Stuff reports:

If elected, and if the Government legislated a capital gains tax, National would get rid of it, Bridges said.

He also said National would increasing funding for core public services like health, education and transport.

“So when we see tax relief for every New Zealander replaced by a $3 billion regional slush fund which resulted in $160,000 of trees being mulched, or a $2.8b fees free policy that saw 2400 fewer students in tertiary education, and at least $250m on 190 working groups because the Government didn’t do the work in Opposition, we know they’re not spending wisely.

As I understand it the Government plans to pass the legislation for its capital gains tax before the election, but to take effect from 1 April 2021. So if the Government is not re-elected then the CGT law will be repealed.

The Herald reports:

Labour MP Louisa Wall is standing by comments that TERFs – or anyone who doesn’t support the rights of trans-women – should not be allowed at the Pride Parade.

Wall, who is openly gay and an advocate for LGBTIQ rights, used strong language against Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists while speaking last week during a private Pride hui.

“The whole gender identity issue, and trans-exclusion, is huge … None of us want to see the exclusion of our trans-sisters,” Wall said in her speech.

“My whole thing is that I don’t want any f****** TERFs at the Pride Parade.”

Wall was secretly recorded and the audio has been uploaded to the Speak Up For Women website, who called it “hate speech”.

“We demand that our MPs promote respectful dialogue on women’s legitimate concerns with proposed changes to the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationship Registration Act,” a post on the website said.

“The word ‘terf’ is hate speech used to belittle and threaten anyone who rejects the premises or conclusions of transgender ideology. It is used to dehumanise and incite violence. New Zealand deserves better.”

The left always say they believe in diversity, except they never believe in diversity of opinion.

Here a Labour MP says that if you’re a lesbian who has a different view to her on transgender issues, then you’re not welcome at the Pride Parade.

Of course the Pride Parade has every right to decide for themselves who is and is not invited. They can be as exclusive or inclusive as they want. But if they decide they want to be exclusive, then they shouldn’t promote the parade as being about inclusivity.

In her speech, Wall also thanked the Pride board and its chair Cissy Rock for listening to the community before banning uniformed police from the parade.

Except 75% of those who turned up to the forum were against the ban.

Newsroom reports:

Police are investigating an incident following a Young Nationals event in central Auckland last week in which a teenage woman reported inappropriate touching and behaviour by a male Young Nats member.

The incident occurred after the group’s Christmas drinks at the Brew on Quay bar last Tuesday. At least two MPs attended the event.

It is understood the woman, aged 17, and some friends went to the young man’s apartment near the bar as they were moving to another karaoke venue. They say he had told them he was a wealthy political party donor and there were drinks at his place.

God. Who uses a line such as “I’m a wealthy donor”. Puke.

The woman was taken to a room where he allegedly grabbed her face, tried to kiss her and keep her from her friends, at one stage pulling her away from them by her wrists. When she got out of the room and left the flat she was pursued across a road and to a fast food outlet’s toilet area as the man allegedly continued to try to grope her.

She reported the matter to police, who involved detectives who took a statement from her over one and a half hours – and then took her to tell her parents what had happened.

Good on her for going to the Police.

Newsroom has been told the National Party has suspended the Young Nats man involved, barring him from any further events. Another organisation has also blacklisted him from future gatherings.

The woman is not a Young Nats member and was a guest at the event. An MP made aware of the allegations says he called and counselled her and promised any support she might need.

Good.

Last night a National Party spokesperson told Newsroom: “We were made aware of an alleged incident that took place at a separate location, after the conclusion of a Young Nationals event last week. The person who brought the issue to our attention gave no further details, or names of those persons involved. 

“In line with our health and safety policies, we acted quickly to offer any support and advice to the person who raised the issue, and this information was passed onto the alleged victim. 

Also good to hear.

At this stage (there may be more to come out) it looks like appropriate actions have been taken.

Todd Niall at Stuff writes:

Why are ratepayers in Auckland’s poorest communities, and taxpayers, subsidising a council-owned Uber-style service for one of the city’s wealthier areas?

A great question.

Auckland Transport’s (AT) latest innovation, called AT Local, is a 12-month trial using six electric vehicles that locals living within 3 kilometres of the terminal can order and pay for through an app for $3 a trip.

There’s quite a few companies who can provide this service.

The council-owned agency bought three new electric eight-seater vans at $100,000 each, and will add three of its own electric cars in the peak periods.

The Government’s transport agency NZTA will pick-up the running costs of $475,000 or more, to see whether it works.

They are spending a million dollars for something they could easily contract a private company to do.

The AT Local ride-share service can’t be paid for using the region’s electronic transport ticket ATHOP, and can’t be used by under-18s.

Would making the bus trip to the Devonport ferry free of charge, if connecting to the ferry, attract more users and cut drop-offs? No one knows.

Would offering discounts to users of existing services like Uber, be much cheaper? 

Yes it would.

If it reaches its ambitious target of 200 trips a day, is that relevant to how it might work in the city’s poorer, more transport-deprived areas?

AT will be hoping for more success than an earlier mini-bus innovation.

In 2014, when it’s main offices were located both in Henderson and the downtown, it decided that the buses and trains connecting the premises weren’t good enough for it’s own staff, and trialled a minibus, expecting to make big savings in reimbursed private car use, and use of fleet vehicles.

After six months, the minibus had reached an average of 2.5 staff per trip, had run over budget at $140,000, and was scrapped, having consumed the equivalent of 50 average residential rates bills.

You would think they’d learn.

Hamish Rutherford writes:

Sir Michael Cullen, head of the Tax Working Group, seems to want to limit public debate over the possible extension of a capital gains tax.

After a critic raised concerns of the implications of proposals in the working group’s interim report, Cullen was dismissive.

Critics should wait for the tax working group’s final report in February, he said. The interim report may be the only thing the public has to work off, but Cullen said that the Tax Working Group’s own work had moved on and all the problems are being solved.

This Kafkaesque shutdown came after Wellington businessman Troy Bowker made alarming claims about the possible costs introducing a tax would have on small business, predicting the cost of compliance would be billions of dollars.

This shows why Sir Michael was the wrong choice to be chair. He is a politician and is driving a political agenda.

Trying to shut down debate until their final report, means the Government can consider the report in secret and decide upon it, before the public even get to see it.

Bowker claimed the tax working group’s preferred method for introducing the tax – creating a “valuation day” after which all assets captured by a new tax would immediately be taxable – would create huge compliance costs, with all businesses needing to be professionally valued on a given day.

Valuing things like commercial property is as easy as valuing your home – just look up the rateable value. But valuing businesses, especially small businesses, can be much harder. Much is tied up in the knowledge and contacts of the key employees, which is tough to put a price on.

Although Bowker’s assessment of the possible costs was guesswork, the tax working group’s own interim report appears to back up his argument.

Warning of substantial compliance costs, the report stated there would be a need to value all assets, as at a particular day. “This will impose a significant cost on many taxpayers for certain asset types”.

Cullen swiftly went on the attack, describing the warnings as “scaremongering”. Rather than defend the proposals that the working group has released to the public, Cullen pointed to solutions which exist, so far, only in the minds of the working group’s members.

The secret solutions!

Cullen has also floated the idea that while extending a capital gains tax in the way proposed may indeed require a mass valuation of businesses, it would not be nearly as onerous as imagined, because a degree of guesswork will be acceptable.

“Provided the valuation is reasonably fair, it doesn’t matter too much at that point of entry into the system. From the long term revenue perspective, whether it’s entirely accurate, as long as it’s reasonably fair, it doesn’t matter that much,” Cullen said on Friday.

This approach is both highly pragmatic and unusual.

Cullen saying the IRD will be okay with valuations that are “reasonably fair” is about as reassuring as Steven Joyce saying that the National Party’s campaign advertising was “pretty legal”.

The IRD is hardly known for taking a ‘close enough is good enough’ approach.

This is fantasy stuff. The thought the IRD will just accept good guesses as valuations is daft.

For those outside the working group though, we are supposed to simply sit and wait. Cullen has a solution to the problems, rendering the interim report of the working group meaningless.

For a process which is meant to be about improving the fairness of the tax system, this is a rather authoritarian approach to debate about how to achieve it.

Tax Working Groups can do very valuable work, when they are run by tax experts rather than politicians. A Tax Working Group run by the political mentor of the Minister of Finance has less credibility.16

Stuff reports:

Immigration Minister Iain Lees-Galloway did not get legal advice when making his decision to grant Karel Sroubek residency.

National’s immigration spokesman Michael Woodhouse says the revelation points to the file being a simple deportation case, where a “shocker” of a decision was made.

“No legal representation and a comprehensive file suggests to me that Immigration New Zealand (INZ) did not anticipate this being anything other than a straightforward deportation process.” …

New documents now show it took him 45 minutes – and within an hour, he also considered one other deportation liability file.

In written questions to the minister, Woodhouse asked if an INZ lawyer and the minister’s private secretary attended the meeting, where he made his decision on September 19.

Lees-Galloway said there was no lawyer, but his secretary and one INZ staffer attended the meeting.

In his answers, Lees-Galloway confirmed the meeting was held about 4:30pm and when asked how long it took, he said: “From memory it was approximately 45 minutes.”

I suspect Immigration NZ were stunned when the Minister granted residency.

Far more deserving cases have been turned down, as also reported by Stuff:

A “law abiding” chicken farmer is devastated he’s fighting to stay in New Zealand when Czech drug smuggler Sroubek was granted residency.

Jeremy Hedderwick came from South Africa 14 years ago. His Kiwi wife, Raewyn, died from cancer last year. Hedderwick says he’s on antidepressants because his situation is “emotionally tortuous”. 

“A criminal has got residency and I’m a law abiding person,” Hedderwick says. “I’m 65, but working as hard as any 20-year old.”

Sroubek, who was jailed for drug offences, was granted residency by Immigration Minister Iain Lees-Galloway. 

So the law abiding chicken farmer whose wife just died of cancer gets deported while the convicted drug dealer gets residency!!

Newshub reports:

Restaurateur John Palino has announced he’s running for Mayor of Auckland for the third time.

Mr Palino has run for Mayor twice before, in 2013 and 2016, losing both times. He came closest in 2013, coming second to Len Brown. In 2016 he came fourth behind Vic Crone and Chloe Swarbrick.

In 2013 Palino got 108.928 votes or 32% of the vote.

In 2016 Palino got 22,387 votes or 6% of the vote.

A year out from the election he’s the only candidate on the right to announce he’s running, perhaps boosting his chances.

Nobody else has announced they’re running yet, although incumbent Phil Goff and former Labour Party MP John Tamihere have both suggested they will.

“The whole key is whether or not there is other people running ’cause we’re just going to split the vote,” he said.

I’m pretty sure there will be others running.

HDPA writes:

It’s going to end up costing us $2.8 billion a year to help mostly white kids study. That’s actually more than all of the teachers in this country are asking for. If asked to choose between subsidising students and paying teachers properly, you bet most people would choose the latter.

If Labour is truly pressed for cash and truly responsible with the country’s finances, it should cancel its plan to make the second and third year of study free.

The students don’t need it. Give it to the teachers. Or the nurses. Or the midwives. Or the police. Or anyone who actually needs it.

Spending is a matter of priorities. Labour is going to spend more on free fees for students than they will on any other policy.

The Listener editorial:

It was a further disgrace that New Zealand First and Labour chose to politicise the tragedy at the last election, with Winston Peters promising to be one of the first to re-enter the mine. His swagger implied that cowardice, not caution, was the problem. Never fear, Peters would go where Mines Rescue had not been allowed to tread. This determination to re-enter the mine flies in the face of the only positive development to have come out of the disaster – a new zeal for health and safety. To unnecessarily risk more lives in the same mine, however much some of the families want it to happen, undermines the very principle this tragedy so firmly established: that safety is paramount.

Through all this, some of the victims’ families have heroically battled on, determined to see responsibility sheeted home somewhere, somehow. Their efforts have been laudable. The idea, however, that a team will be able to find in the devastated, burnt mine evidence that will lead to a prosecution seems illusory and the recovery of human remains sadly unlikely. Regardless, politicians have for years kept the families’ hopes dangling. This seems more cruelty than kindness. The closure the families seek might be further advanced had it been given more of a chance.

The $36 million cost of re-entry would not be worth mentioning, even to those who think the money could be better spent on reducing the rising road toll or child poverty, if the chances were higher that it will serve any purpose except political triumphalism.

Little has spoken of “knowing when to call it quits”. Arguably, and regrettably, that point has probably passed. There must be no more lives put at risk.

Can only agree. It will be $36 million wasted to score political points.

Troy Bowker writes in Stuff:

If the Government manages to push through the recommendations of the Tax Working Group (TWG), the 450,000 or so small business owners in this country will be hit with massive compliance costs.

Small business, meaning all sole traders and including businesses with up to 20 employees, are the back bone of the New Zealand economy.

Their contribution to our economy is enormous. Together small businesses employ roughly 30 per cent of our entire work force and contribute roughly $65 billion to New Zealand’s annual gross domestic product.

So what will be the impact?

In order to implement Labour’s controversial capital gains tax (CGT), the TWG have proposed that every business in New Zealand must be valued by a professional valuation expert all on the same day.

This is not only ludicrously impractical, if not impossible, but the cost to be piled on businesses to comply with this will be horrendous and in some cases crippling.

Cullen has responded that it might not be on the exact same day, but regardless it will be huge extra costs for every small business in NZ, and huge revenue gains for accountants and valuers.

The compliance costs forced upon small business will run into the billions – I estimate $10,000 on average for each small business, meaning $4.5b of costs forced upon them by Labour tax policy.

And that isn’t even any extra tax revenue. That’s just the compliance costs.

The TWG is recommending that CGT applies to assets already owned on the date the law comes into effect.

Making CGT apply to assets bought after the tax becomes law is by far the easiest and fairest way to bring in the legislation. It avoids the messy and expensive exercise of coming up with a value for these assets.

This method is also fairer on taxpayers since the new tax only applies to assets bought after it’s introduced so individuals and businesses know what tax they might be on the hook for at time they buy an asset.

That is the simple solution, if there is to be a CGT. Only apply it to future assets.

The three strikes law is having an impact despite the fact so many judges are reluctant to impose the third strike penalty of maximum sentence without parole.

Let’s look at the case of George Pomee.

1. 1st strike: two aggravated robberies in November 2013. Given 23 months jail.
2. 2nd strike: another aggravated robbery in April 2015 (so he must have been out on parole). Given 16 months jail which would have been without parole.
3. 3rd strike: Two more aggravated robberies in August 2017, so would have been very soon after release.

All the aggravated robberies had violence and the last one a gun and threatening to kill. I understand 16 convictions in total by age 24.

The judge said that if not for the three strikes law he would have given him six years and three months prison with parole eligibility in three years and one month.

Ideally he would have got 14 years with no parole but the judge said this would be manifestly unjust. I don’t think so as the offender has shown a pattern of the same offending soon after release.

But even with the judge refusing to give the full third strike, the offender still gets a 14 year jail sentence with no parole eligibility for five and a half years years.

So thanks to the three strikes law his parole eligibility is 66 months instead of 37 months.

And if he doesn’t get parole we’re safe from him for 14 years instead of six years and three months.

Stuff reports:

Greenpeace head and former Green Party co-leader Russel Norman said it was “disgraceful” NZ First had veto power over appointments for a review of an industry they were clearly close to.

“It’s completely unacceptable for a party whose leading member is bankrolled by Talley’s to be vetoing panel appointments,” Norman said.

He noted the previous Government had finally agreed to put cameras on boats, a decision put on ice by Nash.

“We now have a case where the Labour/NZ First Government is taking a worse position on fishing than the National Party.”

Yet the Greens sit in Government and do and say nothing in return for the baubles of office.

The Herald reports:

Auckland’s longstanding Santa has overwhelming backing after being ditched ahead of tomorrow’s Christmas parade.

Neville Baker, the man behind on the beard on the main float in the Farmers Santa Parade for the past five years, was fired for saying he would not hire women to play Father Christmas.

A Herald online poll has found nearly 90 per cent of people believe the My Santa director should not have been fired from the annual Christmas parade that attracts hundreds of thousands of children and families.

Yep the PC police strike again. What idiots they are.

If they insist that Santa Claus or Father Christmas can be female, then I look forward to them also saying you must be able to cast women to play Muhammad or the Buddha.

Also why restrict the Easter Bunny to rabbits. A ferret should be able to be the Easter Bunny also.

Personally I don’t care the gender of someone playing Santa Claus is, but to sack Neville Baker because he believes it should only be portrayed as a man is massive overkill.

An interesting report from Netsafe based on a survey of 1,000 New Zealanders about if they have experienced hate speech online.

The definition of hate speech for the survey was:

any technology-mediated speech or digital communication that offends, discriminates, denigrates, abuses and/or disparages a person(s) on the basis of a group-defining characteristic such as race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, and other

So it is not abuse generally, but abuse based on a group characteristic.

The prevalence of online hate speech was not huge. Only 11% said they had experienced hate speech online in the last year. The breakdown by demographic was:

• Gender: 13% of men and 8% of women so men face more hate speech than women
• Ethnicity: Pakeha/European 9%, Maori 13%, Pasifika 13%, Asian 16% so Asians face the most hate speech online

A guest post by Anthony Morris:

Taxing capital gains is equitable

It is equitable as well as efficient to equally tax all forms of income generated from capital – whether that is interest, rent or capital gains realised after a short or long time. This is clearly not the situation currently. Take the example of two rental properties of identical value purchased with the help of a mortgage – one has high rent so generates a good annual cash return but gets little capital appreciation, and the other has low rent so barely breaks even after expenses but gets good capital growth. If they are both held for 10 years and then sold, the seller of the high rent property has paid considerably more in income tax than the seller of the low rent property who gets a big tax-free capital gain on sale. It could be that both investors have put in identical amounts of capital and earned identical amounts of cash, but one pays far more tax than the other – where is the equity in that?

Taxing capital gains on realisation causes problems and will raise little revenue initially

Capital gains are generally lumpy, being irregular and often large (like the sale of rental properties). Taxing these capital gains only when realised (when a sale occurs) causes a number of problems like discouraging sales of capital assets (lock-in) and giving an advantage from tax deferment. It also means there would be no significant revenue raised for some years from taxing all realised capital gains – assuming only gains accrued after the tax change is introduced are taxed (as qualifying assets are sold).

Delaying taxing capital gains until realisation makes the tax impost hugely uncertain

The delay caused by taxing capital gains only when realised also makes the amount of the tax hugely uncertain. A ‘retirement nest egg’ rental property could well be owned for 20 years before selling for example. Trying to look ahead over such a long period means it will be very uncertain how much tax, if any, will apply to the gain on sale. It is inevitable that several different governments of different political hues will come and go over such a time frame. The taxation of capital gains is a contentious issue so there is bound to be ongoing lobbying for various concessions and exemptions that will make their way into the regime.

The delay and uncertainly will severely blunt the effect of taxing gains on realisation

The delay and uncertainty that comes from taxing capital gains only on realisation means investors are highly likely to heavily discount their possible capital gains tax liability when thinking about the price they will pay for a capital asset they intend to hold for a while. People are generally not good at acting rationally when making decisions about the longer term anyway – which is why there are usually various incentives or compulsions for saving for retirement.

This inevitable discounting of the impact of the future taxation of capital gains may explain why capital gains taxes appear to have done little to lessen house price inflation in many countries around the world.

Taxing capital gains as they accrue creates a different set of problems

An alternative to taxing capital gains on realisation is to tax them as they accrue – like taxing annual increases in value. While this would mean investors would start paying tax on any capital gains almost straight away, this option brings a whole different set of problems. First there is the practical difficultly of fairly determining how much gain has accrued each year.

Secondly, there is the serious potential liquidity problem of taxing the accrued gain on an asset that has generated little or no cash. The accrued gain could in some years be huge compared to the ‘cash return’.

Example A

An Auckland rental property of $1 million might rise in value by 15% in a good year so generating an accrued income of $150,000 compared to its net rental income of maybe $31,000! Even assuming there is no mortgage against the property, at tax rate of 33% that would leave a cash deficit of $39,270 or $755 a week!

Not surprisingly, the Tax Working Group (TWG) is not proposing to tax capital gains as they accrue.

A less problematic alternative is taxing deemed returns

A kind of compromise between taxing capital gains on realisation and taxing them on accrual is taxing deemed returns like the TWG is considering for certain classes of assets. If applied more generally, a deemed-return tax would take a capital asset like a rental property and assume the risk free rate of return is earned, maybe 2.5% of its value, and treat this as income earned regardless of actual expenses. An alternative could be to deem a higher rate of return, reasonable for the asset class, and allow expenses to be deducted.

There still has to be a valuation process but getting total precision with the value would not be as crucial as with taxing accrued gains (when the difference between the current value and value in the preceding year would be all important). The rating valuation system may generally give a sufficiently accurate value.

Taxing deemed returns would still create significant liquidity problems for some

Applying a deemed rate of return tax wouldn’t produce the lumpy income that taxing accrued gains would. However, while taxing deemed returns would produce a reasonably consistent income figure, it could still impose significant liquidity problems. Rental properties, for example, often do not break even after expenses and interest. While some landlords are willing to have properties that make a loss for several years or more because of the likely capital gains down the track, imposing a substantial tax impost each year in addition to having to cover the loss could hit them hard.

Example B

Applying the deemed rate of return approach to a $1 million Auckland rental we might use a risk-free rate of 2.5%. This gives a deemed income of $25,000 per year or $480 a week. A reasonable rent for such a property might be $700 a week with expenses of $100, leaving $600 a week profit and generating a return of 3.1% so the deemed income approach leaves the landlord better off, at least in a year with low property expenses.

Example C

If the $1 million rental is purchased with a mortgage for 60% of the price, an interest rate of 5% and term of 20 years, this gives a weekly repayment amount of $911 – a shortfall of $311 a week but if it is changed to an interest-only mortgage the cost is reduced to $577 a week which allows the rental to just break even. There is virtually no surplus cash to pay tax on the $480 a week of deemed income – which with a marginal tax rate of 33% generates a tax liability of $190 a week or $8,250 for the year.

A better alternative would be a ‘minimum provisional capital income’

A more pragmatic proposal for extending the taxation of capital with less likelihood of causing a significant liquidity squeeze would be to deem a ‘minimum provisional capital income’ (MPCI) to be earned from qualifying assets. The rate for calculating the MPCI could be set at a very low percentage like 0.5% of the value of the capital asset. It would mean at least a minimal amount of regular income is attributed to qualifying capital assets, with an eventual ‘wash up’ on the realisation of those assets. The MPCI works like an advance payment of capital gains tax.

Since a MPCI would apply from day one, investors would take notice but at the same time the low amount of minimum income imposed means it should not be an undue burden. Because it is a minimum, it also wouldn’t apply if the asset was actually producing taxable income greater than the MPCI.

Example D

If the MPCI calculation rate is 0.5% then our $1 million Auckland rental property generates a minimum provisional capital income of $5,000 or $96 a week, which at a marginal tax rate of 33% gives a tax liability of $1650 or $32 a week compared to negligible taxable income and tax for income tax purposes when there is a $600,000 5% mortgage.

Example E

If the mortgage on the rental is $200.000 then the interest cost is $192 a week, leaving a surplus for tax purposes of about $400 a week or $20,000 a year. The MPCI does not apply in this case as the minimum income of $5,000 is surpassed.

Since the MPCI is provisional, there is a wash-up when the asset is sold and the exact gain (or loss) determined. Any incremental MPCI already returned (the difference between the income otherwise calculated for income tax purposes and the higher income of the MPCI) is allowed to be taken into account. This incremental MPCI goes into a capital income credit account (CICA) each year to be carried forward until the asset is sold.

Example F

To illustrate how the wash up works we go back to our $1 million Auckland rental with a $600,000 5% interest only mortgage generating no income for income tax purposes, so has the whole $5,000 of MPCI (on which tax is paid) going into the CICA each year. If this happens for 5 years in a row (for the sake of simplicity) and the property is then sold for a capital gain of $200,000, there is $25,000 in the CICA to credit against the realised gain so the taxable gain on wash-up is $175,000.

Example G

If market is flat market so there is no capital gain then the $25,000 in the CICA is used in the sale year to offset any other taxable income of the taxpayer. Any amount not able to be used is carried forward to use in following years.

MPCI calculation rate can be gradually increased and reduced if necessary

Because the MPCI is provisional, the rate applied to calculate it doesn’t have to be set in reference to anything and can easily be varied from year to year. This allows a ‘suck and see’ approach with an initial very low calculation rate applied to see what happens to qualifying capital assets. The rate can be gradually ramped up over time so investors are not unduly shocked, and any falls in the price of assets it hits the hardest are limited. The rate can be reduced if necessary.

Dealing with intangible assets

The MPCI would apply only to intangible assets that can be easily valued so not business goodwill, for example, unless it was purchased goodwill.

Dealing with capital losses

The TWG acknowledge if capital gains on qualifying assets are always taxed then there is an equity argument for allowing the recognition of capital losses, but this has to be managed to discourage gaming. Capital losses at wash-up could be restricted to being gradually realised over say 5 years.

Example H

If we take the circumstances of Example F but there is a capital loss on sale of $10,000, the balance in the CICA of $25,000 is allowed as an immediate reduction in taxable income. A capital loss of $2,000 is also able to be used in that year with a further $2,000 loss able to be used in each of the following 4 years.

The Herald reports:

ACC has decided not to recommend to the Government that levies on petrol be increased, following public backlash after the idea was mooted in September.

Instead, it recommended collecting a higher proportion of motor vehicle levies via car registrations.

ACC recommended the average motor vehicle levy for road users increases by 12 per cent – from $114 to $128.

It had originally proposed increasing the petrol levy by 1.9 cents.

That would have been on top of the nationwide petrol excise duty of 3.5 cents a litre.

But ACC recommended shifting the funding split to 66 per cent for the registration fee and 34 per cent to petrol charges.

“This keeps the petrol charge at 6 cents per litre with no increase but still increases the average motor vehicle levy to $127.68.”

This is silly. Motorists will still pay the same amount to ACC, but those who drive rarely will pay the same as those who drive regularly. As the chance of an accident is correlated to how often you drive, this is unfair.

Because of the backlash to the Government’s regional fuel tax, they have decided it would be politically unwise to increase the ACC petrol tax.

I don’t have a problem with petrol tax increasing if it goes on things that benefit motorists – such as ACC from road accidents, road safety, new roads etc. But Labour are increasing the petrol tax and using it to spend less on roads.

The Herald reports:

The Government will be able to provision Airbnbs in the event of a national emergency to accommodate people who have been displaced.

This morning, the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management (MEDEM) signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the company.

The agreement was a first of its kind in the Pacific region and only the second national-level partnership behind the United States. …

Over the past few weeks, Airbnb had activated the programme in response to the California Wildfires and New Zealand flooding.

Eastern Otago was hit with heavy rain in recent days – a number of bridges and roads have been closed due to the flooding in the area.

Emergency messages were sent to more than 8300 Airbnb hosts and guests in areas affected by flooding in the South Island.

Meanwhile, in California, more than 2200 hosts have offered housing to those in need.
More than 1800 people have been housed and emergency messages have been sent to more than 40,000 hosts and guests in the affected areas.

What a great idea. Hopefully we won’t need to use it often, but a simple way to get thousands of people housed in an emergency.

The banning of the Police wearing uniforms at the Auckland Pride Parade has come about due to capture by an activist group called People Against Prisons Aotearoa.

Now their agenda is not just banning of Police uniforms at the Pride Parade. They are at what is basically the lunatic end of the political spectrum. Don’t take my word for it. Read their manifesto. Highlights are:

• child sexual abuse not to be a criminal offence the state criminalises, but dealt with by mediation and a conversation between the rapist and the child victim. Yes, they really are that bonkers.
• Dissolve the Government’s non-public sex offender register
• Ban the Police using tasers, guns and even dogs!
• Not allow anyone aged under 18 to be charged with a criminal offence, even murder or rape
• Defund and then abolish the NZ Police
• No imprisonment for breaching bail or parole conditions
• Make it illegal to discriminate against convicted criminals in employment decisions
• Decriminalise welfare fraud
• Close the NZ court system
• Defund the Department of Corrections and then abolish all prisons
• A minimum wage for prisoners who do work set at the median wage for that industry

Now this is the group that the Auckland Pride Board are pandering to, and allowing them to dictate to the rest of the community that the Pride Parade must be exclusionary, not inclusive.

They want victims of pedophiles to sit down and have a conversation with their rapist about how being raped made them feel. They want to abolish the Police, the courts and prisons.

Now they’re entitled to their views, but that doesn’t mean the rest of the community needs to respect their views let alone let them impose their values on everyone else.

The Herald reports:

The same environmental group that won a temporary stop to a 1080 poison drop on Auckland’s Hunua Range is seeking enough signatures to trigger a referendum on its prohibition completely.

Friends of Sherwood has proposed a citizens initiated referendum that would ban all “inhumane poisons” including 1080 because of the suffering they cause animals.

Parliament’s Clerk of the House is seeking comment on the proposed wording of the question by January 11 next year before the group is able to officially launch its bid to obtain enough signatures to begin the process for a non-binding referendum.

It needs to collect 10 per cent of the total number of registered voters, in hard copy, within 12 months.

A spokesman for the Clerk of the House said this would represent around 400,000 signatures.

I doubt they would get the signatures but if they do I’d welcome a referendum as they would lose it massively and at least we’d have some finality.

Any referendum should explicitly mention 1080 rather than a phrase such as inhumane poisons which is emotive and meaningless.

The Herald editorial:

The majority of students having a free year (71 per cent) are of European descent, 80 per cent are aged 19 or younger and nearly 60 per cent are female. In other words, the beneficiaries of this additional $236 million outlay are principally young white school leavers whose family circumstances and personal prospects probably make them perfectly capable of paying back the subsidised student loans most of them will readily take out for the rest of their degree.

On average they will earn $1.6 million more than someone who doesn’t go to university.

This in policy jargon is “poorly targeted spending”. If the intention was to boost participation in tertiary education by those who might not otherwise afford it, the money could have been used for programmes aimed more precisely at them.

Rather than boost participation, participation rates have dropped!