Cactus Kate’s 10 tax policies for Labour
January 7th, 2011 at 4:53 pm by David FarrarLabour have only two tax policies – remove GST off fresh fruit and vegetables, and reintroduce a rich prick tax.
To help them with their policy development, Cactus Kate has proposed ten tax policies for them:
- Reduce GST to 10%
- Require all trusts in New Zealand to be registered with the IRD with the name of the settlor and beneficiaries
- Farmers, the largest of polluters (according the the numbnuts measuring of carbon) should be taxed per head of animal per year with the cost that New Zealand has to pay to the invisible pie in the sky
- Anyone with assets or is a beneficiary or settlor of a trust with more than say $500,000 can no longer receive Superannuation.
- Reduce the deductible amount to 20% of the total interest expense on real property (land) such that land owned by farmers, property “investors” and the like cannot pay less or even no tax by increasing the interest deductions based on leveraging property.
- Reintroduce gift duty
- Introduction of a 20% duty for the sale of all property including primary residence and all forms of land.
- A new top tax rate of 45% on those rich pricks earning over $120,000 and an increase of the current top tax rate for income between $70,001 to $120,000 from 38 cents up to 40 cents.
- Abolish Marshall clauses (which excludes the shortfall in interest as a “gift”) where the loan is repayable on demand
- Taxing New Zealand citizens (passport holders) at a 45% deemed disposal rate on expatriating their wealth at the date of departure if they become non-resident and a 15% inbound transaction tax on their assets coming back in even while they are still non-resident.
I’m worried that they may adopt a few of them.
Related posts:
- Labour desperate for every last dollar of tax
- Cactus forgets about use of money
- More on tax issues re the Glenn donation
- The tax on the $100,000
January 7th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
CK, Rip tear and bust just like an Actoid. All noise for now and gone by 20 something of November 2011.
Concentrate on what you are obviously very good at and don’t display the fragmented nature of your world view.
db..
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Db you do realize I have gone to the effort of proposing policy for a political party that actually doesn’t have much in the way of policy? They are not ACT policies. ACT has plenty of policies of their own.
Fragmented nature of your world view? Hello, all I did was tell Labour how to win the next election. You know, as they’re so far behind in the polls and all.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Has Cactus O D on the Christmas trifle. Bloody hell the socialists are perfectly capable of fucking us all over without her help.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
Yes if we don’t debate their potential tax policies they wont think of these measures all by themselves….right…next….
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
You do not need a marshall clause to avoid liability for gift duty on shortfall interest if a loan is also repayable on demand anyway. Marshall clauses and clauses making loans repayable on demand are alternative strategies for avoiding gift duty liability. So I do not understand the rationale for this policy.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Hello, all I did was tell Labour how to win the next election.
Yeah right! If they went ahead with 5,6,7,8 & 10 they would be completely un-electable!
Oh wait ……. carry on.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
And thus make investment in productive enterprise – from venture capital for start-ups to shares in public companies – more attractive as an investment? Sounds bloody good to me. There are business owners all over NZ with untapped potential who are forced either to take on debt (and contribute to the margins of Australian banks) or raise the equity they need by (ironically) mortgaging their home, if they haven’t already done so to start their business, simply because most of the available “investment” money is sucked into property.
The rest of the ideas… not so much.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
You laugh Bevan but I do remind you that Kiwiblog comments contributors are sadly not necessarily a wide ranging selection of the voting public. I think some of those proposals you listed are vote winners given the demographics of the NZ electorate.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
You do realize Kate that right at this moment there is some wet brain in the labour caucus running around shouting “Eureka” we are in two thousand and elevin.(sorry)
Yep, there’ll be those that think they are all great moves, just don’t put up the price of smokes
db….you would be the humourless goose that should have had his neck rung on Xmas eve then.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
“Hello, all I did was tell Labour how to win the next election.”
Vote:No.
What you did was propose a pile of shite, that everyone with a brain cell know’s is shite, in the hope that the collective of blithering idiots that infest the various blogosphere echo chambers will take them for actual or proposed or even remotely possible labour policy and start frothing at the mouth.
January 7th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
You laugh Bevan but I do remind you that Kiwiblog comments contributors are sadly not necessarily a wide ranging selection of the voting public. I think some of those proposals you listed are vote winners given the demographics of the NZ electorate.
If that is the case, them I’m glad I left.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
I’d be off to Australia if these things happened. As would many of the 20% who pay 80% of the tax in New Zealand.
Cactus Kate obviously despises the working class of NZ , they’d suffer the most.
Unintended consequences are a symptom of such policies.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Ok M@tt how are Labour going to pay for their spending promises that come out this year? Come on….ideas? Because to capture the ground that National now holds they actually have to be different to National this time.
You say they aren’t Labour policy but what is? Labour has actually only one confirmed tax policy thus far to take GST off fruit and veggies. And that will actually decrease revenue.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Wreck see proposal one – exit tax of 45% of your wealth as a deemed disposal on date you became non resident then a 15% reentry tax.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
It is imperative for any good democracy to have a good opposition. Labour are clearly all over the place so it is incumbent on all lovers of democracy to lend a hand where it is needed.
Cactus Kate has helped out because clearly Silent T is bereft of his own ideas, and Phil Goff only talks in sound bites coupled with his funny walk….that isn’t going to get them across the line so they need help to at least make it a contest.
I’ve done my bit by simplifying the message down to “Are you any better off after 3 years of National”…it’s simple, so their voteers can grasp it and simple for the middle people to grasp as well…it doesn’t require complex policy and invites a binary response.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Labour has rubbished every single one of National’s policies saying that they don’t go far enough or don’t spend enough…viz a viz they want to spend a whole heap of hooter more on bribing the electorate.
Cactus Kate has shown Labour how to get that loot and the number 1 option is hitting the Eric Watson tax exiles….you know the guy who is mates with public enemy number 1, Mark Hotchin, a man so despised even Clayton Weatherstone hates him.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
OK,this is how Labour win and previously managed to hold power for 9 long years:
1. Voter, nothing is ever your fault ever.
2. You deserve to be paid for doing fuck all, in fact its better you stay at home and we will tell you how to run your life.
3. Alcohol and cigarette duty will never be raised, we will just put that tax on businesses.
4. We will appear to look like we are doing amazing things in the house, but really all we will do is pass some socail engineering bullshit, gay marriage for green whales
5 We promise to do nothing in regards to stimulating the economy, we will leave it to the private sector and then just tax the be jeezus out of them.
6 It some of you insist on working for your income we will create a lot more government departments for you to fill in your time sheets.
7 We will sort out how we pay for most of this after we have bought the election, but basically we willl tax the rich pricks
Easy, Phil, its there in a nut shell
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
P S
the only way the prime Minister can loose the election this year is to make Clark Governor General
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 6:38 pm
Or have the Maori Party and Peter Dunne return to Labour, or not have with ACT and Peter Dunne a clear majority, or not achieve a clear majority themselves and so a Labour/Greens/Maori coalition…..and then theres Winston….
I think who the GG ends up being is irrelevant.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
The current top tax rate is not 38 cents. In October it dropped to 33 cents for $75001 and over, inclusive of ACC it is 35.04 cents. Labour have talked about putting it back up to 39 cents.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
From an asset protection perspective practitioners are licking their lips over the repeal of gift duty.
Less fees in the way of filing gift statements, but greatly enhances asset protection that someone can obtain. And it doesn’t even look like any changes are going to be made to compensate, like more protection for creditors or the integrity of rest home subsidies.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
I think Cactus Kate is laughing her tits off about this set of measures.
Vote:It is a huge piss take and too many of you were sucked in by it.
January 7th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
No!
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Thankfully this is very easy to get around if the commies were ever foolish enough to try and instigate it.
Before emigrating, buy Oz shares through a NZ broking house, then sell them through an Oz (or other, but not NZ) broking house whilst resident of another country, that is neither Oz or NZ. That way you avoid the commie tax and avoid the Oz capital gains tax, by being resident of neither.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Sorry Pete that was a typo, should be 33, I shall go back and correct.
Mattyroo, yeah erg no. At the date of becoming non resident you would have been deemed to have sold the shares at the current valuation, NZ having worldwide reach on source income and all.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
Easy for an expat to say.
How many of these proposals would affect her or does she live under right now? Zeeeerooo! Be like me saying I’m sick of these child abusers, off with their heads. Taggers get the stocks with humiliation, rotten food and the whip. Blah Blah Blah
If Labour came out with a policy set similar to this then I would liquidate my property investments. If they then looked like they had a shit show of winning then most of it would be popped over to Aus, or Guernsey or the Channel Is, or I’d tap my cousin in Switzerland on the shoulder and have him help me set up an account there and send the majority off overseas before the laws were passed.
Result? Assuming several thousands of others did the same, then massive loss of revenue. Well that worked then didn’t it!
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Only if you declare it Cactus, that’s the beauty about some of the online trading platforms…..
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
I agree with roupee. Piss-taking aside, most of these “policies” would send NZ back to the bottom of the OECD and even further: Third World here we come!
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Mattyroo, such sophistication. Don’t declare anything you wont pay any tax…but eventually you will get caught by being a numb nuts so not advisable.
Rouppe you really are quite simple aren’t you. Number 1 would actually affect me. A few of the others would affect me as well but I’m not going to put my entire financial affairs on the net am I? All your avoidance measures you have mentioned there you can do right now. But it would be illegal and stupid with it. If you send liquidated funds offshore then you still have to declare them under NZs tax on worldwide income. Your cousin in Switzerland wouldn’t be much bloody use either particularly if s/he ran off with all your coin.
Fact of matter is that NZers aren’t particularly mobile. Most NZers do return from OE, I am in a minority. When they have kids it is even harder to pack up and move.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Who would ever take economic advice from a self-confessed boozing slut living in HK and paying close to zero tax?
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
No call for that sort of abuse.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Swiftman I have my own post on Kiwiblog and you’ve still got a very small penis that a woman sluttier than the sluttiest woman in the world won’t blow. So who is the winner?
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
Whatever.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
I’ve had better arguments with whores in Bangkok.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
I’m with Rex, although 20% is too low to set interest deductibility – maybe 60%. High leverage to buy property is what caused a lot of our problems.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Whores who still won’t blow you even for money.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
You are right Cactus Slut. But I wasn’t after a ‘blow’. And I won the intellectual argument.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
Was that before or after they imposed a search fee surcharge?
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
I’d take Cactus’ advice…invariably it is right…one reason she makes a whole heap of hooter from people with even more hooter.
As for Swiftman…you pay whores to fuck off afterwards not for arguing…if they are arguing it must be over the tip you gave them that was he size of your cock.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
I was there to study Buddhism. I subsequently traveled to India to go on the Buddhist pilgrimage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_pilgrimage
Please have some respect.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Only on Kiwiblog can you meet online men who admit to rooting prostitutes (probably while still in a relationship) and then call a woman the slut.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
Worse he argued with the same prostitutes and all while on a Buddhist pilgrimage…as my 14yo old son would say…EPIC FAIL.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
Totally unfair.
Vote:You people are nuts.
January 7th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
You won an intellectual argument with a Bangkok whore?
Wow, a right f*cking Einstein you are.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
This is funny as. Keep posting Swiftman!
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
‘You won an intellectual argument with a Bangkok whore?
Wow, a right f*cking Einstein you are.’
No wanker-boy. I was at Donmuang Airport on my way to Calcutta Airport.
Geez.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Hang on you’re the one saying you had better arguments, and won them, with Bangkok whores? Now you are recanting?
Get your story straight.
Either way it is looking pretty bad for you where I am looking at it from….tiny cock, can’t get a hooker to blow you, but won an intellectual argument with them in Bangkok…way to go lil fella…keep that up and you might make the Elmwood Junior Mass debating team.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
From Bangkok to Calcutta by Singapore Airlines.
Vote:From Calcutta to Patna by train.
From Patna to Gaya by train.
By Richshaw from Gaya to Bodh Gaya – Site of the Enlightenment of the historical Buddha circa 480 BC.
January 7th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
Whaleoil = fat ugly bully boy.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
I recommend Wankoil that you read the Dhammapada, which is the major text of the Hinayana Buddhists.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
Now I’m off to bed.
Fuck you.
good night.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
Swiftman, if you can reconcile your spiritual pilgrimage with the sort of filth you post here, then good luck to you.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Uhmm Slowman….you are the one who mentioned hookers in Thailand and sluts in Hong kong, no one else…we just followed your lead.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
I am I mistaken???…………….. or has this thread deteriorated somewhat
usually it takes the muslims lynchers or the climate change defenders to utterly munt it this badly
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Re 2 – I am surprised CK seems to be unaware that trusts already do register with IRD, otherwise trustees would be personally liable as a ‘partnership’. They do annual tax returns (IR6) and disclose to IRD trust income distributions made to beneficiaries. Presumably CK has in mind greater disclosure as a precursor for her other items.
Re 4 – a $500,000 asset limit for national super would hit a wide range of people including core Labour supporters because their houses would often be worth more than that. The newspapers would be full of gut-wrenching stories of pensioners forced to sell their homes and rent since they are often asset rich (their mortgage free homes) and income poor.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 10:59 pm
Peterwn…the bills must be paid somehow…Labour has promised and will promise to spend massively…they already think National are too tight, so as I said the bills must be paid.
Helpfully Cactus has shown Labour some interesting ways to get the cash.
As for the “poor” pensioners…i would extend her policy further and say that at 65 people should be made to cash up, irrespective of the current economic conditions and then live off their cash until its all gone and then they can claim super….would solve the cash poor/asset rich trap.
Oh and diddums to the greedy old people…they are just beneficiaries with a fancy name.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 11:27 pm
Jesus Whale, become a government control freak over night………………should be made etc… thats shit
Not withstanding any pensioner with an asset will have paid tax their entire natural and lot more of them would have more cash if they hadn’t had the tax fucked out of them by successive labour governments having to supply money to all sorts of beneficaries that are of a working age.
Thinking like that would do wonders for the economy, everyone that turns 65 has to put their home on the market and sell their shares, fucking genius.. that won’t depress any markets . Why the fuck would you save and own anything?
Much easier to take the “Logans Run” solution and after you top the old, the infirm, the medically dysfunctional, the state just seize the assets ….
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 11:54 pm
Cactus, so quick to reach for the nasty pill…
Yes I can liquidate now. However at the moment I quite like living here and intend to continue to do so. However I have no intention of funding a government that will rip ever-increasing amounts of my income and assets to fund a socialist programme that at the same time I am prevented from accessing.
If I send most or all the money offshore, I would be likely to leave shortly afterwards. It would be sent before the avaricious penalties for voting with my feet that you propose (advocate?) come into force.
I would no longer be NZ tax resident, so the IRD’s world-wide reach would not apply.
Where-ever I chose to move to, I would arrive with little declared assets, so would start with a clean slate.
Don’t see much problem with that strategy. There are plenty of examples that seem to contradict your assertions. Such as Hotchin whose NZ assets are frozen, is overseas pleading poverty, but still seems to have enough for a beach-side resort lifestyle. Sam Morgan has publicly said he pays no tax.
Evidence suggests there are ways…
Vote:January 8th, 2011 at 2:52 am
Good grief, for something that was obvious satire – but yet policies that had more “meat” on them than what the current opposition have, some people really do have no sense of humour whatsoever.
Swiftman surely jests; no Bangkok street walker would be caught dead going all the way to the old international terminal out at Don Muang, it would cost far too many baht unless they were generously compensated by a obliging benefactor. I suspect this was a long time ago too, going by the outdated Asian terminology. Given your visit to Thailand was only to the airport, I suspect your grip of the Thai language can’t be that good – meaning not only would you have lost any imaginary arguments you had in Bangkok, you also are losing this one in English too.
Vote:January 8th, 2011 at 6:20 am
Peterwn – where??
The IR462 settlor disclosure only applies when there’s no trustee NZ resident, a NZ resident trustee becomes non-resident or when the settlement is made for another person. That is, it doesn’t catch all. That form catches very few of trusts I was referring to.
The IR607 only applies to foreign trusts and in any case is a very minimal disclosure form. Ditto the IR307.
And beneficiaries in any instance don’t return anything until they’ve received a distribution.
The Law Commission currently has proposals for stricter regulation of trusts. One proposal is for a central register, which means there isn’t one presently. My proposal expands on this to what this register should contain. There is currently not enough data on a register at the IRD to means test in the way I’ve described effective to catch those avoiding the system.
Pensioners sell their homes frequently when they move to rest homes. Asset rich/cash poor hello? The best argument for liquidating assets. They can’t take assets with them can they? Why does the taxpayer have to give them all sorts of relief when they are sitting on a large asset such as a home too big for them?
What the current system says is you can sit on a million dollar home and you won’t be means tested even though its more money at age 65 than most 65 year olds will spend in the rest of their life…an average lifespan in NZ is only around 12 more years to 77. I see nothing wrong with expecting them to spend their own money before turning to welfare, which is what super really is considering it hasn’t been paid for in full by its current recipients.
Rouppe – you aren’t understanding much are you?
If for example let’s assume you act legally and declare everything you have to and you cashed up everything (property sales with 20% duty attached) and sent the cash off to offshore bank accounts, well done, to the moment you are about to leave NZ or are judge to be non-resident from the IRD you would need to return (ie declare) in your last tax return the cash in overseas bank accounts (including gains/losses on foreign exchange in those accounts) and that would be deemed disposed of at that date you leave with 45% rate attached. You are still judged on worldwide source for assets and income up to and including that last return.
If you “gave” the cash to someone else before you left NZ to keep for you when you went overseas would fall under the gift duty rules. Smash, there’s around 25% duty.
If you “loaned” it to yourself or others for zero or low interest you would fall under the Marshall clause repeal. In any instance that final return has to declare it as an arrangement.
Here’s a useful release http://www.ird.govt.nz/aboutir/media-centre/media-releases/2010/media-release-2010-07-01.html.
Hasten to add many New Zealanders should read it. Those foreign bank accounts are all declarable. The existence of them and the income gained from them.
Right…any more?
Vote:January 8th, 2011 at 7:41 am
Actually, I’m surprised about Cactus Kates version in No 2 as well.
The IRD requires new trusts to register and get a number. If you gift more than $12,000 in any FY then you have to fill out an IR196 (this is for family trusts) and send it to the IRD – this contains all the info they need.
I seem to remember this requirement for the info came in around 2005-2006 and it has certainly applied to all trusts I have set up or maintained since then.
Vote:January 8th, 2011 at 8:24 am
Cactus….
If I exited the country while the regime you propose were in force, then of course I would be hit with the penalties.
It’s a shame I’m typing otherwise I’d speak slower for you…
Your proposals are currently only that – proposals. If Labour declared those proposals as its economic manifesto, then I would liquidate to enable rapid movement of my economic base. Remember, your 20% duty doesn’t apply yet. It’s just a proposal.
Then if it’s looking like Labour would win, I would ship it offshore. No punitive costs for that yet, remember. They are just proposals….
If I stayed in NZ, then yes IRD has worldwide reach. Your link is targeting NZ tax residents. But if Labour wins, then off I go. No 45% exit tax because there’s no way they could pass legislation 12 hours from the election. No longer a NZ tax resident so IRD can go whistle.
I know its frustrating to only be getting 1 and 2 comments on your blog. Maybe it’s because you insist on being haughty, snarky and bitchy Cactus. That’s certainly why I stopped reading you, along with your “look at me, I’m having another glass of Verve dahling” attitude.
Not everyone’s impressed with the amount of money you make. Think about it.
Vote:January 8th, 2011 at 8:43 am
I reckon is a case of too many bottles of La Grande Dame imbibed in one session (time to change to Comptes de Champagne) . Sober up, Cactus.
Vote:January 8th, 2011 at 9:12 am
So taking this little list point by point:
*Reduce GST to 10%
Increases consumption, potentially at the expense of savings. Would obviously require offsetting revenue increase.
*Require all trusts in New Zealand to be registered with the IRD with the name of the settlor and beneficiaries
Agree.
*Farmers, the largest of polluters (according the the numbnuts measuring of carbon) should be taxed per head of animal per year with the cost that New Zealand has to pay to the invisible pie in the sky
I would question the need to contribute to the invisible pie in the first place.
*Anyone with assets or is a beneficiary or settlor of a trust with more than say $500,000 can no longer receive Superannuation.
Perhaps (means-testing, how delightfully un-Labour!), but the threshold should be higher and the family home would have to be excluded.
*Reduce the deductible amount to 20% of the total interest expense on real property (land) such that land owned by farmers, property “investors” and the like cannot pay less or even no tax by increasing the interest deductions based on leveraging property.
Question the impact on the broader economy of this change, which seems more moralistic than well thought out.
*Reintroduce gift duty
A lot of work for almost no return. Again for show.
*Introduction of a 20% duty for the sale of all property including primary residence and all forms of land.
Even property not purchased for investment purposes? If so, an awful idea.
*A new top tax rate of 45% on those rich pricks earning over $120,000 and an increase of the current top tax rate for income between $70,001 to $120,000 from 38 cents up to 40 cents.
NZ pays peanut wages (Auckland, on NZ wages, being one of the most expensive cities in the world) and if you want those currently overseas to stay there, do this.
*Abolish Marshall clauses (which excludes the shortfall in interest as a “gift”) where the loan is repayable on demand
Hardly a tentpoll policy for election year.
*Taxing New Zealand citizens (passport holders) at a 45% deemed disposal rate on expatriating their wealth at the date of departure if they become non-resident and a 15% inbound transaction tax on their assets coming back in even while they are still non-resident.
How delightfully Zimbabwean. Aside from being a concerted attack on individual liberty, a few other consequences – dual citizens, especially Australians, would renounce their NZ citizenship, avoidance would be rampant, and the 15% tax on repatriation would simply discourage many of our best from coming home. What a brilliant idea!
Vote:January 8th, 2011 at 10:08 am
Just to be serious for one moment.
Labour strategy team just cut and paste from here.
1/ reinstate top tier – RP tax 40% applies from $100k (MP’s salaries and perks to become tax free, applied retrospectively back to 1990).
2/ trusts abolished and all assets nationalized. New office of trust settlements (OTS) established for those disenfranchised to make claim for compensation. Capped at $1 billion. Finite life of 20 years. Led by ex Labour politicians automatic right of entitlement for card carrying labour members.
3/ entrenchment of Maori seats (that should buy the Maori vote for no real money)
4/ SOE act change to allow 49% privatization, program of sales announced over next 9 years to “keep NZ” public onside. Shares only to be sold to NZ citizens, investment companies must ensure only NZ ownership. (announce this policy immediately to trump Nationals upcoming one) this will provide all the extra money for the next 9 years to fund perks and overseas trips.
5/ trucks banned from trips over 100kms, all long distance haulage to be on rail, new tracks to be built to ensure rail spurs are within 100km’s of everybody) trains will use cycle way corridor as nobody wants to bike when they can use public transport.
6/ seabed act repealed and all foreshore to 100 inland given to Treaty Settlements for redistribution
7/ dole increased to average wage, nobody should have to live on less than 50k per year. all musos, artists and drug takers can live on dole no work tests.
8/ working for families extended into new working for state program. Everybody now pays all wages to state and gets back enough to live (based on the Cullen principles).
9/ treaty of waitangi to become the new constitution, no need to waste money on consulting, this one has stood the test of time.
10/ parliament to be moved from Wellington to the old MT Eden. MT eden to be renamed Mount St Helensville (if the pope wont annoint her, we will just have to do it ourselves). Helensville to be renamed as Klarkville to remove confusion.
There 10 policies for Labour.
Vote:January 8th, 2011 at 10:19 am
Interesting list, I am not keen on 1/3/8 and 10 is to harsh I believe, but the rest are good policies, nz’s obsession with real estate investment over productive investment is frustrating.
Vote:Unfortunately from a getting elected perspective 1/3/8 are winners, but I would not be around to see the result if implemented, I’d leave NZ.
January 8th, 2011 at 10:23 am
I thought this was all a piss take, but judging from the comments here it is for real.
Vote:Cactus, I learn more from your comments than I learn at any number of expensive Continuing Education courses run by the N.Z. Institute of Chartered Accountants. Thank you.
I have the right hire and fire trustees in an inter vivos trust with assets in excess of $1.2mil. If the trust resettled upon another trust with all present and past Labour Party politicians listed as discretionary beneficiaries this is what would happen. If any of those troughers got any dough from the Trust the trustees would be replaced. It would also follow that as the troughers are all beneficiaries (discretionary!) of a Trust that none of them would be eligible for N.Z. Superannuation.
Your idea to remove the Marshall clause from contracts freely entered into reminds me of an American politician who remarked that;
“the government that is big enough to give you everything you want will also be big enough to take away everything you have.”
Or, to rephase that in a way that Labour Party people will comprehend;
to remove Marshall clauses freely entered into would be like legislating to make homosexuality compulsory.
January 8th, 2011 at 11:00 am
Tauhei
You cannot be serious
BTW # 2 exists and Gift Duty hasnt been abolished yet. Mark Hotchin will be very pissed off
Vote:January 8th, 2011 at 11:06 am
also BTW #2
Did Whale and Kate have a bit of an evening on Yahoo webcam last night ?
Vote:January 8th, 2011 at 11:14 am
DPF, I think you need to remind CK that the next election isn’t until November…we are in January. Do I have to point out the obvious?
Vote:January 8th, 2011 at 11:18 am
Whaleoil wrote “Labour has promised and will promise to spend massively”. Tell me again, how much is National currently borrowing each week? Cheers
Vote:January 8th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Ah Ross still plugging away at that, huh?
If Labour were still in power, do you think they’d be borrowing less? They’d still have had to:
1) Bail out SCF. It was their legislation after all
2) Front up for the Canterbury earthquake
3) Continue to pay for WFF, interest free student loans, and rail spending since they bought the bloody thing at the wrong time fr the wrong price anyway
4) Continue to spend more and more on Health since they wouldn’t do a review
5) Pay into the Cullen Fund
I could go on.
Do you really think that Labour would be borrowing less? Unlikely
Vote:January 10th, 2011 at 8:26 am
Oh FFS, have all the people that can take a joke all left Kiwiblog and replaced with angry humourless old men?
I guess CK will need to type “satire” in big letters under anything she writes like this again. Wow.
Vote:January 13th, 2011 at 6:28 am
How you doin, Kate?
DPF, have you been at the Cactus juice again, shame on you.
Holiday retreat my ass.
Vote: