with them.
UPDATE2: And it gets even worse for Labour. Duncan Garner blogs:
Labour has been dealing with Burgess for days over his plight and Goff has just given a vein-popping performance about poor old Bruce in Parliament.
“Why,” Goff asks, “should poor old Bruce be missing out?”
Why should 60-year-old Bruce lose his lifestyle block because his wife earns too much for him to qualify for the dole?
Well, let me tell you what Phil Goff won’t tell you.
Bruce Burgess also owns two other rental properties on top of his lifestyle block. Burgess appears to have never told the Herald this.
But he did tell Goff. Oh yes. He told the Labour Party about his financial situation alright.
He told Labour he owned three properties. It’s just that Labour never told the media. Phil Goff never told the full story in Parliament about Burgess.
Labour did know about the other two properties. They told a deceptive story to the media and held this situation up as the poster child for their campaign. Shabby, shabby, shabby.
July 22nd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
So how did Labour get to know about the Burgess’s situation?
A Party Member? A relative or friend of a Party member?
perhaps Mr Burgess could go into the Immigration Consultancy business. It is all the rage in Labour Circles.
And with just 3 properties in his portfolio, this couple are only half as successful as Helen Clark at being Socialist CULT followers.
July 22nd, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Bloody well put DPF – spot on.
July 22nd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Is Goff being set up by his Parliamentary staff? He got done over on this issue at Question time.
July 22nd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Well of course DPF as I have opined before if JK would set up the Truth and Retribution Committee with GD as Chairman I would have Goff and the reporter and the “victim” before me to answer the well known questions
Who knew what
When did they know it
Who did they tell
etc etc.
We would soon get to the bottom of this malarkey
July 22nd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
OH SNAP ! The other question is, what prompted the Herald to come clean ( eventually )
July 22nd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Hey Mr. Eames, what party do you vote for???
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
They sound very very much like BlueChip properties to me, judging by the locations, price and absence of rental.
No doubt the bank is telling him to sell both the investment properties and then come to some arrangement on servicing the balance of debt, if there is any – and the way those blokes stitched people up, there will be plenty left.
What a pair of greedy socialist fools – borrowing an extra $645 to but property with a fraudulent rental guarantee when their gross income was less than $100k. What a foolish greedy bank to lend them the money.
Of course, now they know what it is like to be despised ‘rich pricks.’ Let him go and get a job caring for old people in a rest home. There are plenty of vacancies.
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:16 pm
So the story now is that if you lose your job, and own three properties, you may have to give one of them up.
Not necessarily. As far as I am aware, we dont know how much mortgage payments this couple have. The story should have been that if you are earning 21k, you are entitled to $91.20 in unemployment benefit no matter how much property you own. If you get income from those properties you can still get some benefit if your total income is less than $27,700 a week. But if you cant pay the mortgage, then yes, you may have to look at selling a property other than a family home – or get tenants which will mean your income increases and you wont get a benefit.
Perhaps Labour also didn’t disclose that they knew that the Burgess could get $91.20 a week in benefits given their apparent lack of income from their properties.
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:18 pm
I wonder if this will get on TV and reported in the mainstream media?
After the way the media has taken Goff to task about his Borrow and Spend talk this last few days, just after saying how Key and English should have kept on borrowing to save the credit rating last week, I doubt it.
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Why can’t Labour pay their own in times of hardship?
The original article is disgraceful. However it has lured “Don’t change a thing ” Goff into a trap. He is that stupid.
Hey Phil, try Immigration Consultancy. It is a lot easier and more profitable. And with your contacts in the Party, and immigration service, it should be a breeze.
And why didn’t Labour do anything to protect folks from the Blue CHip scam. Was Byers also a Labour Party funder? Related to WRP?
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
The other question is, what prompted the Herald to come clean
It may have been a conversation I had with the journalist to fix the story up. I told him that if they didn’t earn money off their properties they are entitled to a benefit. I asked if he knew if they did or not. Perhaps he wanted to find that out and update it?
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:21 pm
The other question is, what prompted the Herald to come clean
It may have been a conversation I had with the journalist asking him to fix the story up. I told him that if they didn’t earn money off their properties they are entitled to a benefit. I asked if he knew if they did or not. Perhaps he wanted to find that out and update it?
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
The 2007 CV on the Helensville property is $780,000.
JC
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:24 pm
I hope the IRD audits these fuckers.
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:24 pm
David,
You conveniently forgot to mention that Mrs Burgess’ income totals “about $21,000 a year”. Millionaires indeed!
Don’t worry, David, they might own three properties now, but it won’t be too long and they’ll be down to one. I wonder if they’ll be entitled to welfare then. Or will they have to earn less than 21K?
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:27 pm
First a honey trap.
Now the money trap.
Both equally as laughable.
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:31 pm
An excellent example of the NZ Herald bering tripped up by regurgitating a Labour party planted press release without fact checking. Good work DPF.
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Interesting isn’t it seeing all these free marketers,help yourself clowns now berating someone who did exactly that, albeit perhaps not as wisely as the paragons of knowledge they pretend to be. Gees if you guys could see yourself you are behaving just like the idiots at the Standard but at the other end of the scale.
For some reason you appear unable to acknowledge the inequity of the dole situation as it relates to those that earn an income and pay tax. You are quick to berate those that never do but rush to condemn the very people who do for themselves only to be shat upon when help is needed. And I’m not necessarily talking about this couple. There are lots of others out there in a similar situation and if you bothered to read the comments on the Heralds original article you would be a bit wiser.
I’m not here to defend these two, especially as he was probably an EPMU member as an engineer so contributed either voluntarily or otherwise the EPMU efforts to keep Clark and co in Govt.
This clearly shows that social taxation is a disaster and were we left with a lot more money by having lower taxation and had to ensure that we carried our own insurance if we wanted to be supported in these circumstances, it would be much more sensible.
To that I end I look forward to this Govt. promptly doing what it said it would and knows it should and restore tax rates to 33% as they were before Clark and co took over.
I won’t hold my breath and don’t bother with the feeble weak excuses that we have had sprinkled all over us like fairy dust since this lot started on their higher salaries. Pixes in the garden indeed. Fairly tales from the beehive more likely.
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:00 pm
No doubt Phil at his screeching best http://bit.ly/fq8zo
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:01 pm
hahaha muppets
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Phil Goff. You are a lying Toad. period
But “Don’t change a Thing!”
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:21 pm
I find it hard to believe that people with such relatively small cash income could think it a sound idea to buy not one but two investment properties. Adolf is right that the bank involved in such dealings needs to rethink. It is like Blue Chip when people on national superannuation and not much other income feel it is sensible to take out mortgages to buy investment property. Is this not greed overwhelming sound investment principles? Why should taxpayers have anything to do with supporting people who have got themselves into this situation?
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Because they paid their tax and now that the person who paid the tax is unpaid why is he discriminated against?
The principle is simple even if the understanding of it isn’t for you.
Put yourself in the same situation. It can happen to you or have you got income protection insurance for when you lose your job.
You are an independent taxable entity when earning but that ceases the moment you paid employment stops. Ah but not is you turn 65 for then you get a pension.
The facetious use of the millionaire argument is trolling of the worst kind.
This is an issue that should be considered along with other tax issues.
If we had income sharing for couples then there may well be an argument to turn this over but not while a person is an entire taxable entity of their own accord.
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
well well well, another labour dirty trick. Quelle surprise.
hey guys, why dont you out there in the Labour party get a clue. Someone who is buying speculative investment properties and living on a lifestyle block seems much more like on the the “rich pricks” that you are supposed to hate rather than a worker done wrong by the recession.
So he joined the queue to buy dodgy investment apartments. Well more fool him. What makes this something that taxpayers should subsidise?
Oh, thats right, you’re socialists, welfare for all, and keep us all poor and grateful, whats that term again, oh yes
“whack it on the bill phil”.
She’ll be right, I hear the money pixies are making another delivery overnight.
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Viking stop being a tool.
He isnt being discriminated against. He is being treated exactly the same as anyone else would be in that situation.
The dole is not a reverse tax, so your entire line of argument about taxable entities is irrelevant.
The dole is a safety net, it is not insurance. Paying tax in the past is not the same as having paid insurance premiums.
Loving all the updates, DPF.
lol muppets
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Isnt it a complete bummer when you cant shut something down, that is starting to smell, with a short phonecall from the 9th floor. bugger.
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Typical!
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Viking2 – take a chill pill. If you read through the comments you will find that almost all are having a pop at the Herald for being gullible (again) and Labour for being caught out trying to be cute and clever (again), not the couple at the centre of the story. It does look like they have been a bit silly and over committed but at least they should have enough assets to get out of strife.
My biggest concern is that Goff is going to be overthrown before the next election and there might actually be some opposition for Key.
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:02 pm
kaya, nil deperandum. Relax, old chap.
No matter what a hopeless failure Goff might be, he’s the most competent leader they have.
Who are they going to put up? Hair plug or The Mercenary? Just imagine the horse shit which would fly if Mallard was leader.
Cunliffe is damaged good with Hawkes Bay and Bill Liu baggage set to sink him. Who else is there? A bunch of adolescents who are still finding their shaving brushes and their foreskins?
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Key gave Goff an absolute towelling over this at QT today
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2009/07/phils-own-goal.html
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Viking, if we agreed that this guy is allowed the dole, then logically any non-working partner of someone earning is also entitled to the dole. Presumably you can see how stupid that would be as a proposition – maybe we should all pay more tax so Mrs Key can get the unemployment benefit?
As for the millionaire argument, it is exactly relevant. Let me rephrase the story:
– I own my house and two investment properties, and have a net worth of $1 million
– I lose my income, or even choose to leave my job, I’m not unemployed
– Some kid straight out of school, working minimum wage as an apprentice, is being taxed to pay for me to get the dole
Is that in any way fair? Does it make sense?
I would argue that it doesn’t. I can understand the sob story when it is about someone who worked all their life, has only the family home as an asset (and not an exorbitant family home), and is now about to lose it. I’m still not certain that it makes sense to tax that apprentice to fix it, but it is a great sob story.
But when the story is about someone with substantial assets beyond their family home, and they might be forced to sell some of those assets to pay the debt on those assets – how does it make any sense to tax that apprentice?
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:17 pm
@ Adolf – the spies suggest that there has been a bit of to-ing and fro-ing at Maryan Street’s house of late. No BBQ’s but there may have been a few fondue parties
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Heh, Phil Gaff.
Or, ‘fill-in Phil’ as the media were calling him last night – a fill-in until the next real Labour leader.
I love John Key’s reply –
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:30 pm
I hear theres been the odd “tuppa-ware” party at mr stong-arm-limp-wrist’s place?
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Dead right Fletch – and surprisingly, there was a touch of anger in Key’s voice when he delivered that line – I think Goff’s antics really pissed him off.
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Come on guys, even Goff is not that bloody silly, while I despise his politics he has never made this many blunders before in such a short space of time.
I suspect he is being set up, Goff would do well to take a fresh look at the motives of all those who surround him, I would not be surprised to find out that either Mallard, Dyson, Cunliffe or Street’s people are setting him up to look like an idiot.
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Oh dear, The Standard has gone off the air. They can’t handle the avalanche of own goals.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:04 pm
mickysavage… where are you ?
Just out of interest – did Goff (muppet of the moment) say the life style block was stunningly beautiful ?
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:05 pm
big bruv
If that is true then he is a complete muppet for not checking the details before he shoots from the hip.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Stuff sums it up, no new info though. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2664204/Dole-wars-Key-claims-Goffs-facts-wrong
“Under media questioning yesterday Mr Goff would not say if there would be a cap on the partner’s income but today told Radio New Zealand; “yeah probably there will be a cap”.”
“Yeah probably” ? LOL can you smell the desperation, Goff’s making up policy off the top of his head every time a mic is pointed at him
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Good one Phil … te hee hee ( snicker snort! )
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:12 pm
iPredict is not showing any signs that Goff is about to be rolled – keep an eye on it all the same.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Adolf – maybe someone finally discovered the last of the network cables dangling from the 9th floor ?
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Viking2
It’s funny really isn’t it – means testing of benefits is such a tory party thing to do yet Labour wouldn’t let it go. The more tax you pay the less entitled you are to govt funded social services. The old Labour party mentality of universal benefits was a great thing because it helped to balance the inequity of progressive taxation.
Now of course high earners are just cash cows to pay for votes – as confirmed by Goff.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:15 pm
the standard has not gone off line. I guess the problem here is you lot are so convinced that you are the smartest people in the room, that your quite willing to interpret anything , in what ever manner, so that is supports a conclusion you have picked out of the air.
Picked out of the air being the key part, it is all one giant delusion, massively wishful thinking on your part.
Start with some solid evidence, then people might take you seriously.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:20 pm
racer1
The standard has become an embarrassment on many levels, but they will bang on defending the indefensible like good partisan hacks because it’s what they do. I’m sure they will be back.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:20 pm
“the standard has not gone off line. ”
Reality just doesn’t matter to you AT ALL does it ? “We have always been at war with Eastasia”.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:21 pm
racer1, who needs solid evidence when we’ve got the mentally dormant gap toothed leader of the rabble running around doing our job for us?
I’m almost convinced he’s taking his lines from the National Party research unit.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Anybody care to predict the next Roy Morgan poll results?
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:24 pm
racer1
“Firefox can’t establish a connection to the server at http://www.thestandard.org.nz.”
OK so explain to me how it is not offline ?
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:25 pm
” burt
racer1
but they will bang on defending the indefensible like good partisan hacks because it’s what they do..”
Kind of exactly like kiwiblog then huh?
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:27 pm
The point I was making is not that this particular person is being discriminated against but that the system we use is discriminatory. I have a customer in a similar predicament. She lost her legal job,(and anyone in that business will tell you that legal jobs are far apart currently.), has always worked but because her husband earns over thirty grand they are not eligible for any assistance. They still have their kids to feed, modest mortgage to pay and no collection of houses or other assets. Too young for that.
Lots of people like this. Now why should they stay married. Better financially for one of them to move out until they can restore the situation. Is this what you want people to do? Because this is exactly what happened in the 80′s and early 90′s.
Its anti family if you like.
Now to the net worth of the individual. We don’t know that and as far as I am able to determine neither does anyone else. Just because you have a name on a title doesn’t mean you have no mortgage. So rather simplistic to say he has a net worth when we don’t know if he does and if that is realizable and if there would be a surplus at that time. Currently there may not be and selling may leave the situation even worse. Lots of people in that situation right now.
The argument using the apprentice is rubbish as well. for all income earners who pay tax and everyone who spends adding GST to the tax take is in the same situation. That’s what tax is. So your argument is that if you are a rich prick because you have made the effort then you are on your own despite contributing your earnings to the tax pool.
As I said we would all be better off if we had a lot less socialization of the tax and we obliged to provide for ourselves for these things.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:27 pm
racer1
C:\ping http://www.thestandard.org.nz
Pinging thestandard.org.nz [69.55.236.241] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Ping statistics for 69.55.236.241:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),
OK so explain to me how it is not offline ?
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Here’s the message from The standard:-
“Failed to Connect”
What more need I say?
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:37 pm
burt: I get the same. No ping, no connect. Somebody forget to pay the bills again? Perhaps the Labour Party haven’t found a way to hide those expenses this year?
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:42 pm
PaulL
lprent will get it back up and do some random post talking about cron jobs and ip stacks etc. He is good at revealing all sorts of details about his server. He must be one of the few remaining sysop’s who thinks it’s cool to test changes on a live system.
It is funny that he is recently talking about the stunning volume his server is getting when just a week or so ago he was bagging his off-shore host for not wanting to accept the volume for the $2/month he was paying.
He’s a few sammies short of a picnic that one.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
You know, I wouldn’t feel so bad for Goff if he was actually really concerned about Burgess.
I posit that he isn’t concerned at all – he doesn’t give two rats about ‘John key’s constituent’.
He only cares about finding fuel to attack the Govt – doesn’t matter what it is.
The man is disingenuous.
I don’t think he cares at all about New Zealanders as a whole.
It’s all about scoring points to him, and that’s why he will fail.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:52 pm
I was astounded watching parliament today,not only did we have a liarlabour member reading a heart broken letter but also a greens member and 3 of 4 more liarlabours reading letters.I lost count there was more…. it was like an agony aunt afternoon.One of the worst was a solo mother on dbp not getting enough money…BUT after paula bennett pointed out after all the grants she could claim for she would total over ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS PLUS…………….
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:59 pm
forgot to add that it was over one thousand a WEEK……………………………..PLUS……………………………………………
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Should a benefits cap relate to Houses/Property owned?
10 Properties – Zero Benefit at one end of the Scale
Just one main property, Full benefits?
Should Commercial Property Count? How about Works of Art? Jewellery collections, stocks and bonds?
Do we know if this chap is a member of the EPMU? Why don’t they have a hardship fund, instead of playing Politics by giving huge
subscriptions to the Labour CULT.
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:23 pm
And this is relevant how? Are you advocating that people should keep their mortgages topped right up so that taxpayers can fund their profligacy?
If they bought a property 20 years ago and they haven’t paid the mortgage off then tough fucken titties.
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Thank god. I was so confused. I saw some poster on the standard saying THIS is the kind of everyday middleclass New Zealander that needs our help. I read the Herald article and just thought “WTF, this guy is a property speculator”, then said the same thing on here and the Herald online (they don’t seem to want to release it from moderation though). Now I realise that the acticle had been updated from the original you guys saw.
I cannot honestly believe that Labour could have known about the other properties when pushing that story. That would take a very special kind of retard. Surely they neglected to ask the proper questions and rushed quickly to the press?
DPF is right though, the Herald has just been accidently punked by Labour. Do they care? Probably embarrassing, but they now get two stories for the price of one.
Omelette: Meet Mr Goff’s face.
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:37 pm
“If they bought a property 20 years ago and they haven’t paid the mortgage off then tough fucken titties.”
Most likley they had a mostly mortgage free property. Then used the equity to buy the other two (~$650k). If the properties aren’t returning cash now then the rental couldn’t have been covering the interest. His income would have to be used to top up the interest (don’t forget the tax breaks on the shortfall). But don’t worry – all three of the properties are going to up and he’s going to pocket the capital gain. It’s all going to be ok.
But the property market goes down, and as Russell Brown famously says – “It’s not ok”
I do feel sorry for the situation they find themselves in. I certainly wouldn’t want to be in it. But these guys shouldn’t be held up as middle class worthy of help. They are, like many others, speculators who got burned.
The dole:
For food and Shelter. Yes.
For first, second and third properties? Not so much.
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:13 pm
I doubt this was a setup by labour leadership hopefuls, its too stupid. Most likely Phil Goff is just so deperate for impact that he’ll latch onto any headline. In the words of Jemaine Clement “what a hilarious misunderstanding”.
Thought Key was quite generous both on the Burgess household and on Goff, by just telling Goff to “make sure he understands all the facts” instead of spelling out that these are property speculators who have been burned.
However the Herald is a bit of a disgrace in my oppinion. They:
(A) publish an essentially misleading story. I might accept that they may have took the family at their word, but should have made some sort of obvious acknowledgment online when the real facts revealed themselves. But instead they
(B) modified the original online story and did not even leave a tag that the story was edited. Personally I expect a little more from them. I hope some such comment is put both online and in tomorrow’s paper.
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
paradigm
I look forward to the Herald headline; Herald doctors content after publishing a story where fact checking had been appalling.
Arguably Goff needs to face the music himself, and on behalf of Labour, over this. If Labour had introduced a capital gains tax on investment property early 2000′s we would not have seen the over investment in residential property we have seen. There would not be so many under capitalised and over mortgaged speculators driving up housing affordability for first home buyers had their not been such tax advantages to owning multiple properties. Furthermore, when preparing to sell a property, impending capital gains tax obligations forces a level of equity in property that at a time like this is sadly lacking.
Do National have the balls to remove the residential property investment distortion ?
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:13 pm
As far as I am aware, we dont know how much mortgage payments this couple have.
….And this is relevant how
Because, NeilR ( (9:23pm) even if they have paid up their investment mortgages but are still paying their residential mortgage they may be entitled to a WINZ accommodation supplement on their residential property as it is not freehold – which is not classed by WINZ as an asset.
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:19 pm
This is exactly why Labour is out on its arse. I suppose after WWF, Goff putting the cat on the dole is nothing that would surprise me. What the twatter doesn’t understand is that we are sick of socialist crap.
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:20 pm
” burt
OK so explain to me how it is not offline ?
”
When you lot first started saying that it was offline, it was still working fine for me, how ever after a while it stopped.
Now you lot explain why you are in any position to give any reason why it may have happened? Oh your not, your making shit up, as usual.
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:32 pm
racer1
One us sounds like he is making shit up. Either way – the site is up now, argue with me if you like.
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Burt, exactly right that Labour should have introduced a capital gans tax – if they had any principles at all. I understand a capital gains tax was supported behind closed doors by Anderton in the early 2000s (he occassionally has had some sensible ideas) but Clark and Cullen wouldn’t have a bar of it.
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:09 am
The manner is which this couple’s plight is reported is totally disappointing. Clearly things went wrong for them with the misguided belief that they would make money speculating on residential property. Even worse, they were misguided enough to mortgage their own home to finance it. Here’s the thing with residential property, people are sold the idea of depreciation and negative gearing so that they are able to pay less tax and get tax refunds from the government. This is foolish on so many levels. Negative gearing is foolish as it is a sexy way of saying a loss. It means you need alternative income to pay for your losses. When this couple lost their income, they cannot cover their losses. They may be forced to sell some property, but when prices drop they realise a capital loss just to make their matter’s worse.
This is the downside to risky property investors and this couple should have been smart enough to understand this before borrowing to buy and hope.
However, what I find even more upsetting is that this couple tried to pay “less tax” by negative gearing these properties. Now they want the taxpayer to bail them out when it did not go their way. Is this the type of people Goof Off wants to help?
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:59 am
Can you imagine H1 and H2 making the same mistakes in their prime? Erg..no. Even they could pick their poor properly.
Joe Plumber!
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:41 am
They could separate as couples did in large numbers during the 80′s and 90′s and qualify for benefits. Is that what you wish. Some people just haven’t learnt anything from history.
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:56 am
@Dave “Because, NeilR ( (9:23pm) even if they have paid up their investment mortgages but are still paying their residential mortgage they may be entitled to a WINZ accommodation supplement on their residential property as it is not freehold – which is not classed by WINZ as an asset.”
If true I find this unbelievable. Has the welfare net really got this wide?
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:05 am
One of the better scoops on your blog for a while. Good stuff DPF. Not to take anything away from you but, jeesh, the Herald and the stupidity of the comms genius at the Labour Party seem to have made it easy for you
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:07 am
Labour Party supporting man with a million losses job and has to shut down the heating on one of his swiming pools, Phol goof demands he be given free money.
Watch closely while I give a crap.
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:08 am
Grizz said: Here’s the thing with residential property, people are sold the idea of depreciation and negative gearing so that they are able to pay less tax and get tax refunds from the government.
Which is why the Greens support a capital gains tax to level the playing field and encourage people to invest more in productive enterprise rather than property speculation.
And while Goff has made a pigs arse of this mediawise, there is a valid point behind what he what he was trying to say. Main benefits, such as the unemployment benefit, are income tested. They are not asset tested. There is no expectation in the welfare system that people sell assets to get by before they become eligible for the benefit. Whether you agree or disagree with that is another issue, but it is a fact and always has been since the unemployment benefit was first introduced.
So if Mr Burgess were a single man, he would be eligible for the unemployment benefit, regardless of his assets. It is his wife’s rather meagre income that disentitles him, so the law is discriminatory on the basis of marital status.
Accommodation supplement, by contrast, is asset tested, which is the reason he would be ineligible to receive that irrespective of his family status.
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:11 am
just get rid of the laqc tax dodge, there is no need to add more tax just remove incentive to cheat, oh thats right labour are cheats
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:19 am
“level the playing field ”
You mean punish people for working hard so the sick lame and lazy assholes who can’t be arsed getting out of bed in the morning can get a free ride off everyone else. YOU are whats wrong with this country toad.
Socialism is evil, pure and simple.
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:25 am
Murray said: You mean punish people for working hard so the sick lame and lazy assholes who can’t be arsed getting out of bed in the morning can get a free ride off everyone else.
You mean property speculators, Murray? What “work” do they do? They don’t produce anything useful – just take advantage of an unfair tax system to make their money.
expat said: just get rid of the laqc tax dodge, there is no need to add more tax just remove incentive to cheat, oh thats right labour are cheats
My recollection is that the LAQC tax dodge came in when a National government was in power. Fair point that Labour didn’t do anything to wind it back though.
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:36 am
Racetard you are obviously too dim to know when a site is online and when you are looking at a version from your browser’s cache. Come back when you have mastered the complexities of clearing your cache in your browser ( no doubt Interet Explorer)
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:55 am
yeah, its dodgy either way toad. laqc’s are so wrong its not funny, an amateur landlords tax break.
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:07 am
The funniest thing is the commenters on The subStandard being obliged to defend Gaffe by pretending they think a million dollar failed rental property speculator is exactly the kind of person who ought to be receiving this dole, when in reality they think they’re evil treacherous bourgeois exploiters of the working class by owning any property above and beyond a single state house.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:00 am
This from today’s Herald:
“Mr Key’s staff have been in touch with Mr Burgess, and the Prime Minister urged him to work with Work and Income…But Mr Burgess told the Herald he had met a Work and Income staff member early yesterday and been told he was ineligible for a benefit.”
So who is out of touch now? I guess a Work and Income office would be a foreign place to Key. He assumes that WINZ will help Burgess, possibly becuase Key would expect help if he were in Burgess’ position. I wonder if the PM has learnt anythng from this exercise, or will he continue argue that a couple earning 21K should not be entited to a brass razoo.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:00 am
The philosophical underpinnings of our progressive tax system are that those people who have more money should pay a greater proportion towards the funding of government. We have traditionally used income as a proxy for wealth, as it is generally easier to track income than wealth, and income tends to be less movable across borders. Over time this has become less true, and it is a substantial anomaly that someone with enormous wealth but little income ends up paying little tax.
Note that I don’t particularly agree with our current policy settings around the amount of tax, but if we’re going to have tax I consider it inefficient that some people (who have largely assets and little cash income) manage to avoid tax, whilst other people (who have a lot of salary income but little assets) get taxed hard. Essentially our maximum tax rates apply to the upper middle class, the truly wealthy avoid most tax.
In detail:
1. Fully support a capital gains tax. Investments that generate cashflow get taxed, investments that generate capital gains don’t. That is a flaw in the system, and drives investment decisions to be less efficient than they would otherwise be.
2. Any capital gains tax needs to be well designed, and take into account inflation and the risk free rate of return, and needs to account for timing issues (e.g. if I make a capital gain on paper relating to some land I own, it is unreasonable to ask me to pay tax on that if I haven’t actually sold it).
3. I see no reason why the benefit system should be used to bail out property speculators who aren’t actually in trouble. If they’ve reached a point where their investment properties are sold, and they remain with debts over a relatively standard family home that they cannot pay, then I think it makes sense that there is some government support (and, in fact, the accommodation supplement will do this). But if the problem is that they cannot service the loan they took out to buy some investment properties, then they should sell the investment properties and pay off the loan. If they make a loss in selling the investment properties, then that is unfortunate. Shit, I made a loss on some shares I own, should I now be eligible for some sort of government benefit to make up that loss? I’m pretty sure we aren’t (or at least shouldn’t be) paying taxes so that investors can be guaranteed to never lose money.
4. Property speculators are investors. They add liquidity to the market, and they take risks in doing so. I don’t agree with Toad that it isn’t work – it is work, and it is a necessary function in leveling the market. If you wanted to sell a house and there were no speculators, you run the risk of being unable to make a sale if there are no buyers. When there are speculators, someone will take it off your hands at a fire sale price, and plan on selling it again when prices recover. That is a useful function, and that person needs to spend time doing that, and sleep at night knowing that they might lose everything tomorrow. I don’t, however, agree with Murray that they should be somehow entitled to government tax breaks or benefits that someone working for a salary doesn’t get.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:03 am
Put it away: more likely that the domain name resolution was down for one reason or another – perhaps a change of ip address associated with a change of hosting company? If this was the cause, then:
1. If you had the standard open because you slavishly read it every 5 seconds, then you probably had a cached ip address, and wouldn’t notice the domain was gone until the validity of that dns entry timed out in your local cache
2. If you hardly ever visit the standard, and went over there for a giggle, it wouldn’t be able to resolve the name
3. Different isps would have different periods of outage, depending on how their dns servers are configured.
racer is still a tool though.
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:03 am
Toad, a capital gains tax would matter little in the situation of this couple. It would only come into play should they sell their properties. It is the concept of negative gearing when investing in residential property that needs to be addressed. Had the tax refunds not been there, perhapse this couple would have invested elsewhere and not needed to mortgage their home in the first place.
However, I do agree that on some level a capital gains tax would be helpful, but it would have to be part of a wider range of tax reforms.
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Negative gearing is available for things other than property. The phrase makes it sound different and unique, but really it is just the implementation of the principle that costs incurred in the pursuit of income should be deductable against the income. That is to say, that we tax only the profit (income less expenses), not the revenue.
In the case of a house, it would clearly be ludicrous to say to someone “we’ll tax all rent you receive, but allow no deduction for the interest you’re paying on the mortgage.” Similarly, it would be ludicrous to say to a taxi driver “we’ll tax the full value of your taxi fares, but allow no deduction for the cost of the petrol in your taxi.”
Where this is out of whack with property is that you can organise things such that you have almost no income (hence no profit and no tax). This would be a pretty dumb thing to do – lose money so that I don’t pay tax. Kind of like saying “I’m not going to work because for every dollar I get paid, the government gets 39%.” Except with property (and with some shares), you can make it back on the capital gain. And the capital gain is tax free. So you organise things so that you lose money on an ongoing basis, and get it all back when you sell the (renovated and mortgage free) property. So a capital gains tax is the answer to this problem, and is an answer to the same problem with respect to highly leveraged share investments.
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:25 pm
This is why the welfare system is fundamentally fucked up. It’s not meant to be some elaborate game that people who can “work the system” can extract as much largesse from the taxpayer as possible. It was intended to ensure that those in need were provided for.
It’s completely irrelevant how much this guy’s wife earns – they are obviously able to sustain themselves either by selling one of their additional homes or through borrowing against their assets.
It’s a complete joke to think that someone with more than $1m in assets would even be held up as a poster boy by the left for extending the welfare system. It just goes to show how totally out of touch Labour are.