Do dairy farmers really only pay 3% tax?

May 18th, 2011 at 2:49 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Inland Revenue Department figures provided to revenue spokesman Stuart Nash show that, in the latest full year for which figures were available, the average paid by dairy farms was $1506 a year, despite an average Fonterra payout understood to be well over $500,000.

The 17,244 registered as being in the sector, including companies, trusts and individuals, paid only $26 million in tax.

This is such a bullshit story, I don’t know where to start. Here’s a few vital facts:

  1. The tax data is from 2008/09 and the Fonterra payout figure is from 2011. Epic fail. As I understand it commodity prices in 2008/09 were much lower, and most farmers in that year made a loss.
  2. The $500,000 is a revenue or turnover figure, not a profit figure. This is not comparing apples and oranges. A company can have a $500,000 turnover and a $30,000 profit. Turnover by itself is meaningless for tax purposes.
  3. The $26m in tax paid in 2008/09 only relates to tax entities classified as dairy farmers. Many dairy farmers are in the unclassified category which paid an additional $1.5b in tax.
  4. Labour and the Dom Post divided the $26m by the 17,244 tax entities registered as dairy farming. Many of these are defunct shelf companies etc. The actual number of dairy farms is thought to be around 11,500.

MAF have some data on the average dairy farm. In 2008/09 they found the average farm had $750,000 income, $529,000 expenses, $235,000 interest and depreciation resulting in a loss of $6,300. Their average tax bill was $18,600 so profit after tax was -$25k.

So the story is a total beatup. They commit two cardinal sins. One is comparing revenue from one year against tax of two years earlier. You’d be thrown of of accountancy school for that. Equally bad is comparing turnover to profit. A mistake that only people who have never worked in business would make.

Having said all that, I am a supporter of a (subject to a reduction in income taxes to compensate). A is near impossible to avoid, very simpleto calculate and provides an incentive for land to be out to good economic use.

If Labour are serious about closing tax loopholes, then they should propose a land tax. It would over time boost NZ’s economic growth as it encourages better economic use of land.

Tags: , ,

134 Responses to “Do dairy farmers really only pay 3% tax?”

  1. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    I thought that Nash was better than that.
    I was wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    It certainly was a bizarre story. Especially if you’re starting out. Cows are over $2,000 each last I heard, and with 400 or so in a milking herd (remembering that there’s cows being fed to start milking next year too) not counting equipment like tractors etc you’ve got some serious debt to service before you get a single dollar in your hand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. reid (16,457 comments) says:

    …they should propose a land tax. It would over time boost NZ’s economic growth as it encourages better economic use of land.

    Why what’s wrong with the way it’s currently being put to use? Apparently we’re one of if not the top agricultural producers precisely because we put our land to such good use.

    The reason why farming is so attractive is because it generates a large capital asset over time which can be put to work in a number of ways such as purchasing other blocks over time, this is part of its business model. This is why people enjoy farming.

    Placing a tax on such transactions when they occur, of any percentage, significantly degrades that lifestyle benefit, and for what purpose? What would a tax do, in terms of encouraging productivity that evidentially already exists in adequate proportion?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    There already is a land tax and it is paid on unrealised gains and must be paid regardless of variations in income..
    These taxes are called rates.
    And a typical Dairy Farmer is paying $30,000 to $50,000.

    And of course they pay GST.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    And of course they pay GST.

    On what?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    And paye, and if there is a share-farmer set up the share-farmers proportion of the milk payout, and …..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. jims_whare (403 comments) says:

    I made the same point at Whaleoil – load of bullocks and shame on the media for printing it without even asking a rural accountant for advice on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    That crap article was an insult to crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    Yes, of course they pay GST. On your figures David, today each farmer would be paying a total of say $51k GST along with his/her income tax of $19k. (I’ve allowed for some non gstable wages in the expenses.) That’s a total tax bill of, wait for it, $70,000.

    That’s more tax from each farm than sorry arsed Nash is likely ever to earn in gross income, should he try his hand at a real job.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. simpleton1 (228 comments) says:

    For me I am surprised that the dairy farm taxes are so low, perhaps owners may be in another catergory as investor?, retired? running another business, or nurse, school teacher etc* Well some went bust and walked off too.

    Even if they are claiming interest costs on bank loans, they can not claim an offset GST on that, so will be paying considerable GST tax, as also on any Principal, no matter how it is treated.

    Even the taxes they pay can not be used to offset GST, and if they draw money to pay the tax then that will be taxed too.
    I do realize that taxes go up and down in cycles, and if a business goes low on tax then there is not money there to reinvest, and then pressure builds up so capital is pulled out of income, either to invest or repay borrowings, then taxes really do increase wildly. Hopefully they have good banks to borrow from to pay the tax.

    I do know that some areas last season did have some short dry times so the dairy farmers did buy in a lot of feed, maize, silage, palm kernel, to keep the cows going so perhaps there is no surprise that their was very little profit. Perhaps the wife out working *as teacher or nurse etc to keep the farm going, food on table, should have been extra taxed ??.

    Perhaps there is a cost in not only paying effluent fines, but considerable expenditure in changing systems then RMA to meet the moving goal posts of regional councils. Yes science is helpful as pollution and effects and what systems do work and some that do not work are figured out and at on going costs are adapted and worked on. Professional advice from 10 years ago has changed a lot.

    Would this also include share milkers? contract milkers, herd managers? dairy farm workers?
    Would be really great if the farm owner had 33% taken off his gross income then told the 50% share milker or 20-30% contract milker that he will only get to share from the after tax part. Of course forgetting that the owner must supply many things also for the good running of the farm.

    If inputs(fertilizers) are not put into land it does not just sit idle awaiting another use.
    The modern grasses deteriorate, weeds such as thistles, ragwort,(Of course in certain districts the councils will enter and charge at bureaucratic costs to try and control certain weeds) gorse, broom, blackberry, then perhaps ferns and manuka, eventually leading to a mixture of trees, like willow, pines and perhaps some native bush, where some bush wild life walk would be very nice and enhance our 100% green and pure. Perhaps a nice restaurant with top chefs could make a living there from the walking tourists, and employ staff??

    Rates would still be charged and if not paid would go into interest charges and then said property is sold up.

    A few farms are sold at high prices setting a high government valuation, the flavour of the month, and then the other farm next door has to pay increasing rates at that valuation and to do that is then often driven to convert by the land tax charged by councils to what ever business is the flavour of the month/year, or to sell (if the pressure is too much) to some entity that will do the changes.
    I see some farms nearby are now for sale at barely 50% of government valuation, and there are always some exceptions, such as close to a city so ideal for subdivision and life style lots.

    It does not take much of farm even in some country areas to pay over ten of thousands in rates, yet have to at their costs supply house water, sewerage systems, electricity line costs. This what drives farmers to improve, develop, change, upgrade regardless of the costs and borrowings. As one told me if only he could sit back and enjoy the income, but new rules and regulations (shifting goal posts) and so costs force him to borrow to up grade, as he said in a few short years he could see he would become uneconomic, if he did not. The days of the little 100 cow farm is long gone, when even a 300 cow farm was thought to be huge. Probably even a 300 cow farm is now marginal, and certainly would have to be debt free.

    Funny how I know at least 2 dairy farms with in 15km had their owners families walk off in the last 2 years, with very little to show, and a neighbouring share milker going off and he and his wife will work for the banks to pay off his debts for the next 5 years if the banks agree. Certainly would not have paid much if any income tax, and all I see are some shattered families. Sure some may have been their faults, and the banks had lent to them almost insisting during those heady times. Yeah too good to be true, as I fear NZ has one day to wake up too.

    Admittedly this is a rant, but I have been in business and consistenly paid taxes and some years considerable taxes, that just had to go on the OD, and simply the family for years just had to do with out. Now things are established, (for how long) why should I not live a bit better, and of course I still pay taxes at the rate as applied to my income.

    Any farmer who diddles IRD is a fool (penalties/fines are harsh), and audits are often enough and thorough and expenditure these days is all figured to what is personal and what is an expense. As all expenses must be itemized and on a GST tax invoice.
    The odds are that a farmer does not always claim all expenses, if he pays cash or lost the tax invoice, for what is an expense.
    The main business of dairying goes thru a company and bank statements. Even selling bobby calfs or to calf rearers, they want to deduct the cost of a calf for their tax purposes, so there is a real paper trail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. s.russell (1,642 comments) says:

    This will make Labour really popular in Taranaki, Waikato and Southland. Not.

    Labour’s search for a scapegoat for NZ’s ills continues. At least they are not accusing Jews. Yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. garethw (205 comments) says:

    Some poor use of figures, but they haven’t claimed $500k as profit anywhere in there? It seems entirely reasonable to ask if our farms are making an average $500k in revenue why they aren’t profitable in a way that sees them paying tax. Your MAF figures support exactly the same questions.

    If the dairy sector is touted as the economic backbone of the country yet is making effectively no profits then we have a serious issue. And, as you say, we have a taxation system that completely avoids that structure and they therefore provide very little national tax revenue for their supposed “backbone” status.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. simpleton1 (228 comments) says:

    Scrubone
    Mortgage principle, interest on mortgage, personal drawings, income tax does not offset any GST that is charged on the company gross tax invoice payment, so basically that is what IRD collects

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. simpleton1 (228 comments) says:

    Whoops I forgot to include employees wages, which herd managers, assistants, milkers, can be condiderable

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Do dairy farmers only pay 3% tax? . Fuck what a beat up. Talk about playing dog whistle politics, the socialists over at the standard are barking like the useful idiots they are. This is a story about a desperate opposition trying to play the politics of envy and class. Liarbore like the bullshit artists they are have taken figures from a season highlighted by drought and thus the figures are probably a lot lower but never mind. They conveniently forget the huge amount of debt farmers are paying, rising prices in fertilizer, power’ fuel, wages, local rates. Just like every other business in NZ we are been squeezed to the limit. When we finally do start to see better returns we have all these fucking parasites demanding more. Bloody hell I would be over the moon if I only paid 3% tax, I’m afraid if that was the true state of affairs NZ would be will and truly fucked. Is not rates, acc, paye, gst, efts,not taxes and yes I know everyone pays these things. The arseholes in Liarbore love going on about paying your fair share, take our local town. pop 3000, 95% of the rates that keep this town going are paid by the rural sector. Ask me what’s fair about this. The fucking socialists are really desperate and that goes for the National Socialist to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    This sort of point-scoring by use of selective data (even if the data is right, which I’d agree this isn’t) gets us precisely nowhere in the long run.

    The time to start listening to any politician who tells us that some group or other aren’t paying enough tax is right after s/he’s admitted that others are paying far too much, that a significant portion of what’s received is being wasted by their colleagues, and they’ve presented a viable plan to rectify the entire mess.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    Some of comments on this thread show that economic illiteracy is the number one problem that this country faces.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. big bruv (13,895 comments) says:

    Nice spin DPF but the reality is that Nash has hit on something here.

    National always look after the farmers, the hard facts are that those bastards end up paying less than the average man on PAYE.

    This stinks and could gather momentum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    And the surprise here is what?

    Labour have proved time and time again that they are thugs and not accountants.

    It’s like the poll Cunliffe had….. How could he be so STUPID? And he wants to be our FM if not PM!!! FFS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    Regardless of the dodgy accounting, there is something seriously wrong if the backbone of our economy is only yielding the government $26M in tax! How the hell does that work?

    I’m not saying it should be higher, because in an ideal world taxes should only be implemented in the event of wars and natural disasters. But in terms of proportion of the government’s total tax take, that is miniscule.

    Nash is on to something here – there is a serious problem. But perhaps it is not that the farmers are paying too little tax, but that everyone else is paying too much? ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. homepaddock (408 comments) says:

    The tax year in question was, I think, the one when the payout went down from the forecast (on which budgets would have been based) and costs went up so few farms made a profit.

    Even if Nash had used income and tax from the same year one year in isolation doesn’t mean much. Businesses of all sorts often have bad years and drought affected production the year he referred to. Businesses in the development and expansion stages often make losses and -fortunately – you don’t pay income tax unless you make a profit.

    You do however pay other taxes – including local body rates regardless of how much you make/lose. Even if really bad years most farmers would pay more total tax than the individuals Nash compared them with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    I’m not sure why commentators are including GST in a farmer’s tax – GST, like PAYE, is collected by the business but it isnt a tax on the business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    @ BlairM the real problem is that dairying in New Zealand is so unprofitable compared to the capital deployed. Unless you think there is a capital gain waiting for you it’s an absolutely terrible investment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. flipper (4,065 comments) says:

    Small, Nash, Cuncliffe, Fairfax, “dont you like my hair” Cunliffe, the Duck and Goffie ……. they’re all tarred with the same doctrinaire brush.
    There was a time when a real Editor (Fairfax take note) would have killed Small’s crap on the stone.
    Sadly, real journalistic standards are no longer observed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. gravedodger (1,566 comments) says:

    LAND TAX, EFFICIENT PROFITABLE LAND USE, FFS go and have a lie down or join the freeking Labour party, we need LESS TAX NOT MORE, don’t put stupid ideas in front of the bloody pollies, compensating tax reductions wont happen.
    The biggest barrier to efficient land use are archaic, rich envy, disjointed, socialistic, tall poppy chopping inspired planning laws. When someone wants a bit of land around a dwelling so they can have some peace in their declining years to be a bit different and the idiots that inhabit planning depts say erroneously that large minimum subdivisions will restrict the practice when the reality is that someone like self ends up living on 16 acres and even as large as 50 acres of land when we really only wanted about 1 acre or even less in a rural setting. Sheesh

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. BeaB (2,123 comments) says:

    Key wiped the floor with them all today in Parliament. Among other powerful responses, he asked Cunliffe if this was the big surprise in Labour’s yet-to-be-seen policies – taxing turnover instead of profit.
    Mallard of course wastes a considerable amount of question time on pathetic points of order. Is this a tactic to avoid giving Ministers a platform from which they can trounce Labour? You would think a competent Opposition would take every possible opportunity to put Ministers on the back foot.
    So, once again, Goff, Mallard and Cunliffe shown to be a waste of taxpayer money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Dodgy “facts”

    Great political story though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. simpleton1 (228 comments) says:

    A momentum to a land tax, I guess.

    Rates are already open-ended enough and act as a land tax, whether based on capital value or land tax.
    I know that some councils and regions have hugely borrowed, Yes against the rate payers, taken out mortgages on their land. A lot of that in some cases are still to come home to roost on the unfortunate land holder, no matter how much the council will twist and turn to supposedly cut costs, after the heated swimming pool or stadium complex.

    So if you have difficulty paying the tax then improve your efficiency/productivity? put more cows on? change to growing rice? kiwifruit? or what ever the flavour of the year/month. Do not bother with long-term improvements, as that would attract an insidious “land tax”.

    We have no say how the valuations are placed on properties, it is only what some other arbitrarily sale that is extunated across a district that goes thru.
    A block land near me is for sale barely at 50% of government valuation.

    Of course the exception to the tax is let it go into quasi native wildlife habitat and then no taxes. Of course 100% pure and green that will not even pay for the road nearby, perhaps a mountain bike track? Then put in a back packer restaurant on a very small title of land. That should minimise the tax.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    the dompost was edifying with its hyperventilating red banner and extreme closeup font sqealing is this fair??? Oh the humanity!!!

    Where the fuck was the electionaring authoristion from Phil Goff since it all but said vote labour because we told you to.

    Useless wankers. Is this really the standard of behaviour we can expect from our media this year? Political sellout bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. freedom101 (504 comments) says:

    Election year is going to be heavy going if the MSM just uncritically reprint Labour Party press releases. That, combined with the clearly demonstrated economic and financial illiteracy of journalists, is going to be a problem this year. What can be done about it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. 103PapPap (131 comments) says:

    Over on Red Alert Dr David Clark, Labour candidate for Dunedin North describes himself as ‘having worked in a shop, and in a factory”, aside from other typical Labour jobs (lecturer, Presbyterian Minister et cetera) so he will bring much wanted commercial experience to the Labour party and they might stop making stupid economic claims. Or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Yeah gravedodger!! The shiny arses around here are they to preserve the rural character of the land, whatever that fucking means. These fruitcakes have decreed that a subdivision must be not less then 20 hectares. Bloody hell, what fucking madness. Your average townie who buys a small lot struggles with something over a few acres and in most cases 20 hectares would be a disaster. In most cases it’s to much land but it’s also to small to be viable as a working farm. It’s all or nothing from these nutcases.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. tom hunter (4,843 comments) says:

    I already put this on the GD thread but I did not know it would become a thread of its own.

    Farmers can be very asset rich but income poor – it is the way they structure their accounting.

    That farmers are asset rich and income poor has been the standing in-joke of the community for decades. But it’s a result of the nature of the operation rather than the structure of the accounting. Farmers have large cash inflows and outflows applying to this part of the food production business, as opposed to the downstream processing that involves the more common aspect of business assets – machines and factories, which decline in value with use and therefore have depreciation applied to them to aid further investment in new plant and machinery.

    I suppose you could think of the land as a machine, with all the inputs required to make it useful for modern farming regarded as maintenance and with depreciation applying. But of course one does not replace the land every few years: if the inputs stop it does not waste away to nothing but sits idle awaiting another use (bush walks perhaps!).

    In any case I’m sure the Left’s answer will be some form of land tax (UPDATE: DPF too – we’re fucked), thereby insuring that farmers will be both asset and income poor. We’re heading for some sort of wealth tax with …

    Labour having a go at farmers:

    Ah yes. The state is slowly but surely running out of money so it’s time to find new sources of revenue. I’ve been expecting this for several years now: farmers are the perfect target, being a small part of the voting population, relatively wealthy and easy prey for traditional NZ class warfare presenting as envy and a desire for egalitarianism. Speaking as a medium-sized farmer my annual tax payments remain in the high five-figure category, as they have for decades. I’m sure that should please you leftists.

    But not for much longer. I’ve been slowly putting the pieces in place for a sale sometime in the next decade. In fact I’ve already had an invitation to discuss a sale to the nearby Maori Trust. Speaking of which …

    But the biggest gap is Maori incorporations and Trusts who, I believe, have a special tax rate that does not get adjusted when the income flows down to the beneficiaries. Now that one flies below the radar.

    Indeed. My accountant wrote some letter or submission on this to Government back in 2001 or 2002. As I recall the income tax rate is 19% on such trust beneficiaries – as opposed to normal tax rates on non-Maori trusts. I heard nothing further and assumed it has remained the law: perhaps some accountant is reading this and would like to correct the claim?

    In any case, they’ll be the boys I shall be selling my farm to, ahead of an incoming Labour/Green government. Of course this trust has 7000 hectares and several large dairy operations so, as with most large corporates, it is perfectly positioned( via income and loss shifting) to pull off a degree of legal tax avoidance that smaller operators like myself could not dream of.

    Best of luck to the Left going after to these huge concerns. The 19% rate should already tell you where you’ll end up in that pursuit – you racists! ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. flipper (4,065 comments) says:

    Freedom 101…

    What MSM ?????

    There is only the LSM (Lame Stream media)

    Excellent observation Freedom… But complaints to the useless Press Council get no where.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. lastmanstanding (1,297 comments) says:

    heh DPF It makes for a great story though. As a CA Im never surpirsed at the lack of financial literacy. Ive seen Directors of large companies struggle with accounting concepts that are taught in first year BComs.

    Even the MSM business lot have a scant understanding. It aint difficult to confuse most of them.

    Mind you with IFRS and NZICA standards producing totally different results as Brian Gaynor showed in the Herald a few months ago maybe its not so surprising.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Well since its clearly such a doddle beign a farmer perhaps the staff of the dompost would like to hit the land for the next 6 months or so to show us all how its done.

    Here’s a swani, go freaken nuts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Dave Mann (1,218 comments) says:

    “If Labour are serious about closing tax loopholes, then they should propose a land tax. It would over time boost NZ’s economic growth as it encourages better economic use of land.”

    Crap. NO tax encourages ANYTHING at all except bureaucratic thieving arseholes looking for more ways of destroying productive businesses’ will to keep struggling on.

    If Labour are serious about closing tax looholes they should propose a radical slash-and-burn of all government departments, quangos and busybodies, preferably with a few public floggings and pillorying pour encourager les autres.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    RE: GST

    There are two issues being raised here.
    One is how much the government collects from farmers. And while the farmer does not pay the GST on the new tractor the Government takes in the GST the farmer has collected for this economic activity.
    The Other is direct GST Payments on non business spending – like the groceries, and holidays and dresses and boats etc.

    The government collects GST off any economic activity and farmers are quite active in good years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. insider (1,028 comments) says:

    Strange how this story has not appeared on Red Alert but Key not knowing whether his parliamentary retirement fund is part of Kiwisaver is…

    Strange also Labour don’t appear to have issued a media release on this. Wonder if that means the story is not really true?

    R
    e land tax. Why just land? Why not shares or gold? Gold has been appreciating strongly in value. Tax that gain. IDeas can be valuable too. Let’s tax the capital gain on them. Of course we’d have to give a tax credit when the idea goes bad…I’ll be rich!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Jimbob (641 comments) says:

    We haven’t even hit the second phase of the global financial crisis and people are looking at everyone else with green eyes. This is going to get worse and consequently social mood is going to decline. I will be keeping a low profile as anybody showing any sort of wealth will be vilified. Commodity prices are going to plummet along with the Government’s income, as the mountains of global debt collapse. It will interesting to see how the people of NZ cope with this crisis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    big bruv (9,086) Says:

    May 18th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
    Nice spin DPF but the reality is that Nash has hit on something here.

    National always look after the farmers, the hard facts are that those bastards end up paying less than the average man on PAYE.

    This stinks and could gather momentum.”

    Bruv, has someone hijacked your nom de guerre? That rant of yours is so far out of line as to be seriously fucked

    Those “bastards ” are one of the view industries producing anything in this country at the moment.

    There is a genuine trickle down with the rural sector. e.g Diary farmers buy, chemicals, diary rubber, fertilizer, fencing, vehicles, water fittings, culverts etc etc etc.

    All products that keep the rest of our tills ticking over, you can have all the ACT theory in the fucking world but if you have nothing to sell, you are off to the soup kitchen.

    Diary farmers get paid monthly, monthly GST, monthly PAYE for employees, monthly bills at their rural supplier.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    And the simplest answer is farmers pay exactly the same RATE of tax as other similar taxpayers. How they calculate their taxable income is a bit more complex however.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Dave Mann (1,218 comments) says:

    Hey wait a minute…. I think I have a great idea to save the economy. Lets introduce a urine tax. We could surgically fit everybody with their own gender-specific pissmeter and maybe even a ‘smart’ pissmeter which administers electric shocks to those who don’t piss enough…. or maybe a breathing tax with a cool meter which fits neatly around the throat just like a pair of strangulating hands…? Yeah, I think thats the way to go. This would not only encourage a more efficient use of air, but we could make money by putting the manufacturing of the meters out to government tender and the greenies would get our vote big time. I seriously think that, given the alternatives, a breathing tax is by far the most preferable way of saving the economy. Lets do it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. big bruv (13,895 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay

    Nope, nobody has hijacked me. The farming community are the biggest bunch of moaners and parasites in NZ.

    They run to the tax payer when there is a drought, they run to the tax payer when there is a flood, each and every time an idiot like David Carter will bail them out with our money.

    Look, nobody liks Stuart Nash, he is a cock and he comes from a party of proven liars and cheats, however, even an idiot can be right sometimes.

    The issue here as I see it is that Farmers are not paying their fair share, salary and wage earners do not have the option of paying all their bills first and then saying to the tax man “well this is all there is left”, salary and wage earners (PAYE) have a percentagge of their money stolen from them by the tax man before they get it.

    While I agree that it is the duty of every man to pay as little tax as possible the average bloke has no option, the average bloke is carrying the can for big buisiness and he rurual sector, we need to make our tax system fair, if we did that then the average bloke would end up paying a lot less.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. pq (728 comments) says:

    very funny Farrar and get real

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. redeye (629 comments) says:

    Bruv is just pissed that farmers generally buy NEW cars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Bruv

    Firstly, this post by DPF was to show some bullshit immature reporting as per normal by the MSM and we are going to get shit loads more leading up to the election some people will believe it, the only positive is that people with an IQ above that of room temperature won’t believe it.

    Secondly, you have moved on to supposed unfairness in our tax system.

    Presently dairy is at the beginning of a boom forecast for the next 5 – 6 years, great news for our economy. So they will spend up big and often , therfore a trickle down. Tax is paid somewhere on every dollar earnt by the producer, be it via a purchase or someone employed in the rural sector.. ( me)

    . ..and they are producing a commodity something finance companies and the like never did , think back three years and ask the Mark Hotchens how much fucking tax that leech paid.

    And ( with a slight wry grin on my face as I type this ) .. I ask you BB ,just like I will ask Phil Goff if I ever chance upon him.

    Excuse me, but who the fuck is this average bloke, you keep talking about?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    In my limited understanding of it, most farmers are self-employed entrepreneurs rather than wage earners. And most of them are so far in hock for all their land, equipment and supplies that this “envious bitter leftie” just can’t get too upset that they get to structure their finances like a business. They are a business.

    {Although as I was fuelling the Triumph up on the way to work this morning, I did momentarily wonder how come I myself am not allowed to similarly deduct this entirely work-related personal expense from my income BEFORE paying tax… }

    No, my only real axe to grind with farmers is that when the international dairy prices are sky-high, we in NZ can all just lump it as far as the Dairy Federation is concerned. But then when there’s a drought, we’re supposed to care, and we’re supposed to offer support either directly or else via the Gummint…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Cactus Kate (551 comments) says:

    MAF have some data on the average dairy farm. In 2008/09 they found the average farm had $750,000 income, $529,000 expenses, $235,000 interest and depreciation resulting in a loss of $6,300. Their average tax bill was $18,600 so profit after tax was -$25k.

    If this is the case then a) why would a bank lend money on this business model and b) how do they pay back the capital borrowed? Simple fact is that farming is all about tax free capital gains. Else there’s no commercial justification for doing it. In the meantime SME’s in NZ where the bulk of employment and productive gains can be made, can’t get funding because farmers ate it all buying and selling land between each other for capital gain.

    Nash does have a point, it just needs to be refined further. The IRD seem not to collect accurate statistics on how much tax farms do pay. I OIA’d it myself. It took months and drew a blank. The reason given was the ownership structures differ making it difficult to tag for example dairy, in other words for want of a better description farmers are sticking the land in trusts.

    This only adds weight to Nash’s point.

    Te best comment is Blairs. I’m not against farmers paying stuff all tax, just wondering why we can’t support everyone else as much trying to do likewise!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Yvette (2,820 comments) says:

    The average tax paid by dairy farms was $1506 a year
    If the tax is as low as 19.5%, the amount being taxed is 100 / 19.5 = 5.1282 times the $1506
    so farmers earn $7723.07 before tax?
    and are left with $6217 07 after paying tax?

    This is why Labour is not the Government
    and probably doesn’t stand the slightest chance of being the Government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Nick R (507 comments) says:

    Haven’t had time to read the whole thread, but there seems to be a lot of illiteracy going on here, not all of it from Stuart Nash. DPF can’t say Nash is wrong because he “understands” commodity prices were lower in 2008/09, or that the actual number of dairy farms is “thought to be” 11,500. Says who? The 9th floor? Why should I believe DPF over Stuart Nash?

    These are not “vital facts” as DPF says. Rather they appear to have been produced with a flourish from the Mighty Orifice…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @big bruv 5:20 pm

    …the average bloke has no option, the average bloke is carrying the can for big buisiness and he rurual sector, we need to make our tax system fair, if we did that then the average bloke would end up paying a lot less.

    FFS, this must be the first time you and I have agreed on anything here other than animal welfare, bruv!

    I presume on that basis you also support a capital gains tax so the “average bloke” working for wages or salary doesn’t end up carrying the can taxwise for property speculators who usually pay no tax on their capital gains and get tax write-offs on loss-making rental agreements.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    Firstly – Labour are idiots for getting this wrong. Using tax paid from a bad year to compare to revenue (not profit) from a good year is either dishonest or idiotic.

    Having said that, it is my belief that many small businesses, farmers included, pay less tax than is “fair.” My logic being that many businesses make small or no profits year after year. Why would you keep running an unprofitable business? I reckon many of them are taking cash from the till, funding their personal costs from the business, or generating capital gain instead of income.

    A land tax would address that for farmers, but not other small businesses. I actually would go a different way – a turnover tax. Trouble is a turnover tax would need a different rate for different businesses – so hard to apply. An asset tax could also be a good idea – if our aim is to tax the rich, then tax the rich, not those with high income. The two are not the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Kate

    It would great if we all paid bugger all tax, but the fact is we have to look after our primary producers, be it diary or IT or anything.

    Without primary producers us service providers have no where to go. Law firms produce invoices only, no need for them if there are no clients.

    I’ve just gone back on wages after 7 years contracting, most tax I paid in those 7 years was $3000, in fact my accountancy bill was always higher. But people on wages for get that I got no 4 weeks holiday, paid my own ACC paid all my own business expenses paid my own superannuation scheme, no sick leave ..so on and so on… old story the grass is always greener

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay. Yes, you paid all those things. But I’ll bet your lifestyle, and therefore effective income, was that of someone earning 60k or more. 3k of tax on 60k would be pretty good. So, no your income wasn’t 120k or whatever your invoicing was, but it wasn’t 30k either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Nice one Bruv , good to see you have a new best friend in the Toad

    PaulL Varied between lots more than that and a very bad year or two.

    A good accountant and good advice from our legal friends make it doable and I must say everything was straight as a die, honestly The lose adjusting loosing rental whatsit was handy as well

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. jims_whare (403 comments) says:

    big bruv you big dork – any one on wages or salary has the right to go self employed and then use the same rules of business.

    Farmers are no different to your corner dairy or listed company, or builder plumber etc.

    You are taxed on net income/profit – if you dont like PAYE start a business – you are embarrassing not knowing this.

    As for droughts/flood assistance – farmers only get assistance from the rural support trust – basically a network of where they can buy feed etc. from and sometimes the IRD can adjust tax payments to reflect lost cash flow.

    Compare that to what happened with the christchurch earthquake – wage/salary payments from the government, fundraising all around the world. What the farmers get with adverse events hit them is peanuts in comparison.

    Frek I’m sure Ive heard more economic literacy from the morons at the standard than what you wrote – you can do better than that

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. simpleton1 (228 comments) says:

    If farmers owe tax they pay or go out of business or inland revenue bankrupts them too.
    If there is difficulty then what often happens is that the bank does not want to take a bath too so it lends the money to pay the tax. !! That is up to the banks discretion, and in the past few years more than a few farmers have been told to get it right or start planning your exit, at the end of the season, as I know a few in my area have done.

    If a farmer has to sell all his stock due to drought/flood then IRD get first dibs on valuation differences of the stock, which can be into considerable sums and taxes.
    What the government does is forgo the tax for only a period of time to allow the farm to restock back to square one if the farm survives that disaster. It will be come taxable if the farm does not restock.

    If the tax was paid, on that stock asset, yes can be a part of the capital gains that IRD charges if stock increases in value on some systems or if the farmer sells below valuation then the government should refund him a lot of tax. This just simplifies the procedure and stops the delays from Inland Revenue that the farmer would have to finance for when he repurchases his stock then claim for at the end of his financial year.
    Often if they are forced to sell then prices will be cheap and when repurchasing usually much more expensive.

    Being self employed farmers pay tax every few months on estimates that are based on the year before.
    If there some major calamities you can have this altered when a disaster area is declared.
    Afterall why pay a tax on income when your income is simply not going to happen or be much reduced. When every wage earner stops earning he does not continue to pay tax?

    People who have no job and can not get employment are paid benefit money. I doubt that farming families stay very long on that benefit, but at least the family is fed. Often the wife works, the bank lends, and if needs be exit strategies occur over the next year or so. Often done quietly and not even the neighbours really know why it is being sold.

    To farm for capital gain will punish you as many got punished during the 1980’s particularly when borrowing against their supposed increased valuations. I well recall how some said it was wise to use the increased value and spend it. Life was great for a couple of years, then they more than stubbed their toe on reality.

    I fear NZ can not go on borrowing either

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @Pauleastbay 6:11 pm

    Nice one Bruv , good to see you have a new best friend in the Toad

    Welcome to the Green Party, bruv! Russel and Don did at least agree on the problem on Breakfast Business yesterday, although disagreed on the solution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. nickb (3,687 comments) says:

    Some economic and finacial illiterates in this thread….

    good posts sideshow bob and pauleast bay. What a bunch of fuckwits, everyone seems to be having a go at farmers. When times are bad and payouts are down, they are dumb for gearing up their farms so much and are creating inbalances in the economy.

    When times are good they are structuring their affairs to pay less tax (which anyone with a business and half an ounce of intelligence and business sense does).

    Lets not also forget that a shitload of farmers will have a shitload of tax losses carried forward from a few years back. I know some in particular that went through a few years of heavy losses and won’t have any tax to pay for some years due to this (even though they are now running cashflow profitable farms)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Cactus Kate (551 comments) says:

    I would say Nash used the stats he did for the simple reason they are the latest available. Again, it seems very hard to obtain such stats from anyone.

    Pauleast – why not look after property developers as well? You know because housing is a necessity and they build them? Then there are other large multinationals in NZ who need looking after as well… Farming is a small part of the wider NZ economy. If you look at GDP a very small part. Some 4.5%. The bulk of GDP is earned in the service sector, which also creates the most employment. Sure farming produces export earnings but in doing so it soaks up a hell of a lot of capital that could be lent on to other SME’s in NZ that have better returns. NZ has made the choice to favor farming, you can see it in the explosive comments around this issue. Farming is just as important as any other industry in NZ. I think some perspective is required.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Sorry DPF, but the massive number of farmers sons and daughters getting a student allowance tells a very different story, farmers don’t pay tax like the rest of us and that is just the way it is.

    It wouldn’t be so bad if they weren’t filling the rivers full of sh!t and complaining about townies so much, but some of the statements from federated f@ckwits are practically a statement of intent to f@ck over anyone not involved in farming.

    People with a massive sense of entitlement don’t really have the right to complain about people with a sense of entitlement!!

    Farmers are sure as hell not paying for WFF, their employee’s may be, and those in the rural service industries may be, but farmers? no.

    And by the way, regarding GST, they are probably receiving cheques from the govt, don’t make me laugh!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Kate

    My point was without primary producers there is no need for a service providers.

    I wasn’t just singling out farmers per se although they are presently the best example we have, boat building etc vibrant industry -but small beer in comparison to what Fonterra is doing

    It gets a bit incestuous if the majority of us are all scabbling after the same service dollar that is going around and around.. We need new dollars put into the system.

    The better returns you talk of in regards SME’s would be percentage returns surely?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    To put this in context, tourism earns a sh!tload for this country and especially my region, but the local National MP has the damned cheek to complain about the occasional dirty tourist crapping on the side of the road, while the largest lake in the district (where he lives) is being filled with cow shit.

    Farmers get a massive pass on just about every effing issue that concerns them, the rest of us foot the bill.

    It is not bloody good enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    many farmers take advantage of multiple business structures such as trading in a company and having the land held in a trust, thereby reducing their tax bill by not paying at the highest rate. also, they can use the income equalisation scheme to deposit money into – any money going into the scheme doesn’t get taxed until you withdraw it. so the plan is to withdraw it in years when there is a low dairy payout. however, only cash rich farmers can afford to do this – or if your banker is willing to let you borrow the money, it’s usually worthwhile borrowing to do this. but see my comments in the post re tightening of money supply in the rural sector.

    the biggest way farmers get out of paying tax is by switching between livestock valuation schemes. it takes a bit of accurate forecasting and any half-decent accountant will have good contacts with farm advisors and be keeping up-to-date with market values for stock. but i know that heaps of farmers around the country paid a bit of extra tax in 2008/09 to switch schemes, and have had massive losses in the 2009/10 year. this means they’ve paid no tax as well as claiming the maximum in working for families payments.

    yes, i think it’s appalling, but also totally legal and totally unfair on all other taxpayers. i expect that many will benefit in the current financial year as well.

    http://thehandmirror.blogspot.com/2011/05/standing-up-to-banks.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    The story is full of piss & wind.

    Agree entirely with Reid & Owen McShane, a land tax is a load of crock and rates more than make up for any so-called unused land. It’s not easy putting every bit of “usable” land to use. That’s why farmers, lifestylers, etc. throw pine trees on certain paddocks. They will not bring a return for decades and are, effectively, unused. There’s really not much else you can do with certain tracts of land, to tax it along with the current productive land is totally nonsensical. As has been said earlier, overall land is already put to pretty good use anyway.

    On another tack though, shunda is right, farmers do have an appalling sense of entitlement borne of well nigh a century of preeminence over & above most other business sectors. Being a land owner has its advantages (primary produce being king)…..easy to see why the thriving Maori communal farms/farmers of the mid 1800’s had to be driven out of business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. youami (44 comments) says:

    Why are people that arrange their affairs to minimize tax seen as villains? They should be seen as heroes.

    Giving money to the taxman in this country is worse than p1ssing it up the wall.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    At least they are not accusing Jews. Yet.

    s.russell, the farmers pogroms are being planned first.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. WebWrat (516 comments) says:

    You expect bullshit from Liarbore, but this is the bullshit that upsets me: “If Labour are serious about closing tax loopholes, then they should propose a land tax. It would over time boost NZ’s economic growth as it encourages better economic use of land.”

    When the fuck are we going to see someone that doesn’t want to screw this bloody country?

    Get on your horse David and ride up to the head of the Esk and muster the cows in … 70 miles in 4 days. Or get up to the tops in winter and snow-rake the wethers out in snow up to your guts. How about you do 14 hours a day on the tractor like I did this last summer. Or how about you go out and pick up 200 dead lambs after a global warming southerly snow storm has gone through.

    Then tell us how to make better “economic use of land.”

    Maybe we could put tables and chairs all over the paddocks and sell fucking lattes!

    Just maybe the people that sit around on their arses doing fuck all should stop encouraging useless pollies dreaming up stupid legislation and rules that screw the actual productive people.

    You know, the ones that actually produce something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. JC (956 comments) says:

    Amazingly, in all the above there is only one mention of “drawings”, so lets look at the balance sheet that separates the business from drawings.

    Farm business..

    $750,000 income
    $650,000 costs
    $100,000 personal drawings

    Profit from the business and subsequent tax zero
    Tax on drawings if paid into a personal trust 33%.. or other tax configuration.

    Result.. the business pays no tax but the family drawings are taxable at the usual rates.

    OK, I’ve over simplified it, but the principle holds.. the tax can be paid at the business level or the personal level.. but tax will be paid.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    V2 Re stock valuations, yes I’ve done this and saved a considerable amount of tax. But it all to often works the other way. Have seen younger farmers facing $000,000 in tax because they didn’t plan. Youami is quite correct, why bitch and moan about farmers, we didn’t write the tax laws nor are we breaking any. Have just been accused over at the standard of trolling. Cuncliffe’s speech was a piece of utter hypocrisy. He wants everyone to pay their fair share then goes on to berate farmers for using trusts companies etc to lessen their tax burdens. Just had to point out they had nine years to sort this shit out but of course it’s hard when most of the Liarbore caucus had assets in trusts, I thinking the Dear One here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. WebWrat (516 comments) says:

    BB
    “Nope, nobody has hijacked me. The farming community are the biggest bunch of moaners and parasites in NZ.”

    I’ve been through floods, droughts and severe snow (lost 2000 sheep in the ’68 snow in Queenstown)). Never asked for nor received any assistance, took the loses on the chin and repaired the damage myself.

    You sound like a lefturd propaganda machine that has an agenda or you haven’t got a fucking clue what you are talking about and you just revel in giving offense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    It is the ridiculous tax legislation that allows this shit to happen.

    A farmer subdivides a property with a cottage on it, sells it to a Trust of which the farmer is a beneficiary at considerable capital gain (but with no tax on that). Then it gets rented out at a minimal rental by the Trust to the farmer’s elderly grandparents or some other tenants. Massive tax losses to the Trust every year.

    But meanwhile the farmer, as beneficiary of the Trust, can borrow against it, again with no tax obligations, at the same time as writing every possible legal (or illegal, if the IRD went digging, which they usually don’t) personal expense off against the farm income.

    It is a huge rort, but Peter Dunne as Revenue Minister is still covering farmers’ arses, rather than doing the job a Revenue Minister should do, which is to clamp down on tax avoidance.

    I have to say I don’t like Stuart Nash’s dodgy statistical manipulations on this though. But if he had not tried to overplay his hand by comparing one year to another, he would have still got a similar, although not as dramatic, result and come across a lot more credibly than he did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    Webrat, you’ve got him sussed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. tom hunter (4,843 comments) says:

    He wants everyone to pay their fair share then goes on to berate farmers for using trusts companies etc to lessen their tax burdens. Just had to point out they had nine years to sort this shit out but of course it’s hard when most of the Liarbore caucus had assets in trusts, I thinking the Dear One here.

    I don’t know about you Bob but it should also be pointed out that the tax savings from Trusts are rather a joke. There’s some difference because of income splitting, but each beneficiary is still taxed under the same progressive system as any other PAYE person.

    The primary reason for Trusts remains as it always was – asset protection. Cuniliffe knows this and he’s just throwing red meat to his moronic voters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. nickb (3,687 comments) says:

    toad your last post is so full of generalisation and hysteria so as to be worthless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. WebWrat (516 comments) says:

    Not difficult Adolf.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    (lost 2000 sheep in the ’68 snow in Queenstown)

    I remember that year, a corner of the rugby ground was a mess after it had been used by choppers for stock rescue and feeding out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    Why do media run with such ridiculous beat-ups? You have to assume truly monumental ignorant incompetence to favour the cock-up explanation over malevolence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. louie (96 comments) says:

    Gee Toad, if any farmer did operate the scheme you mention aren’t they just copying what the Green parliamentary pension fund does?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. tom hunter (4,843 comments) says:

    You sound like a lefturd propaganda machine that has an agenda or you haven’t got a fucking clue what you are talking about …

    You want to see him on the US health-care system, it makes this outburst seem rational.

    He’ll be voting ACT this year.

    Yes. Things are worse than you thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Great comments WebWrat

    personally I would have thought the huge numbers drawing a benefit unnesscessarily are the biggest parasites in NZ. Not those in an industry where 2008/2009 Fonterra alone had revenues of 16 plus billion

    BB has had a major brain explosion today, All Phils’ talk of the “average bloke” has got to him.

    I want to meet an “average bloke”, seriously anyone know one?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @tom hunter 8:26 pm

    The primary reason for Trusts remains as it always was – asset protection.

    That may be the primary reason for Trusts, but the primary use of them now has become tax avoidance.

    And if people make stupid business decisions, or blow their dough on the pokie machines for that matter, why should their assets be protected from those who would otherwise have a legitimate claim on them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Yes quite true Tom but Cuncliffe is happy to blame every system as far as tax goes as bent and corrupt and the play things of the rich pricks and their accountants. Funny how these same systems were the bees knees when the socialists where holding the wipes.Personally I’m all for a low (10 to 15% ) flat tax. Of course this will never happen as the politicians lose their power and the accountants and lawyers wouldn’t be to thrilled either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    toad, IRD can see through any transaction to the individuals involved and can make any ruling it chooses on transactions it deems constructed for tax avoidance. Any abnormal one-off transaction is also near certain to trigger a tax audit as are abnormal profit/loss patterns.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @nickb 8:31 pm

    toad your last post is so full of generalisation and hysteria so as to be worthless.

    What you really mean is that you are devoid of any rational argument to counter it! That’s Rick Giles argument that is so powerful you don’t need to talk about it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Toad

    Good comment,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!…but the primary use of them now has become tax avoidance ….and then you go on a support Toms’ point that they are about assett protection.

    take a position please, you are confusing us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. tom hunter (4,843 comments) says:

    That may be the primary reason for Trusts, but the primary use of them now has become tax avoidance.

    And as I’ve just explained to you, their utility for that is minimal, unless one wants to start indulging in dodgy practices that amount to tax evasion (which is illegal, unlike tax avoidance).

    Gee Toad, if any farmer did operate the scheme you mention aren’t they just copying what the Green parliamentary pension fund does?

    It’s called projection. But I would not put too much trust ;) in Toad’s example, given the level of business understanding he exhibited the other day with this doozy:

    “if PAYE taxes go up $101m a year, then the company tax will drop by more than that.

    Or his forays into AGW, which is apparently irrefutable because it’s based on quantum mechanics (and before you ask, yes, I studied QM to 3rd year level in my B.Sc).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. nickb (3,687 comments) says:

    Maybe we could put tables and chairs all over the paddocks and sell fucking lattes!

    Comment of the year, send that one to the herald

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @Alan Wilkinson 8:46 pm

    You know as well as I do that IRD are resource constrained in their tax avoidance investigations. Usually they accept form over substance, and assume if it all looks good it all is good. They will usually only investigate if something sticks out like dog’s balls or if someone complains.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. tom hunter (4,843 comments) says:

    I should explain that the PAYE example arising from increased minimum wages was DPF’s argument, which Toad thought was a fallacy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. KevinH (1,227 comments) says:

    Reid and Owen McShane got it right, this story is just a beat up, political spin with farmers being Labours target.Farmers pay their fair share and as a result have become tax experts, you have to take advice to survive. So we can argue the toss on that one and give Labour some air time.
    But to answer DPF, a land tax would not be a winner. The rural community would reject it, the argument being that land rates already include a defacto land tax component.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    @toad, in my experience IRD check anything new or different. Your example would be certain to be checked out in my opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @tom hunter 8:58 pm

    I should explain that the PAYE example arising from increased minimum wages was DPF’s argument, which Toad thought was a fallacy.

    It was, bullshit Tom. DPF assumed that employers would sit back and meekly accept reduced profits consequent upon greater regulation of the labour market, and that would consequently result in less corporate tax being paid.

    That is bullshit. Employers will seek ways to maximise their profit in the face of increased labour market regulation. Increasing productivity (which naturally arises for paying low paid workers more, reducing wage relativities between lower and higher paid workers, and increasing prices spring to mind.

    The primary duty of company directors is to maximise the profit to their shareholders, and if faced with increased but still relatively minor regulatory costs, they will seek means to do that.

    If the proposal were to increase the minimum wage to $25 an hour, you might have a point. But it is not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @Alan Wilkinson 9:07 pm

    If IRD were to check out my example (I assume you mean my 8:26 pm comment) they would find it all legit. It is the tax laws that are the primary problem. IRD’s resources and priorities in enforcing them are a secondary problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @toad 9:15 pm

    Sorry about the misplaced comma, tom hunter. I wasn’t meaning to call you “bullshit Tom”. My apologies, it was a typo.

    The only people I reserve that sort of rhetoric for are those who just hurl abuse and don’t bother to engage with the substantive argument. You are not one of those people, Tom, and I respect that you post reasoned arguments, although I don’t always agree with them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. big bruv (13,895 comments) says:

    Adolf, I always wondered why you were such a cheer leader for Neville Key and the Nat’s, now I can see why.

    Pauleastbay

    So we should subsidise farmers because they buy things?, why is it that a bloke on PAYE does not have the same right?
    Look, I am not advocating more tax, I want lower taxes right across the board, but what I want is for everybody to pay their fair share, at the moment Farmers (and others) are not doing so, make it fairer and we all pay less.

    Oh…and the average bloke you asked about, well he is the bloke who does not have more kids than he an afford, he is the bloke who has been butt fucked by Labour and National for the past eleven years, he has been used as a ATM machine by Labour and National while all that time trying to keep his head above water.

    Seems that many Nat’s (Adolf being a classic example) are all piss and wind when it comes to personal responsibility, they are all for others to take personal responsibility but when they are faced with hard times they just give Mr Carter a call and he shoots around with the nations cheque book.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @big bruv 9:27 pm

    Well said, bruv!

    Once you get over your obsessive support for mining National Parks and hatred of beneficiaries I will send you a Green Party membership application form.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Fuck, I knew labour had nothing for this election campaign but lies and envy, but now they’re combining the two and being envious about things they simply made up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. big bruv (13,895 comments) says:

    Toad

    No chance, you buggers want to tax the rich just because they are rich, you want to strip them of their wealth simply because they have done well in life.

    I want LESS tax Toad, the rich should get to keep as much of their wealth as possible and the bludgers should get fuck all.

    However, everybody (including the parasite bludgers and Farmers) should pay their fair share. What you propose Toad will only lead to more people avoiding tax because they see it as unfair, make it fair and we can lower it for everybody.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. big bruv (13,895 comments) says:

    Tom Hunter

    “You want to see him on the US health-care system”

    You mean the health system that works fine for roughly 80-85% of the population?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. tom hunter (4,843 comments) says:

    I wasn’t meaning to call you “bullshit Tom”. My apologies, it was a typo.

    None taken. Commas are easily missed.

    However, I must take issue with your refined sense of cruelty in using the following on a right-wing forum such as this, since you know it is going to be cut and pasted from here on …

    Well said, bruv!

    Once you get over your obsessive support for mining and hatred of beneficiaries, I will send you a Green Party membership application form.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Monty (978 comments) says:

    Proof Labour Make sh*t up

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Whafe (650 comments) says:

    Seems to be a fuck load of non farmers talking a whole lot of shit….

    Would do this country a huge amount of good if the non farmers (townies) actually went and had some real discussion with a Primary Producer……

    Pinko’s are a fucking joke… No one is really allowed to do well in their minds…. Goff and all the Liabour MP’s should take a pay cut and work for 35K per year… Because if they are earning 6 figures they are rich prick scums…. The vast majority of this country are balloon prickers…

    I invite you to come and see what its like to be a commercial vegetable farmer…. The costs of production are rising so fast, yet the returns are decreasing…. 33% increase in fuel alone this year in our budgets!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. somewhatthoughtful (465 comments) says:

    “What you propose Toad will only lead to more people avoiding tax because they see it as unfair”

    @bruv, bullshit, people will always minimise tax when it’s possible and there’s no downside to doing so. you try to preach reason but end up speaking utopia.

    The only way your situation can work, is with a market with perfect information available about all taxpayers activity. If you could search your neighbours tax activites the way you can serach who they’re a director off the panoptic effect alone would see more “fairness” in who pays what tax far more than any sort of rate adjustment or flattening or whatever.

    Also at the same time, an INDEPENDENT (not the bullshit that was proposed at the beginning of this term) productivity commission wouldn’t go a miss.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    The thing is this, if the dairy industry just quietly did it’s thing, was responsible with the environment and civil to the townies, perhaps people would understand.

    But when you read the utter shite that federated farmers release, you either shudder with rage or marvel at how these people manage to maintain such an ignorant, backward, self important world view.

    I was raised to respect farmers by my old man, he worked with them for many years, but even he is disgusted by modern dairying and I have first hand experience of the way some of these people operate.

    They aren’t all bad, but many of them are absolutely bloody shocking.

    By the way, a V8 holden or falcon ute is not a bloody work vehicle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    I invite you to come and see what its like to be a commercial vegetable farmer…. The costs of production are rising so fast, yet the returns are decreasing…. 33% increase in fuel alone this year in our budgets!

    Well I can’t see how the dairy industry is any help to you either, or Chinese vege imports which is absolutely immoral in my opinion.

    We have a one stop shop regarding farming in this country, dairy, and quite frankly it is completely unsustainable.

    If a country can no longer grow it’s own damned vegetables there is something seriously wrong.

    And dairy with their palm kernel imports are only driving the knife deeper.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. big bruv (13,895 comments) says:

    Whafe

    Why the hell would we want to go and talk to a group of smelly and socially inept rural types?, we know their attitude and we know they are bludgers.

    However, any time they want to talk about REAL personal responsibility and any time they feel like kissing our backsides for bailing them out of the shit time after time then please let me know, until then I guess I will have to put up with their arrogance and sense of entitlement.

    Tell me, when it comes to the rural National party is personal responsibility something that only non farmers are supposed to practice?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Whafe (650 comments) says:

    Shunda, agree with you in that some dairy farmers are absolutely shocking… Fonterra has some power though, scary power. You see it often in farming (am not a dairy farmer, but am a farmer) how say Environment Waikato almost leave dairy farmers alone. Amazing…

    Many other farming activities get hammered by Evironment Waikato, but the tit pullers hardly get touched!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. tom hunter (4,843 comments) says:

    … some dairy farmers are absolutely shocking

    Yep. In particular the very big ones. But even there it seems to be more around their treatment of workers and stock. Not that the latter are ill-treated but they are definitely seen as production units; any injury and they’re gone. Vet bills a minimum. That’s what happens with paying silly money for land and attempting to grind your way out of it. Not pretty – but also a total contrast to the smaller farmers down the road.

    Many other farming activities get hammered by Evironment Waikato, but the tit pullers hardly get touched!

    That so? We’ve been overflown by an EW helicopter on several occasions, as has every other dairy farm in the district. I also know of at least two dairy farmers in our district who’ve had EW walk straight on to their properties unannounced: perhaps some lawyer would like to correct me but I think even the police need search warrants unless they’re in immediate pursuit of a crime.

    Which is why I’m currently pissing away $30,000 on a new effluent pond to back up the pumped dispersal system that sprays it across the paddocks. Ten years ago I destroyed the old effluent ponds because I thought they did not work in “treating” the effluent, not to mention looking ugly. I thought the system I installed was superior in mechanically doing what comes naturally to the cows. But now EW have announced that shit cannot be spread on rainy days! No scientific report to back this in terms of casual links – and no quantitative standards that enable anybody (like me) to know what is right and when. It’s down to the judgment of a bureaucrat.

    Fonterra’s help on this? Zero. Do it, or face the possibility of fines in the tens of thousands of dollars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Many other farming activities get hammered by Evironment Waikato, but the tit pullers hardly get touched!

    It’s the same down here, and interestingly, the front page news tonight is that a regional councillor (farmer and miner) has been found in breech of water quality offences. The paper only found out through the official information act, then the fine was only a few hundred bucks and was only after repeated violation of his own resource consent.

    The regional council here often sounds like the govt division of federated farmers.

    I really feel for those in the rural sector that aren’t in dairy. If they are still in business you can be sure they are the best of the best because everyone else has gone broke or gone dairy.
    There is a whole lot of extremely valuable knowledge and experience dying out in this country and it won’t be easily replaced when it is gone.
    Dairy is a flash in the pan that could cost us a hell of a lot in the long run for a bit of (what could be) relatively short term gain.

    There are some really great old school farmers that are fascinating, hard working people with decent values, modern dairy is often quite different.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. tom hunter (4,843 comments) says:

    Gaahhhhh

    No scientific report to back this in terms of causal links …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. simpleton1 (228 comments) says:

    Farm land is being pushed into Dairying as a result of a form of land tax, the rates.
    The small existing farmer is being hammered in my area by rate increases, way beyond inflation levels.
    There fore if he gets a good offer he will take it, and at this stage it is mostly from another NZ entity that will turn it into dairy. The neigh bour buys because if does not, then his own small farm may also be doomed to become uneconomic, and already the banks are giving him the wheeze to grab the opportunity or he will be exiting.
    Many dairy farms have almagated so then it would be economically worth while to do necessary up grades to dairy sheds, looking at a $million dollars, and then effluent schemes, that are found to require further up grading, with major costs with resource management consents that rule what you can do, then change their minds and then require more, and what was a good idea is then changed and then back again with a twist. All expensive.

    Perhaps the current crop of dairy farms should be allowed to be sold to overseas concerns as it seems over seas banks own them.
    Why should NZers worry about that as we can simply vote to increase land taxes that will then capture all the profits for NZ. Tough luck overseas investor as the rest of NZ sits back and enjoys ways of spending these new increased taxes.

    The converted farm whose value has rocketed because of one new dairy in the district makes the old sheep/cattle enterprise dubious, is done because its size and the new areas are cheaper. It can be an opportunity for a young share milker to get into a farm as a share holder equity partnership plus his energy work and skill at dairying.

    I often wonder when I have seem old cowshed sites and old piggeries, what they did with their effluent. There were many of those particularly before WW2, and into the 50’s. Open drains then streams often seem to be nearby.
    What is being done now is into a new science and to clean up pollution is a good thing. Our understanding of the effects may seem simple, but to mitigate and change (often at great cost, more loans). New things come in as well and many farms now also figure “nutrient budgets” for the loading of the soils.

    What does annoy me is to see signs on the beaches of North Shore City warning about pollution after heavy rains. Simple cure, double the rates or much more (whetever it costs) and put that into proper sewerage treatment would fix that in less than a year

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Farmers earn their money in the form of CG when they sell up. The only way to tax farming is by a CGT.

    This will price land more realistically and enable real profits from farming – so while a CGT might not raise that much revenue (unless it was backdated) the next generation of farmers (those who buy land afterwards) will pay more income tax and also hold (comparatively) lower levels of foreign sourced loan debt.

    The current system leaves farmers too cash poor to meet environmental standards or invest in industry development (except by borrowing against the farm – and not all can do this).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. kiwi in america (2,452 comments) says:

    Excellent thread.
    Labour using distorted stats for political gain? Hmm – its the H Fee desperate tactics all over again. They’re looking for that one hit that will lop 5% off National boost them to the high 30’s and to then its game on. The latest Roy Morgan poll (since the ACT – Maori Party shake ups) shows that the Brash – Hone show has done little to move the overall makeup of Parliament. National up slightly, Labour down slightly, ditto the Greens and Maori and ACT a slight blip up. So much for John Ansell’s bold predictions of a Brash Prime Ministership. Mana will be lucky to poll 1% which is the only constituency for a radical hard left party.

    The tax situation for farmers has been around for a while and seems to have survived governments of various ideological stripes and reforming zeal. Pre 1984 farmers were the beneficiaries of vast amounts of state largesse after a patchwork of piecemeal subsidies that evolved after decades of farmer dominated National governments. Douglas removed those subsidies in one fell swoop in the 1985 budget and we can all recall the squealing of the farmers then. To their credit they hunkered down and have learned to become the most efficient farmers in the world.

    So to toad and particularly shunda, the playing field is way more level now. As for Trusts, these have existed in some form since the Middle Ages. They do offer many advantages primarily asset protection but yes, if properly structured, tax advantages. The formation of business and family trusts was one of the services we offered in my financial brokerage business when I lived in NZ so I’ve kept up somewhat on what is happening. NZ is top heavy with trusts and they are ripe for some reform. Many Family Trusts are sham trusts in that they have been improperly formed with no proper relationship of trust being established usually because they have not properly estranged their assets via the use of independent trustee(s). Many are also compromised by lack of proper minutes, an audit trail of decisions that involve the independent trustee(s) etc etc. The IRD are increasingly willing to pierce through the veil of trusts and unravel them if they do not more strictly comply.

    Having viewed the accounts of farmers applying for loans in good years and in bad I can tell you that they are one of the trickiest self employed groups to get loans for because their incomes are so erratic and dependent on factors that they cannot control no matter how good they are as farmers – the weather and world commodity prices being the two most important.

    Whilst current milkfat payouts are strong and the ongoing boom in dairy commodity prices is fueling the conversion to dairy and all the attendent environment concerns that go along with that, farmers have an uncertain future. The dairy boom is driving down yields and forcing amalgamations and giving rise to the larger corporate dairy farms but also they know that they face large cost increases when they must come into the ETS and start remediating the effects of their effluent on water quality. That said the NZ farming sector has always driven the research into and use of cutting edge technologies in their field. 2 green technologies that I am currently involved with will have profound positive repercussions for the dairy farming sector in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. simpleton1 (228 comments) says:

    As in my 6.16 post

    To farm for capital gain will punish you as many got punished during the 1980′s particularly when borrowing against their supposed increased valuations. I well recall how some said it was wise to use the increased value and spend it. Life was great for a couple of years, then they more than stubbed their toe on reality.

    It happened to all property as we watched the ads on telly saying you too deserve a new car, boat, renovations, etc

    lower levels of foreign sourced loan debt

    funny that as it basically all our own trading banks (OK foreign owned) and many finance companies and namely one for eg. South Canterbury Finance.

    Hey they are going to go bust as I see differing dairy farms going bust or share milkers sliding off too. Others are desparately paying off debt and I bet next years tax take will increase exponetianlly as principle is treated as income.
    Many young farmers do not live ” high” as they put every thing back into the business , paying off debt, and doing improvements.

    It will all readjust. Capital GAins tax will suit corporate farms as they will be of a size and mix to adjust and get around it and probably could hold for long periods (more than life times). Or will farmers own companies and then buy and sell shares but not the property?

    Environment standards are trying to be reached by many farmers though often the goal posts are moved and subsequent costs are high. The difficulty is for small farms to build up a reserve in equity to meet contingencies, as percentage wise their drawings are quite high to their productivity, and most banks do not like to lend to small scale operations, seeing them as higher risk. Yes to have spare cash is difficult.

    Perhaps if there is a good land tax the government can buy food for the cows, fix the roads country people travel on, put in good effluent systems, plant riparian strips, so NZ can truly be 100% pure, and get up and milk the cows on that sleety rainy morning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. MildGreens (5 comments) says:

    Overgrow the Government.

    Grow pot, milk the public, zero tax on 1000% profit. Low risk. Environmentally safe. Massive export potential. Proven distribution network. Compatible with Keep NZ Green, 100% Pure. An ETS winner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. vto (1,131 comments) says:

    Sheesh, so much yelling and screaming on here. How can you dipsticks even think?

    Bottom line is that farmers admit they farm for capital gain. In other words income is capitalised into farm values. So when the farm is sold that capitalised income becomes taxable.

    Tax cheats as well as not paying their way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Tauhei Notts (1,713 comments) says:

    Now as a provincial town chartered accountant let me put you all onto a little secret.
    In the 2009 income year the price of friesian cows dropped from $2150 to $1312. Jersey cows and heifers dropped by a similar percentage.
    Now, if you had the business acumen of “Silent T” you would expect a business that had such an awful drop in its inventory to pay a hell of a lot of tax.
    In short, the arse fell out of the market and cow cockies’ tax for the 2011 year will be a hell of lot higher, because all of those losses sustained in the 2009 year will, by now, have been recouped.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. tom hunter (4,843 comments) says:

    Farm land is being pushed into Dairying as a result of a form of land tax, the rates.

    It would be more accurate to say that rate increases have outrun the income growth of many types of farming, particularly drystock units of sheep and beef. I have to say that our council rate increases have not been excessive and have tracked inflation fairly well.

    But what’s really going on here is the slow, relentless grind of economics. Thirty years ago my farm would have been considered quite a large unit, and there were plenty that were less than half its size. Now those are uneconomic units and they are being combined. But this is nothing new: 60 years ago my farm was a profitable drystock unit: by the early 1970’s it was not. Fortunately my parents had long since gone into building a pure-bred Angus stud – a classic example of doing something different that produces higher per unit revenue and profit. But even that was failing to keep up by the time they retired: hence the switch to dairying.

    One funny aspect is that our two neighbouring drystock farms threw in the towel after the horrendous 1974 season. They were five or so years from retirement anyway so sold to the government – who promptly split the farms into three dairy units each. These units are now being re-combined. Which leads to this comment …

    Bottom line is that farmers admit they farm for capital gain.

    Admit? A full confession before the people’s court by the hoarding Kulaks wrecking the socialist machine? The only other comment I’ve seen to this effect is from Cactus Kate, daughter of Waikato dairy farmers – “Simple fact is that farming is all about tax free capital gains”. But that’s less an admission than an assertion since it comes from one person.

    In any case it would be fair to say that a proportion of dairy farmers are farming for capital gain, but no one could say what that is. The big units appear to be in it for the long haul and I think their focus is on becoming ever larger to compensate against the risk of becoming an uneconomic unit, and possibly put themselves in a better, future position where they’re the dominant shareholders in Fonterra, with the delicious prospect of an IPO some way down the track. A few years in and then out to obtain capital gains does not seem to the game they’re playing.

    As to the smaller ones, it could be correct. One of my neighbours sold his 50 hectare unit in 2000 for approximately $1.2 million. Neither I nor any other neighbour were willing to buy at that price as we considered it uneconomic. But somebody did: a 60 year old farmer who had substantial cash and could ride the overdraft for several years even on such a small unit. It was obvious that he was counting on a capital gain – and he got it, selling out for $2+million in 2005. But who bought it? The next door neighbour, also the owner of a 50 hectare unit who finally had to face the fact that he either bit the bullet or got out of the business. He’s also gambling, but not in capital gain it would seem: he’s in it for the long haul and I do not envy his position, particularly given the comments of supposedly “right-wing” commentators on this site.

    In other words income is capitalised into farm values. So when the farm is sold that capitalised income becomes taxable.

    Not really. The rise in land values represents less capitalised income (it’s fairly easy to demonstrate that no feasible amount of revenue could translate into those capital values), than the same sort of gambling attitude that was also prevalent in the property market. As far as that goes anybody advocating a CGT or some sort of Land Tax as a way of cooling this off apparently has not noticed the property bubbles in countries like Spain and the US that do have CGT.

    As with property, people are doing this in NZ because virtually every other way of building wealth (as opposed to just grinding out an income) are stuffed. A CGT won’t change that, but I’ve no doubt it’s coming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. vto (1,131 comments) says:

    A CGT is not needed. The Income Tax Act already provides that if land is purchased with a view to selling later (actual farming is a separate matter) then the difference becomes taxable income.

    It is as simple as that. Key even said so himself in Parliament yesterday.

    Now go ahead and argue about how many farmers do that if you like but shitloads do it ……….. I have had it admitted to me countless times. I have seen it admitted in the media even. My own circle do so. This makes those farmers tax cheats. Not to mention the nerve they have in demonising urban types for doing the same. FFS, there is so much dishonesty in farming circles these days.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Hmmm. Where to start?

    I suppose I could climb into the usual suspects and also those who have in fact surprised me with their illiteracy in some very fundamental aspects of our tax system and the significance of export earnings (which point in fact has absolutely nothing to do with the issue this thread raises). But seeing the sheer volume of ignorant drivel in some of the comments above suggests that this would be a very large task indeed and I don’t know that I can be bothered. Instead I think I’ll just pose some questions.

    1. How is tax calculated? On sales???

    2. Does NZ have a broad-based capital gains tax? Should we single out farmers instead of share and commercial real estate investors, or home owners, for special treatment? And where are the capital gains that farmers are “farming for”? Should we be allowing deductions for capital losses currently being “enjoyed”?

    3. For those of you who aren’t still living in the ’60s and the ’70s, where are the rorts in farming to day and are they in fact of such significance that they would account for these statistics?

    4. Has anyone heard of WFF?

    5. Are farming revenues and costs fixed or do they fluctuate.

    6. Is there something about farming that distinguishes it from other businesses such that farm businesses should not either expand or invest capital to generate cost efficiencies?

    7. Should farmers be held to a higher standard than the rest of the business community for the quality of their investment decisions?

    8. Last, and quite gratuitously because the point is completely irrelevant, why is a domestic consumption focused economy for a capital importing country a superior model relative to exporting?

    It would be unfair to end just with a broad side-swipe at the collective of fuckwits that have bought into this crap, and so I thought it appropriate to conclude by singling out big bruv for a special mention. Well done bb, keep up the good work and never, ever, allow complete ignorance to stand in the way of you forming an opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. tom hunter (4,843 comments) says:

    Now go ahead and argue about how many farmers do that if you like but shitloads do it ……….. I have had it admitted to me countless times.

    Really? I move in farming circles and have encountered no such admissions, which makes sense since farmers tend to look down on those who are clearly in the buy-skip-sell process. I did know one or two sheep and cattle guys who did that in the 1970’s – but they came a cropper in the 1980’s, as is usually the case with such an approach. In any case there seems little point in “arguing” assertions that amount to my word against yours.

    I have seen it admitted in the media even.

    Our media? You mean our fabulous 21st century media, like the fucking clowns who printed this crap?
    But I suppose I should at least ask what links you can provide. You do have links, correct?

    My own circle do so.

    Ah! I’m beginning to see the research pattern.

    This makes those farmers tax cheats.

    Fortunately the term “tax cheat” is not enshrined in law, for the same reason “rich pricks” is not. The term is too slippery and could lead to abuse by gimlet-eyed socialists. There is tax evasion, which is illegal, and tax avoidance, which is not.

    Not to mention the nerve they have in demonising urban types for doing the same.

    Pointing out that the same thing is going on urban circles is merely the observance of a fact, not “demonising”.

    FFS, there is so much dishonesty in farming circles these days.

    Almost as much as in leftist circles that are utterly convinced that the country’s fiscal problems arise from too little tax revenue rather than too much government spending.

    But don’t worry – I think your side will “win” in the long term. I and my family just won’t be around when you turn up at the door in the faded green boiler suit with the pitchforks and noose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    There is still this sense of land gentry entitlement and sense of threat from the urban poor masses when the issue of fair taxation regime for farming is raised.

    There are two kinds of farmers – families that pass on the farm to the next generation – they farm with low debt and thus have annual profits – some years better than others. And those that buy a farm to enter farming and sell their farm when they leave farming – much of their income from farming comes from the rising value of their farm. Whether they access this income by borrowing against the farm for spending or save it until they retire, this is untaxed income.

    This untaxed income is one reason for the interest in farm ownership (many now operate their farm via a farm manager for this reason – and at least these managers pay tax on their incomes) – but it results in over-valued farmland and this results in indebted farmers making poor incomes – thus there is an inability to realise either optimum environment standards or contribute to industry development.

    If this is the best way we can organise our prime export sector it’s no wonder we have other economic problems as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. backster (2,172 comments) says:

    According to the Leighton Smith show this morning Fairfacts owners of the Stuff website which carried these allegations paid 4.6% of gross income in tax last year and 1.5% the year before that. Strange that Labour didn’t include that in their whine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    So Fairfax are printing for the rising value of the printers are they?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. tom hunter (4,843 comments) says:

    There is still this sense of land gentry entitlement and sense of threat from the urban poor masses…

    Oh god. Let the class warfare begin!

    The landed gentry and the urban poor masses? Really? :roll:

    Okay, I know you really get a kick out of being a “true”, traditional left-winger fighting for the toilers, but I actually feel more threatened by the Government Bureaucrat Masses, the middle class management layer that you empower in the name of the poor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    It began earlier in the defence of farmer privilege … it was just time to call a spade a spade.

    Care to discuss the issue of a fair tax regime for farming?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. simpleton1 (228 comments) says:

    SImple
    A fair tax all round is when Government does not set things up to gain by inflation, ( they benefit the most as they are biggest borrower), which also cheats the public saver.
    Therefore capital gains would not be considered as income would be the major objective, that would be the true life blood.
    No Qualitive easing and no printing of money.
    That way our currency will be strong and gain strength which will benefit the masses by cheaper and hopefully beneficial imports. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. tom hunter (4,843 comments) says:

    Care to discuss the issue of a fair tax regime for farming?

    With a class warfare zealot who actually uses terms from the distant past such as landed gentry and urban poor masses. Someone who I’m sure can can play merry hell with the definitions of privilege and fair as part of the debate framing exercise.

    Not really. As I said earlier, I’m convinced you’ll win eventually, more from the sheer weight of demand for extra revenue than anything else. But I’ll be gone long before then.

    In the meantime I’ll go take a look at the various budget threads to see what the current set of clowns in government are up to, while you should immerse yourself in this discussion with Scott Hamilton.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    I suppose clown is an adequate way to describe people who would sell $7B of assets rising in value and earning more than debt cost to spend $10B on 7 roads.

    And yeah any topic apart from a fair tax regime for farmers indeed, turkeys donl’t offer the neck any earlier thasn they have to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. tom hunter (4,843 comments) says:

    And Kulaks don’t offer the back of their heads to people gleefully holding 9mm pistols.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Whafe (650 comments) says:

    tom hunter….. please note this is what I said: Many other farming activities get hammered by Evironment Waikato, but the tit pullers hardly get touched!

    I said hardly get touched……

    Yes I know factually that more dairy units are being investigated for want of a better word by EW, I was meaning in comparison to other types of primary production, dairy farmers are not investigated to the same level…

    tom, how many units of N do you apply to your pasture per year???????

    Will all dairy farmers be able to meet and pass an audit for Global Gap in 2016?????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. simpleton1 (228 comments) says:

    Nutrient (super phoshate, postassium, urea, plus others) Feed budgets are done as far as I know because the dairy inspector must see it to pass the inspection, and although this practice is in its early years, it has created a lot of learning and understanding.
    Regular soil testing (often yearly) has been one of the results of that and even the testing it self has evolved with what seems changing systems of thought

    Units of N have become a major part of discussion with owners, share milkers, consultants, fertilizer reps, discussion groups.

    At the price of N and budgeting it is often mulled over, to how much, or will less be better, when with regards to time of year,and best response and effect and is it really needed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote