The Herald reports:

If you thought the Government (well more correctly the Labour Party) is hell-bent on committing political suicide you’d be wrong.
The Beehive is reeling and sitting in the top office of the ever diminishing building Jacinda Ardern’s in a state of shock at the reaction to the Taxation Working Group’s report.

I’m shocked that they’re shocked. They had the report for a month, which should have been plenty of time to digest it, work out the ramification, conclude the proposed model is a dog, and kill it at birth.

Now she’s wide awake to the political damage it’s doing to Labour, spending the first six minutes of her post-Cabinet press conference yesterday giving us a lesson on how to report it accurately.
Ardern was at pains to ensure the students understood her lecture. The debate should be about a fairer and more balanced taxation system and is most certainly not an attack on the Kiwi way of life as some have claimed.

How is it fair to tax people for inflation? How is it fair to double tax small business owners? How it is fair to tax people more who have a home office?

To ensure we knew what she was banging on about she reminded us that she grew up in Morrinsville, in a small town rural community. All of her jobs were mostly with small businesses and she knows the debate going on in rural New Zealand and their views will be heard, she insisted.

Now that is a brazen rewriting of truth. I can only imagine she means her stint in a fish and chip shop. The reality is that since finishing study, her only jobs have been in Government.

To claim she has worked in small business because of her school jobs is akin to me claiming I worked in the newspaper industry because I had a paper run when I was 12.

Will she claim to have aviation experience because once when she was seven she handed out lollies on a plane?

As the lesson was drawing to a close she told us the bleedingly obvious: that the tax would be paid only when a capital gain is realised, or when an asset gets sold, so there won’t be an ongoing impost.

This is not true. You can also get hit with CGT if you move overseas for a while.

The Dom Post reports:

The cost of Wellington’s Town Hall project looks set to expand to $130 million, as contractors are understood to be counting on a $20m contingency fund.
It may officially stand at $112.4m, but capital developers say the cost of Wellington’s Town Hall project will rise by a further $20m – with the “real” figure an open secret within the industry.

It was a bad idea at $46 million. At $130 million it is a terrible terrible idea. Will any Councillors have the guts to say enough is enough and we won’t force every household in Wellington to pay $1,800 for a music venue 95% of them will never use.

Spend that money on facilities that will benefit everyone such as libraries and parks, not something for the elite.

Property developer Richard Burrell, whose company Building Solutions has strengthened some 40 buildings over the last 30 years, believed the true cost of doing up the Town Hall was being hidden from the public, while its real budget was being openly talked about by the project’s engineers and preferred tenderer.
“The undisclosed contingency amount is bullshit,” Burrell said.

Of course the industry knows what the contingency is. The construction company will know for sure. the Crs know. The so called commercial secrecy is actually there to hide the figure from the public who will pay the bills.

At a press conference last week Lavery  said the price of the Town Hall contract could not be fixed citing high demand in the construction industry, which made the council just one of many customers in the city.

So the Council is just going to bend over and sign a contract allowing the construction company to blow out the costs. I guarantee you if it was their own money they would not be.

Prominent philanthropist, property developer and former Wellingtonian of the Year Mark Dunajtschik said Lavery was asking for an “open cheque for a bottomless pit”.
He had also heard the project referred to as a $130m one within his industry.
Comparing the building to an “old dog”, he believed the council would be better off to dismantle the original facade and re-apply it to a new building built to modern standards. He was confident it would then cost “less than $112m”.
“Unfortunately the ratepayers are captive,” he said.

Time for Councillors to stand up for ratepayers and say enough is enough.

The Government banned all future offshore exploration for oil and gas, despite it having lower carbon emissions than coal. They claim that the world is moving towards a future with no oil and gas.

Well if this is true, then surely other countries would be doing the same. I mean we wouldn’t be so stupid as to ban domestic production just so we have to import more would we?

Well read these snippets from a SPTEC newsletter:

China: China’s state energy giants are set to raise spending on domestic drilling this year to the highest levels since 2016, focusing on adding natural gas reserves in a concerted drive to boost local supplies. Responding to central government’s call last August to boost domestic energy security, China’s trio of oil majors – PetroChina, Sinopec Corp and CNOOC Ltd – are adding thousands of wells at oil basins in the remote deserts of Northwest China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, shale rocks in Southwest China’s Sichuan Province and deepwater fields of the South China Sea. The firms are showing greater risk appetite, expanding investments faster in exploration than production, emboldened by central government’s political push and oil prices nearing $60 a barrel, said state oil executives and analysts at consultancy Wood Mackenzie.(Selected by SPTEC Advisory from Global Times, February 10)

So the world’s largest greenhouse gas producer is increasing, not banning, oil and gas production.

How about the world’s third largest producer?

India: India is offering 23 oil and gas and coal-bed methane blocks for bidding in the third round of Open Acreage Licensing Policy (OLAP) as it looks to more than double the area under exploration to raise domestic output and cut imports. Oil Minister Dharmendra Pradhan launched the OALP-III bid round at the Petrotech 2019 conference on the outskirts of Delhi. ‘In OALP-III, 23 blocks in 12 sedimentary basins are being offered. Of these, five are coal-bed methane (CBM) blocks. Total area on offer is about 31,000 sq kms,’ he said. Last date for bidding is April 10. OALP-III will run concurrently with OALP-II, where 14 blocks covering an area of close to 30,000 sq km is on offer for bidding, he said, adding in OALP-I, 55 blocks covering an area of 60,000 sq km were awarded in October last year.(Selected by SPTEC Advisory from Energy-Pedia, February 10)

We really are the morons of the world – imposing a ban that is bad for both the environment and the economy.

Received this e-mail from a top tax accountant (over 30 years experience with one of the big 4 firms) on the proposed CGT:

I have just read your post re how CGT is a double tax on a business owner that has accumulated (tax paid) profits within their company.  All very interesting.
 
However, the idea of a CGT on sale of a business is even more flawed than that.
 
Assume that I have established a lawn-mowing service from nothing.  After years of slog, I have built up a very loyal customer base, but it is time for me to retire, and so I sell my business to you.   As part of the sale, you agree to pay me $50,000 for the goodwill of the business that I have built up.  Under the CGT proposal, this $50,000 would be a capital gain and I would have to pay income tax on that amount.
 
But the $50,000 of goodwill is not a “magic” number – as a business asset, it represents the economic net present value of the future earnings potential from the loyal customer base I have nurtured.  Now, when those future earnings are derived, they will be on your tax return as part of your business turnover – and you will pay tax on those amounts.  Given that I have already paid CGT on the goodwill amount, the direct result is economic double taxation.
 
I do note that this double tax position could be alleviated if you were allowed to claim an income tax deduction for the goodwill amount.  However, insofar as I am currently aware, beyond a suggestion that depreciation be allowed on commercial buildings again, there is no firm suggestion of deductions for goodwill and the like being offered in the TWG report.
 
At a macro level, if the CGT were sufficiently thought out so as to give you a deduction for the goodwill, then the net of the two positions would effectively cancel each other out (i.e. I pay tax on $50,000 and you get deductions for $50,000).  So the net revenue position for Government would be largely neutral (except for some timing considerations between taxation of the gain and deductions allowed for the goodwill and perhaps if you and I were on different tax rates).    This begs the question of “why even bother” for something so hideously complex as a comprehensive CGT when you get the same neutrality under the current system (i.e. no tax for me to pay on the goodwill, and no deduction for goodwill for you to claim).
 
The above analysis suggests to me that “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.  Our current tax model for capital gains made by businesses seems fit for purpose, whereas the CGT proposal from the TWG carries a fundamental flaw if it does not afford corresponding tax deductions to purchasers.
 
I must admit, however, that the one place where the CGT model proposed could actually work effectively is for non-business assets (i.e. where the asset does not give rise to future cashflows that would be subject to tax).  A perfect example of such an asset would be the family home … oh, wait, this is the one thing that they have exempted from the CGT regime!  There goes the main opportunity for the fairness of the tax system to be improved.
 
I predict that, before the CGT raised the $8 billion (in first 5 years, as suggested by Dr Cullen), New Zealanders will first spend potentially billions in fees for accountants, lawyers and business valuers.  I might have been thinking early retirement, but the current Government seems to be intent on loading up the gravy train….  

It certainly will be a boon for tax accountants.

This letter from the NY State Budget Director shows how basically one union plus a Twitter mob stopped 40,000 jobs being created and $27 billion of revenue. Some extracts:

“In my 23 years in the State Capitol, three as Budget Director, Amazon was the single greatest economic development opportunity we have had. Amazon chose New York and Virginia after a year-long national competition with 234 cities and states vying for the 25,000-40,000 jobs. For a sense of scale, the next largest economic development project the state has completed was for approximately 1,000 jobs. People have been asking me for the past week what killed the Amazon deal. There were several factors. 
“First, some labor unions attempted to exploit Amazon’s New York entry. The RWDSU Union was interested in organizing the Whole Foods grocery store workers, a subsidiary owned by Amazon, and they deployed several ‘community based organizations’ (which RWDSU funds) to oppose the Amazon transaction as negotiation leverage. It backfired. Initially, Whole Foods grocery stores had nothing to do with this transaction. It is a separate company. While Amazon is not a unionized workforce, Amazon had agreed to union construction and service worker jobs that would have provided 11,000 thousand union positions.
“New York State also has the most pro-worker legal protections of any state in the country. Organizing Amazon, or Whole Foods workers, or any company for that matter, is better pursued by allowing them to locate here and then making an effort to unionize the workers, rather than making unionization a bar to entrance. If New York only allows unionized companies to enter, our economy is unsustainable, and if one union becomes the enemy of other unions, the entire union movement – already in decline – is undermined and damaged.

One bully boy union backfired disastrously.

“Third, in retrospect, the State and the City could have done more to communicate the facts of the project and more aggressively correct the distortions. We assumed the benefits to be evident: 25,000-40,000 jobs located in a part of Queens that has not seen any significant commercial development in decades and a giant step forward in the tech sector, further diversifying our economy away from Wall Street and Real Estate. The polls showing seventy percent of New Yorkers supported Amazon provided false comfort that the political process would act responsibly and on behalf of all of their constituents, not just the vocal minority. We underestimated the effect of the opposition’s distortions and overestimated the intelligence and integrity of local elected officials.

A win for the vocal minority.

“Incredibly, I have heard city and state elected officials who were opponents of the project claim that Amazon was getting $3 billion in government subsidies that could have been better spent on housing or transportation. This is either a blatant untruth or fundamental ignorance of basic math by a group of elected officials. The city and state ‘gave’ Amazon nothing. Amazon was to build their headquarters with union jobs and pay the city and state $27 billion in revenues. The city, through existing as-of-right tax credits, and the state through Excelsior Tax credits – a program approved by the same legislators railing against it – would provide up to $3 billion in tax relief, IF Amazon created the 25,000-40,000 jobs and thus generated $27 billion in revenue. You don’t need to be the State’s Budget Director to know that a nine to one return on your investment is a winner. 

So sounds like it wasn’t a special sweetheart deal.

“As the political debate rages in this country, the Governor reminds us of the fact that ‘to be a progressive, there must be progress.’ The creation of opportunity and jobs is the engine that pulls the train and, as he also often says, ‘the best social program is still a job.’ Without a tax base we are not financially able to achieve the laudable goals we seek.

Great quote.

“Make no mistake, at the end of the day we lost $27 billion, 25,000-40,000 jobs and a blow to our reputation of being ‘open for business.’ The union that opposed the project gained nothing and cost other union members 11,000 good, high-paying jobs. The local politicians that catered to the hyper-political opposition hurt their own government colleagues and the economic interest of every constituent in their district. The true local residents who actually supported the project and its benefits for their community are badly hurt. Nothing was gained and much was lost. This should never happen again.”

Yet it is cheered as a win by some.

Politik reports:

The party’s keynote panel discussion at its annual Blue Greens conference in Raglan was on biotechnology and featured the former Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister, Sir Peter Gluckman.
He wants a debate on genetic editing to begin now.
Gluckman said he could not see a way that agriculture in New Zealand would be sustainable in the long run without using gene editing.
He said gene editing, unlike genetic modification,  did not change the gene structure, only the way the genes worked.
“Do we need gene editing?” he asked.
“Well, we certainly need to talk about it and have an adaptive approach to knowledge which has come from scientists all around the world to find whether it fits our needs.
“I’ll go as far as to say that I cannot see a way that agriculture in New Zealand will be sustainable over the long run in the face of environmental change and consumer preferences without using gene editing.
“There is no way that we will get a reduction in methane production, and I can see no way that we will see an economic advantage for farmers as we shift to more plant-based foods without using gene editing.”

A great insightful report from Politik that should have got more media attention.

Sir Peter Gluckman is saying the route to sustainable environmental change is through gene editing.

What will it take for the Greens to abandon their superstition against this?

Dr Cullen and the Government would have you think that a CGT won’t affect 90% or so of the population – only a few rich pricks. But if you read the actual details of the proposal, you’ll be stunned at how many people will be affected. Here’s a short list I have compiled on a short skim through.

1. Anyone who owns shares
2. Any business owner
3. All farmers
4. Anyone who owns a bach
5. Anyone who owns a holiday home
6. Anyone who owns a rental property
7. Anyone who has intellectual property
8. Anyone who owns their own home and has sex (okay enters into a relationship) with another home owner
9. Anyone who owns a home who moves overseas for a while
10. Anyone who works in a different city to where they live and owns a apartment for them to live in during the week, as well as their family home
11. When you purchase a new family home, but are unable to sell your old one within 12 months
12. When you move into a resthome, but are unable to sell your old home within 12 months
13. When you buy a section to build a new home on, and it isn’t completed within 12 months
14. When you own a lifestyle block larger than 0.45 hectares
15. When you claim expenses for a home office
16. When you earn some extra money by listing a room on AirBnB
17. If you have flatmates or a boarder (even your own adult children) and claim expenses.
18. If you have parents who own any taxable assets who will die at some stage (CGT doesn’t apply on death but will apply if you ever dispose of the inherited taxable asset)
19. Anyone who has a taxable asset who migrates overseas (pays CGT immediately even if they keep their assets)
20. Anyone who has a KiwiSaver account (you don’t pay CGT directly but your KiwiSaver account is impacted by it)

So nothing at all to worry about if you’re not a rich prick – yeah right.

Central Western reports:

THE public spoke, they listened.
Following almost two months of debate surrounding Charles Sturt University possibly changing its name, the idea was on Monday abandoned by university officials.
When CSU announced in early January that it was considering changing its name, it was met with thousands of people calling for the idea to be abandoned.

“We heard loud and clear from your stories that you are connected to our name and our rich history,” vice chancellor Professor Andrew Vann said on Monday morning.

“We believe it’s important we reflect the views of our community in our namesake. Our name will remain as Charles Sturt University.”

A Vice-Chancellor that proposed a name change, listed to their stakeholders, and then decided not to proceed.

This is what true consultation looks like.

A reader writes in:

Should HNZ be harbouring social cancers in our communities, particularly when there are many people waiting for housing?  
 
This is a serious issue, and perhaps worthy of a KB post.  In the Hutt we have blighted areas in Stokes Valley and other parts of the city where gangs terrorise neighbourhoods and trade drugs.  They operate out of HNZ houses.  Apparently single mothers get the HNZ lease and then gang members move in.  It’s very hard to monitor and manage.
 
I have been following this for some time and each time there’s a shooting, stabbing etc involving gangs there’s always a HNZ house involved.
 
See this – clearly a HNZ block:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/109900067/reports-of-gang-fight-in-stokes-valley
 
And this:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/107674640/communities-fight-fear-as-violence-threat-hangs-over-hutt-valley?rm=m
 
Now I see the same thing in Dunedin:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12205774
 
A Google search will show that this situation is widespread across NZ.
 
“A Porirua woman has made an emotional plea to Housing New Zealand to evict gang member tenants causing chaos in her community.  Sala Nimarota says Mongrel Mob members living in a Housing NZ home in her community are making it unsafe for the rest of the community”:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/06/woman-s-emotional-plea-to-housing-nz-over-porirua-gang-problems.html

State houses are hugely subsidized by the taxpayer and are a form of targeted welfare. As with other forms of welfare, this should be part of a social contract such as looking for a job etc.

Extreme anti-social behaviour should see people lose their Housing NZ tenancies.

The Guardian reports:

A recent review into Amnesty’s workplace culture warned of bullying, nepotism and an “us v them” dynamic that threatened the organisation’s credibility as a human rights champion. The report, undertaken by the KonTerra Group and led by psychologists, was commissioned after the suicides of two staff members last year.
The report warned that while there was a risk of vicarious trauma due to the nature of Amnesty’s work, most wellbeing issues among staff were driven by the organisation’s adversarial culture, failures in management and pressures of workload. The review was based on a survey of 475 staff, 70% of the workforce of Amnesty’s international secretariat, and on scores of interviews.
“There were multiple reports of managers belittling staff in meetings, deliberately excluding certain staff from reporting, or making demeaning, menacing comments like ‘you’re shit!’ or ‘you should quit! If you stay in this position, your life will be a misery,’” the report said.
In the letter, the senior leadership team acknowledged the review’s finding that structural and cultural challenges had been prevalent in the organisation for decades, and had been exacerbated by a restructuring programme.

So they’ve been a toxic place to work for decades. So busy lecturing everyone else they forgot to practice what they preach.

Amnesty’s work culture problems were first revealed last May, when the Times reported that Gaëtan Mootoo had killed himself after complaining of stress and overwork. Six weeks later, Rosalind McGregor, 28, an intern at Amnesty’s Geneva office, was found dead at her family home in Surrey.

Terrible, especially for a human rights organisation.

Sad it took two suicides for Amnesty to admit they have a problem.

National has released the first of ten or so policy discussion documents. This is the environmental policy paper.

At the end is 20 proposals they are consulting on. Some are specific, others more general. The more specific ones are:

• developing further robust incentives to encourage New Zealanders to take up renewable transport such as subsidies for electric vehicles, increasing regulations on older, less efficient cars, and encouraging older cars to be scrapped.
• working with water stakeholders to put in place a new and more efficient allocation method for the resource
• setting a quality standard for coastal water and a timetable for regional councils to meet those standards plus implementing beach and quality standards/swimming standards.
• rewriting the Litter Act to make it fit for purpose and strengthen enforcement mechanisms against people and businesses breaching provisions of both the Waste Minimisation Act and the Litter Act
• introducing measures to see either by a container deposit scheme in association with existing kerbside and recycling programmes is introduced, or by the beverage sector itself be responsible for ensuring through initiatives they set up, that 90 per cent of beverage containers are saved from being sent to landfill.
• committing New Zealand to a nationwide zero avoidable waste timetable and target
• looking at establishing a new National Park and will investigate establishing one in The Catlins.
• increasing funding to Department of Conservation Rangers to lead biosecurity incursions where threats are of a conservation matter.
• updating New Zealand’s restrictions on the use of biotechnologies in consultation with New Zealanders to bring them into line with the latest science

A lot of people don’t realise that including sales of businesses in a CGT result in very punitive double taxation on business owners. So I thought I’d give an example.

Let’s say Michelle is a plumber. She works for other plumbers for 20 years and then sets up her own plumbing business. She puts $50,000 of her savings into it.

Michelle’s business does well. She pays herself $100,000 salary from it, and any profit beyond that she keeps in the business to allow it to grow reserves and capital.

On average the company makes a $40,000 profit every year for 20 years. Michelle pays company tax of 28% on that profit. So each year we have:

• Profit $40,000
• Tax $12,000
• Increase in Equity $28,000

Now after 20 years Michelle wants to retire and sell her business. It is no longer worth $50,000 but $610,000. If she sells it for its net worth (so not even taking goodwill etc into account) then she gets told by IRD she has made a capital gain of $560,000. She must pay tax at 33% on that capital gain so She has to pay $184,800 CGT.

But that $184,800 CGT is basically taxing her for the annual profit she has already paid tax on. It is double taxation. That increase in the worth of the company is solely due to her keeping annual profits with the company. So here’s the net taxation she pays:

• Profit $800,000
• Company Tax $240,000
• CGT $184,800
• Total Tax $424,800

So Michelle effectively pay 53% tax rate on her plumbing business. Totally unfair right. But this is what the Government wants to do.

Now if Michelle didn’t reinvest any of the profit back into the business allowing it to expand, take on more staff etc then she’d be better off. Instead of paying herself a salary of $100,000 a year she would be best to pay herself $140,000 a year and then she only pays 33% tax instead of 53% tax.

This is why the Government’s proposed CGT is an unfair tax. It is a double tax on business owners.

Stuff reports:

A man tied up in a false rape claim has backed a call for a men’s refuge after he was kicked out of his flat and left homeless for a week.
Brett, who has asked for his last name to be kept secret, says he had nowhere to go after his ex-girlfriend reported a rape that never happened, and rumours began to spread.
Since speaking about how the allegation “destroyed” his life, Brett has thrown his support behind a call for an agency to support men, similar to Women’s Refuge.

The full story is a sad read. Basically he lost his home and hos job because of the made up accusation.

Michelle Duff at Stuff reports:

In the months leading up to the release of a study which asked how safe it is to give birth in New Zealand, health officials were busy.
As a courtesy, researchers from Otago University had advised the Ministry of Health well in advance the study looking into maternity care outcomes would be coming out. Closer to the date, they provided an advance copy to the department.
The study found evidence to suggest all babies were not being born equal. Those in midwife-led care were at risk of poorer outcomes than babies in doctor-led care. The authors, Diana Sarfati and Ellie Wernham, were careful to point out their support for a midwifery-led system.

However, their conclusions were clear: the current way maternity care is provided in New Zealand is not as good as it could be.

So this research found inferior outcomes for babies (on average, not all) in midwife-led care than doctor-led care. And what did the Ministry of Health do? Did they work hard to identify the issues to make childbirth safer for women and babies?

Instead, an investigation by Stuff has found the ministry actively worked to try and obscure the results. Communications in the months before the study’s release show staffers worked on how to avoid “fallout,” and in one case shared plans to discredit the study ahead of its release with industry body the College of Midwives.

Heads should roll for this. The Ministry of Health colluded with an industry body to discredit independent research saying health outcomes were not as good as they should be.

Wernham and Sarfati’s study was the first ever to take an overarching look at the safety of babies within the current system. The differences she and Sarfati found were not small; across the five-year study of more than 244,000 babies, they found those in doctor-led care had lower chances of poor birth outcomes.
This included 55 per cent less chance of oxygen deprivation during delivery, 39 per cent lower odds of neonatal encephalopathy, and 48 per cent less chance of a low Apgar score, a measure of a baby’s wellbeing after delivery.
There was also a lower rate of stillbirth and newborn babies dying under medical-led care. This link was statistically weak due to the small number of baby deaths in the five years covered – 1.84 per 1000 births for midwife-led care (410 total deaths, from 20 weeks gestation to the first 27 days of life) and 1.31 per 1000 births for doctor-led care (27 total deaths) – but it was there.

They are very significant differences.

Of course, comparing women with midwives as their lead maternity carer to those who have doctors is not necessarily fair.
After all, doctors – counting GPs and obstetricians – look after less than ten per cent of mums. It is very possible the types of mothers they see are different – mums who smoke might be more likely to see a midwife, while healthier mums might pay for a private obstetrician, for example.

Correlation may not be causation. But you damn well expect further research to investigate this, not a campaign to undermine it.

Stuff reports:

Now, 72-year-old Environment Canterbury chairman Steve Lowndes has rediscovered his protesting mojo, joining global climate-change campaigners Extinction Rebellion and saying it is time to “panic”. …

Lowndes agreed with the group’s three demands – “that the truth be told about climate change, that we become carbon neutral by 2025 and that a climate emergency is declared”.

The first and third demand are meaningless – almost anyone could agree or disagree with them.

But the second demand that New Zealand become carbon neutral by 2025 is stark raving bonkers. There is no other word for it.

There is a world of difference between becoming carbon neutral over 31 years and six years.

To become carbon neutral by 2025 would mean killing off the entire NZ cattle herd, banning all non electric vehicles, closing down most manufacturing etc. It would plunge many New Zealanders into poverty and joblessness.

Also to go would be household refrigerators. Air conditioning systems also gone.

One can be convinced climate change is a serious issue and significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are needed, and also think calling for carbon neutrality within six years is stark raving madness.

But maybe he genuinely thinks we should do all of the above so we can be carbon neutral in six years. So presumably he has removed his refrigerator from his house. He has given up milk. He never drives a petrol car, or takes a plane trip. He doesn’t use any manufactured products. I’m sure he has done all this, if he is sincere with his advocacy.

Newshub reports:

Rocket Lab founder Peter Beck isn’t a fan of the Tax Working Group’s recommended capital gains tax system.
“Just saw the NZ capital gains tax recommendations,” Mr Beck said on his Twitter account.
“Taxing IP and stock will decimate the already fragile NZ start up industry. NZ already has big problems around creating large valuable technology companies and this will not help.”

If you tax something you tend to decrease the supply of it. Tax labour too high and less people work. Tax consumption too high and people consume less. So if you tax capital highly, then less capital will be made available.

The Express reports:

CANADA’S Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is facing a difficult election campaign after a new poll saw the scandal-hit leader’s approval ratings plummet.

Canadians are due to go to the polls in October but Mr Trudeau is battling to maintain his popularity after becoming embroiled in claims his aides pressured former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould to ensure construction firm SNC-Lavalin avoided a corruption investigation. The 47-year-old insists there was no wrongdoing but 41 percent of Canadians disagreed with Mr Trudeau in a Leger poll for news agency The Canadian Press. Just 12 percent believed he hadn’t done anything wrong following the allegations which has left his Liberal Party in turmoil.

The Canadian Liberal Party has a long history of corruption.

Newsroom reports:

The United States has delivered the most explicit threat yet to New Zealand’s role in the Five Eyes alliance if it allows Huawei into the 5G network, saying it will not share information with any country which allows the Chinese company into “critical information systems”.
The remarks from US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo call into question claims from Kiwi politicians and officials that outside pressure is not behind a decision to block Huawei equipment from being used by Spark in its 5G network.

The Secretary of State is the most senior cabinet officer after the President. His comments are not random musings but obviously reflect the official policy of the United States.

For the New Zealand Government to still insist that the decision on Huawei was made without any pressure from other countries is ludicrous.

Stuff reports:

Lifestyle block owners may be in for a shock if the Capital Gains Tax goes ahead in 2021.
Under the recommendations of the Tax Working Group, land that is larger than 4,500 square metres will be subject to the tax.
There’s no mention lifestyle blocks will be exempt like family homes, or treated like farms, which allow for the house and surrounds to be left tax-free.
Real Estate Institute chief executive Bindi Norwell said the median size of lifestyle properties sold in New Zealand in the last 12 months is 20,000sqm.

On the basis of that data, she believes 92 per cent of lifestyle blocks sold across the country last year would be taxable.

So don’t believe the claim that the family home is exempt. Only some people will be exempt. If you have flatmates you won’t be exempt. If you use any part of it for a home office, you won’t be exempt. If you have a boarder (even adult children) you won’t be exempt. If you live on a lifestyle block you won’t be exempt. If you get any revenue from AirBnB you won’t be exempt.

Do not think the CGT will apply only to rental investment properties. It is far wider than that.