Patrick Gower writes:

The desperation and fear in the Greens of not being returned to Parliament is clear with the release of a made-up ‘poll’ in Nelson.

The Greens have released the results of some phone canvassing which they’ve referred to as an “internal poll” that claims to show them ahead in Nelson.

As Gower says, the Greens must be panicking about possibly dipping below 5% and being out of Parliament.

It’s a set of numbers Green volunteers have gathered, with no way of checking them and media should be ashamed of reporting them as a “poll”.

It is not scientific, they have not released the raw data or methodology.

The Greens spin team have admitted this morning to me that it was in fact robo-calling rather than polling.

Robo-calling is that invasive and annoying method where an automated voice appears and there is no way of telling whether there is say, for instance, a child on the end of the line.

It is actually “fake news” from the Greens.

Again a desperate look.

A guest post by Michael Littlewood:

According to a report in the Herald on Friday (Labour backs off compulsory KiwiSaver accessible here), Labour is re-considering its KiwiSaver policy.  It wants to consult first before making it compulsory and auto-enrolment is now off the agenda though they still want to make it “universal”.  The subtlety of that distinction escapes me.  However, the whole issue would be looked at “…on a tripartite basis with business and unions…”.  Labour has also apparently “scaled back on plans to lift KiwiSaver [contribution] rates significantly.”  But Labour has yet to release a policy document on KiwiSaver – given the election is just six days away, there isn’t too much time left to do that.

I hope Labour’s policy document starts with some questions and looks for evidence as to what has happened with KiwiSaver so far.  In a recent report that Michael Chamberlain and I released on 27 July (www.alt-Review.com) we finished our section on KiwiSaver with a list of questions:

1. Is KiwiSaver working? We know that 2.8 million people have joined and that there is over $30 billion of savings, but is it working?  Subsidiary related questions include: are KiwiSaver members saving more for retirement than their non-KiwiSaver peers?  Are the total net financial assets of KiwiSaver members greater than the totals of non-KiwiSaver peers?  In other words, is so-called ‘behavioural economics’ working in the KiwiSaver environment?
2. Are New Zealanders saving enough for retirement whether or not they belong to KiwiSaver? If they are, that would undermine the case for ‘strengthening’ KiwiSaver.  If they are not that should direct what changes might be needed for KiwiSaver.
3. What effect has KiwiSaver had on housing ownership patterns and housing debt as between members and non-member peers?
4. What effect has KiwiSaver had on remuneration patterns as between employers with/without ‘total remuneration’ policies and as between employers with preferred KiwiSaver schemes and those without. What proportion of employers have a ‘total remuneration’ policy?  Has KiwiSaver affected that pattern?
5. What effect has KiwiSaver had on occupational superannuation schemes? What is the overall impact of KiwiSaver on workplace-related retirement saving schemes (including KiwiSaver)?
6. Who specifically benefits from the current tax subsidies to KiwiSaver (occupation types; remuneration bands; distribution by age, sex, work status etc.)?
7. What effect has KiwiSaver had on the financial services industry in the last ten years and who benefits? Should New Zealand be concerned about the aggregation of KiwiSaver savings in the hands of a small number of providers, mainly the major trading banks? Note: at 31 March 2016, the trading banks had 69% of all KiwiSaver members and 71% of total assets in all KiwiSaver schemes.

Questions 1 and 2 cannot be answered without a proper longitudinal study of household assets, liabilities and incomes – we talked about that in our report here.  We urge the government, whoever wins the election, to find out what’s happening at a household level before bowing to pressure from the owners of KiwiSaver schemes to increase contribution levels or even to make KiwiSaver compulsory.  It just may not be necessary.

The data is from the Reserve Bank. It shows average effective mortgage rates under Labour and National.

They’re now around 3% lower than they were under Labour. What sort of difference does that make?

The median house price is $540,000 so an 80% mortgage on that is $432,000.

If you have a 25 year mortgage, the difference between 5% and 8% is this:

• 5% = $582 a week
• 8% = $769 a week

So a family with a median mortgage is $187 a week better off.

And while Government policies are only one factor in interest rates, they definitely do contribute. The more inflationary the policies the higher interest rates go. The more spending there is, the higher interest rates go.

I’m amazed there has been almost zero media coverage of Labour’s radical industrial relations policy. It turns the clock back to the 1970s with de facto national awards and the like. A guest poster covered it here.

In summary Labour will do the following:

• Entire industries will be selected to have a national award imposed on them. The industry will have no ability to say no to it, and neither will any individual employer.
• “Minimum” standards will be set governing everything from pay rates to overtime to holidays to standard hours of work.
• A small employer in Invercargill will be forced to pay the same wages and conditions as a large multinational employer based in Auckland.
• Unions will be able to now initiate strikes in advance of an employer’s offer
• Employers will now have an obligation to conclude a collective agreement. That means that so long as the union holds firm, the employer will be forced to agree to their terms eventually.
• Unions will gain the right to enter any workplace in New Zealand to sign up members
• New employment agreements will have automatic union membership as part of them
• Non union members will be forced to pay fees to a union, if the union considers they get benefits from them
• Contractors will be made into employees
• Casual employment contracts will be made very difficult
• Youth rates will be abolished so it will be illegal to pay a 16 year old less than $33,000 a year!
• Even employers with just one staff member will be forced to have an elected health and safety rep
• Any employer that the unions don’t like will be banned from any Government contract work
• Require all Government contractors to pay 16 year olds over $40,000 a year

You can see why the unions are pouring so much money into Labour. And if they get a Labour Government you can be sure they will have even more money to spend on helping Labour stay in power.

Serious questions have to be asked as to why National were not prepared for Auckland fuel crisis – they have known of the risk for years.

Don’t blame us for Auckland fuel – it was a private company’s responsibility. Government agencies and Defence Force geared up to help.

Nick Smith: Dodgy ‘push poll’ by the Green Party in Nelson smacks of desperation.

Winston Peters hijacking the Fed Farmers protest in Morrinsville: Farmers won’t be better off under Labour OR National – if you don’t want to be ripped off, vote NZF.

The public need answers over Auckland fuel failure.

Why was Winston at the farmers protest against Labour/Greens, when he could put them into Government?

The RMA is the real culprit of the current fuel crisis.

Published polls corrupt the democratic process – our commissioned market research says 14.5% may vote for us.

Quick – get to the Morrinsville protest! Oh wait, we’re out of fuel.

Greens’ internal Nelson poll: Smith 29%, Labour’s Rachel Boyack 25%, Greens’ Matt Lawrey 23%, Undecided 23%

Latest update as of 9am today.

National Party $8.3b; Labour Party $23.0b; Green Party $14.9b; NZ First $27.5b; Maori Party $12.2b; ACT -$2.4b; TOP $13.7b. Full details here.

Maggie Barry released:

National’s strong economic plan will deliver an extra $680 a year per couple in New Zealand superannuation payments from 1 April next year, Seniors spokesperson Maggie Barry says.

NZ Superannuation is linked to the average after tax wage. Labour is going to reverse the tax cuts passed by Parliament. If they remain though, then that will push the married super payment level up by $680 a year.

New Zealand Superannuation for a couple has increased by more than $7000 a year under National – from $24,062 in 2008 to $31,216 in 2017. That is an increase of 29.7 per cent, more than twice the rate of inflation.

And this is again linked to the average after tax income, so that indicates that there has been considerable increase in real incomes.

Pretty amusing. Not as mean as the US version.

The Herald reports:

Hundreds of farmers have gathered in Ardern’s hometown of Morrinsville to protest against Labour and Greens’ proposed water and pollution charges.

The protest ended with NZ First leader Winston Peters being jeered at and drowned out by Myrtle the tractor as farmers demanded he say whether he would side with National or Labour.

About 600 turned up for the lively rally beside the giant ‘Mega Cow’ statue in Morrinsville – politicians were not allowed to speak but Peters hijacked the stage at the end as the rain started to tip down.

As he held court standing in the rain under the cow – warning them to be just as dubious of National as Labour when it came to water “because they’re just as bad as each other – the crowd started to jeer and heckle at him.

Afterwards Scott Smyth bailed him up about whether Peters would allow the proposed water taxes to go ahead if in coalition with Labour. Peters would not answer and other farmers pitched in demanding to know who he was going to go with.

Afterward Smyth said Peters was “buggering” his chances for Saturday’s election by not saying if he would demand Labour removed the water taxes from the table if he was in Government with them.

A wonderful backfire for Winston. He’s reminded everyone there and everyone watching that votin for him might be voting for a water tax and all the other extra taxes Labour plans for the rural sector.

Brian Edwards writes:

Well, in short, I think Armstrong is absolutely right. Given the relevance of taxation policy, directly or indirectly, to the lives of every man, woman and child in this country, it is simply outrageous to say, “Not telling! Not even a hint! You’ll just have to trust us till after the election. Long after!”

Well of course you could read their current policy. And that would be fine if the Leader of the Opposition could guarantee that it won’t change between now and the 2020 election. But she can’t/won’t do that either.

So here’s what this boils down to.

Jacinda wants you to make her Prime Minister of New Zealand this year. I’m assuming that she has some opinion in her head of our current tax system, whether it benefits or disadvantages most New Zealanders. For the answer to that question she refers us to Labour’s current tax policy which she says will not change without a mandate from New Zealanders at the next election in 2020. She’s saying, ‘Give me almost three years in office as Prime Minister before I even disclose my ideal tax regime. In the meantime here’s a taste.

Seems to me that’s a helluva lot to ask.

Brian is of course a life-long Labour member and activist, so for him to be this critical speaks volumes.

Eric Crampton from the NZ Initiative has done a series praising New Zealand as being so much more sane than other countries.  In this chapter he looks at tax and airport security:

Consider the Goods and Services Tax (GST). It is a beautiful value-added tax applied cleanly and comprehensively across the tax system. But nobody in New Zealand appreciates it. Because nobody in New Zealand appreciates it, everybody wants to carve out a tax exemption for their favourite thing: fruits, vegetables, healthy foods generally, and feminine hygiene products are recent examples.

Here is what happens if you do that.

Australia runs a messy GST riddled with exemptions. Somebody decided groceries should not be subject to GST, but some snack foods should be. So bread is not taxed while crackers are. In 2010, Justice Sundberg of the Federal Court in Melbourne had to decide whether an oven-baked Italian flat bread, a mini-ciabatta, counted as a bread or a cracker for tax purposes.

The importer of the bread flew in Giampiero Muntoni to testify in court that the mini ciabatta was a bread, not a cracker. And Muntoni is far from a layperson in such matters. As Australia’s Centre for Independent Studies reported, Muntoni “holds an EU certificate that entitles him to certify whether a product is a bread or a non-bread item for value added tax purposes in Italy.”

Think about that. Italy’s value-added tax needs expert certified bread deciders. A certified profession dedicated to determining whether something is bread. The only conceivable reason such a profession can or should exist is to satisfy the requirements of a broken tax system.

Winston wants “basic foods” to be exempt GST. Imagine how many thousands of experts we will need for the scores of court cases over what is or is not a basic food.

America’s patchwork of state-level sales taxes are even worse. Every state can apply its own unique taxes. This is not limited just to deciding the rate of taxes, but also the definitions of what is and is not taxable. Some states apply sales taxes to candy but not to other foods, and different states have different definitions of what counts as candy. Wisconsin’s Department of Revenue even issued a 1,437-word memo explaining which types of ice-cream cakes, or slices thereof, are taxable or untaxed.

The mess is just as bad at the federal level, where free tans at video-rental stores are taxable but not tans provided as part of a health club membership. A simple enough (albeit ludicrous) 10% tax on tanning services proved anything but.

The economic consequences of a system riddled with bread-deciders and jam-deciders and ice-cream deciders and tan-deciders can be staggering. Taxes become far less efficient not only because of the holes riddled throughout the system, but also the legal costs of producers trying to convince courts that their product is exempt rather than taxable.

We should value that we have such a comprehensive GST that avoids this madness.

Were New Zealand to exempt healthy foods from GST, we would well be on the slippery slope. It is one of those things that sounds really easy, but would be an utter disaster in practice.

What counts as healthy? Not only does the medical evidence keep changing, but there would also be a string of boundary cases needing adjudication. If beans are healthy, what about frozen beans? Beans in a can? Beans in a can with pork fat and sauce? How much pork fat and sauce before it is taxable? What if we use Jamie Oliver’s recipe and fly him in to say it’s good?

I think TOP have proposed dividing all food into three categories of good, neutral or bad and good has less GST, neutral the same and bad more GST. Jesus Christ, imagine it.

Even worse, think through the consequences of tax exemption.

Under the current beautiful broad-base, low-rate system, companies gather all their receipts for everything they purchased when making things and claim the GST on them. They then charge GST on the full value of their final product. Their net GST is on the value they added to their inputs along the way, since they netted out the GST from the inputs. Nice, clean and easy.

If some goods were exempt from GST, we would have problems. Imagine you were a food manufacturer making two products. One attracts GST and one does not. It is possible to charge GST on one product and not the other, but all the point-of-sale terminals would need to be reprogrammed – feasible but expensive. But how do you start thinking about claiming the GST on your inputs if you are selling an exempt product. You will need to justify how you apportion all your plant’s shared costs across the different product lines. And Internal Revenue would worry you were loading costs onto the taxable line to claim GST where you shouldn’t. The auditors would be kept busy.

This is a key point. If all of your sales are subject to GST at the one rate, then all of your inputs are also – very simple. Start having some stuff GST exempt and/or at a lower rate and you can no longer do that. You then need to apportion every fixed expense to every product line.

Newshub reports:

The Green Party wants a capital gains tax in the next term of Government and will put that on the table in coalition negotiations with Labour, leader James Shaw says.

He told TVNZ’s Q&A programme that was one of a number of key items the party wanted when he received Labour leader Jacinda Ardern’s first call if she had the opportunity to form a Government after next weekend’s election.

“In the same way that every coalition involves policies from both partners we’ve got to negotiate what a coalition agreement would look like but there are a couple of things that I think we would like to push them on – one is the area of a capital gains tax excluding the family home,” he said.

So a Labour-led Government may end up passing a Capital Gains Tax after all in their first term.

You really don’t know what sort of tax you’ll be paying under a Labour-Greens Government except that it will be more than it is now. And under National it will be less than it is now.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand First will change the Companies Act to give shareholders and cooperatives a ‘Say on Pay’ for directors and CEOs, which gives them a right to vote on corporate payouts.

Umm shareholders already vote on directors fees.

Peters has also vowed to ban “golden hellos” (executive recruitment bonuses), and limit “golden parachutes” (executive redundancy) to the same conditions workers have.

Winston wants to ban recruitment bonuses. I’m not a fan of golden parachutes, but having Winston tell companies that they can’t offer bonuses to recruit staff is daft.

Another proposal is to stop boards using “fit and proper person tests” to rule out potential executive candidates, which the party described as “loose and unreviewable.”

And he

A lot of this election campaign has been on how to spend the tax revenue the Government collects. Very little has been on how to have policies that support the businesses that provides the jobs and tax revenue for the Government.

Those who have never worked in the private sector tend to have little idea what it is like. They think it is easy. You get statements from the Labour leader declaring that yes they’ll tax water, but at a level to ensure farmers can stay profitable. That in itself shows a lack of understanding of business. Even business owners and directors can’t ensure profitability. You are subject to custimer demand, market prices, expenses, cashflow, financing.

I was once like many MPs, thinking I understood business. I had worked for a charity doing their finances so thought I understood profit, loss etc. But then I worked for a small struggling advertising agency and found out first hand how hard it is. It isn’t just about your paper profit. It is about managaing cashflow, creditors, the IRD etc. It is about the business owners sometimes paying themselves less than the receptionist, so the firm survives.

So anyway I thought it would be interesting to look at how many Labour front bench MPs have worked in the private sector. 87% of all jobs in New Zealand are in the private sector. Now some of those are non-profit jobs but I’d estimate around 75% of jobs would be in the for-profit sector.

So putting aside part-time and holiday jobs while studying, what is the occupational backgrounds of the likely front bench Labour Cabinet Ministers? How many of them have worked in the private sector (by which I mean employers that need to sell a good or service).

1. Jacinda Ardern – nil private sector experience. Worked in Parliament, UK Government and a US union. Did once demonstrate cookware at Farmers though.
2. Kelvin Davis – nil private sector experience. Worked as a teacher or for Ministry of Education.
3. Andrew Little – nil private sector experience. Worked in student politics then unions.
4. Grant Robertson – nil private sector experience. Worked in student politics then MFAT and Otago University
5. Phil Twyford – worked as a journalist for the Auckland Star and a promoter for Book Month so the first Labour MP to have some private sector experience. Otherwise worked for Oxfam, including as a lobbyist in DC for them.
6. Megan Woods – has been a copywriter for a private business, and did business development for a CRI.
7. Chris Hipkins – nil private sector experience – student politics, an Industry Training Organisation (Govt funded) and Parliament
8. Carmel Sepuloni – nil private sector experience – teaching, NGOs and university
9. David Clark – nil private sector experience – Treasury, church and Selwyn College

So the total private sector for profit work experience of the nine most senior Labour MPs is basically as a journalist on a community newspaer and a copywriter for a business. That’s it. Think about that. None of them have ever paid PAYE, or really been in a job where a failure to keep customers happy means you are out of a job.

Now compare that to the top nine for National.

1. Bill English – farming when young (but on family farm, not his own)
2. Paula Bennett – worked as a recruitment consultant
3. Steven Joyce – set up his own company when almost a teenager and turned it into Mediaworks
4. Gerry Brownlee – carpenter
5. Simon Bridges – lawyer
6. Amy Adams – farmer and lawyer
7. Jonathan Coleman – General Practitioner and business consultant
8. Chris FInlayson – lawyer
9. Michael Woodhouse – private hospitals CEO

It’s a stark difference.

The Labour front bench is almost entirely comprised of people who have never worked outside politics, or certainly not in the private sector. Now I’m in no way saying that private sector experience should be a litmus test for becoming an MP. Of course not. Many fine MPs who have not worked in the private sector.

But my point is that Labour is hugely imbalanced. It is almost starved of people with empathy for the private sector (where 75%+ of the jobs are). David Parker is probably the only MP they’ve got who has truly has skin in the game (several significant commercial ventures) and Damien O’Connor the only farmer.

Decisions in a Government are made by the top few Ministers. That would be Ardern, Robertson, Davis, Little and Hipkins. I don’t think any of them have bad intentions. I just think they don’t get it. They have no idea what it is really like to have to worry about having enough money to pay your staff, to pay your suppliers, to manage the bank repayments for the business loan etc. They just see the private sector as an unlimited source of money for them to spend.

A reminder of how extraordinary the job growth in New Zealand has been in recent years.

If we look at just the last three calendar years of National and Labour we see:

And this is not just exceptional job growth locally, but internationally. Here’s the percentage increase in jobs in major OECD countries in 2016:

1. NZ 5.7%
2. Germany 2.9%
3. Ireland 2.9%
4. US 1.8%
5. OECD 1.6%
6. Australia 1.6%
7. Sweden 1.5%
8. UK 1.4%
9. Canada 0.7%
10. France 0.6%
11. Finland 0.5%

Again policies impact jobs. Labour want working people to pay more in tax, have employers forced into national awards etc. If you value jobs, then you’re not going to do much better than this.

A guest post by Garth McVicar of the Sensible Sentencing Trust:

Considerable angst has been expressed by some, mostly progressive organisations and political parties, at New Zealand’s prison population exceeding 10,000 earlier in the year – as though 10,000 were some special number that shall not be exceeded. It is a nice round number, but the symbolism is lost on us as we’re pretty sure New Zealand judges are not imprisoning people lightly.

It will not surprise anyone that the Sensible Sentencing Trust stands for the rights of victims, and justice being served for the harm they have suffered. Often, but not always, that means prison is the just outcome for the offending, and we support its generous use for serious and repeat offenders. For low level and first-time offenders, generally not so much.

We have always been confident New Zealand was not imprisoning low level and first time offenders – the many cases we deal with that should have resulted in imprisonment but, outrageously, did not, confirms that on a daily basis. But we thought it would be instructive to find out for sure.

We filed an OIA to Corrections asking, amongst other things, how many persons were imprisoned or on remand by lead offence – such as ‘aggravated robbery’ or ‘murder’. Those familiar with the sentencing process will know it is the ‘lead offence’ which largely determines the length of sentence imposed. The data was supplied by Corrections in a raw format so we had to do some compilation, sorting and analysis. The results are astounding, not only confirming what we already suspected, but
are in fact more damning than even we could have imagined.

On average, the persons imprisoned or held on remand in New Zealand have 46 prior convictions on their record. And that excludes any they have in the Youth Court.

Think about that for a minute. Forty-six occasions where the prisoner offended, a complaint was made to police, evidence was collected, the offender was caught or identified, the decision to prosecute was made, the offender was convicted and finally the offender was sentenced – mostly not to imprisonment. Think about all the offences not convicted, where evidence was not sufficient to prosecute, where the victim chose not to lay a complaint, where police chose not to prosecute.
Those 10,000 prisoners are, by and large, 10,000 individual crime waves. No wonder the injustice system never publishes an offender’s criminal history. The excuse given is ‘privacy’. The real reason is embarrassment – to the system.

We accept that a proportion of those convictions will be for lower-level matters such as driving, breaches of court orders and perhaps drug offending, but nonetheless those 10,000 men and (increasingly) women together share about 460,000 convictions between them, and who knows how large a trail of destruction and victims in their wake. New Zealand judges are not known for their
tough on crime attitude – as much as we’d wish they were. So do those 10,000 men and women, that some in our society seem so intent on making excuses for, deserve to be in prison? The answer is obvious. In many cases they should have been imprisoned for earlier offences.

Which brings us to another question. When Labour Deputy Leader, Kelvin Davis, says he wants to reduce the prison population by 30% as he did in April this year, just who does he want to let out of prison?

The murderers, who serve less than 12 years on average of the ‘Life’ sentence?

The burglars and home invaders, who are rarely caught and serve a fraction of the 10 year maximum for their repeated predatory invasion of people’s homes?

The aggravated robbers gutlessly targeting shopkeepers and others trying to make an honest living?

Because once those serious offenders, and others such as sexual and violent offenders are accounted for, they make up fully 71% of the prison and remand population. That leaves 29% committing other offences – 1% less than Kelvin Davis wants to let out. So what kind of offenders make up the 29% who some might argue are not so serious and should be let out?

Around 12% are imprisoned on drugs and drug-related convictions – almost exclusively manufacturing, dealing and importing. Perhaps a dozen or so people are imprisoned for ‘possession’ of drugs. So the quantities must have been huge. We don’t imprison people for smoking cannabis in New Zealand – despite what Jacinda Ardern might think – as she indicated in the Three Leaders Debate last Monday.

Another 5% are imprisoned on driving offences – mainly drink driving (for the umpteenth time) or driving while disqualified (again, for the umpteenth time). Not the crime of the century, but seriously risking the lives of other road users and pedestrians, and no doubt these individuals have finally run out of excuses in the Judge’s eyes, or the Judge has finally run out of patience.

The 12% balance of the prison population is ‘rats and mice’ in statistical terms –3% and 1% here and there for various offences such as fraud, weapons, breaches, arson, neglect or ill-treatment of a person, contempt and handling the proceeds of crime. There are just no big numbers to work with, and we suspect that those imprisoned on such matters will have some very serious priors which
contributed to the Judge choosing imprisonment on this occasion. The Sentencing Act actually requires a Judge impose the ‘least restrictive’ sentence, so the prior offending must be damning in those cases.

We would be much more supportive if Mr Davis said he wanted to reduce by 30% the serious and violent offending along with sexual offending, burglaries and the shameful level of family violence in New Zealand. That would be a laudable goal. But he doesn’t say he specifically wants to reduce offending – just the number of people imprisoned. And that is a critical distinction. It means fewer people imprisoned for the same level of offending. He could choose, like Sensible Sentencing Trust does, to seek reduced offending, fewer victims and improved justice for victims.

Why would Mr Davis, and presumably the Labour Party generally, seek not reduced offending, but reduced imprisonment? We appreciate that prison is expensive, and a great deal of taxpayer funding goes into building and running our prisons. But it is money well spent, and justice doesn’t come cheap.

Questions have been raised recently about whether there is a hole in Labour’s budget plans. We don’t know – we ‘re not accountants. But could letting 30% of prisoners out early be one of the ways Labour intends to save money to fund future increases to other services? We don’t know -Labour’s website is silent on their plans for Corrections. Why is that? It’s a major item of expenditure and public concern. If Labour is to lead our next Government, the public of New Zealand have a right to transparency on their plans to reduce the prison population. Because every
one of the 10,000 currently imprisoned has thoroughly earned the judge’s decision to protect us from them.

Garth McVicar
Founder, Sensible Sentencing Trust

It will be interesting to know who are the 3,000 prisoners that Labour thinks should be let out of jail, despite an average of 46 prior convictions. I guess we’ll find out if they’re in Government!

The cumulative cost of Labour’s policies on exporters is looking to be quite huge. Here’s my ballpark estimates:

• ETS on Agriculture – $830 million/year
• Capital Gains Tax on farms – $1.3 billion/year (scheduled for 2021)
• Land Tax – $1.05 billion year (1% on $105 billion of agricultural land)
• Water Tax – $200 million/year
• Renege on TPP – $2.7 billion/year

So we’re a small trading nation that relies on exports to grow our economy and provide jobs and fund public services.

And over time Labour’s policies will lead to a revenue loss of around $6 billion a year for the export sector. Why would you want that? It’s akin to economic vandalism. We should be helping our export sector, not punishing them.

Stuff reports:

Many New Zealanders may be unaware the maker of their favourite breakfast cereal is owned by a church.

The breakfast staple Weetbix is owned and made by Sanitarium Health and Wellbeing Company, which was established by the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1898 to promote and produce plant-based health foods.

On its website the company said this was based on the church’s belief that plant-based diets are designated by God for the health of the human race.

But because it is a church, Sanitarium have never paid income tax.

Under New Zealand law, churches are exempt from income tax because they have a charitable purpose – they promote religion.

I don’t think the promotion of religion should be a charitable purpose, anymore than the promotion of politics should be. They are both just about promoting viewpoints.

If a religion does charitable works (soup kitchens etc) then that work should be charitable and tax deductible. But merely promoting their version of belief in a supreme being should not be.

While Sanitarium is a commercial business, it’s sole shareholder is The New Zealand Conference Association, which is a registered charitable trust.

Britain amended this charitable tax loophole in the 1920s and ACT party leader David Seymour wants New Zealand to catch up and do the same.

“I don’t know what their [Sanitarium’s] purpose is. They would argue they do charitable stuff to the same value as what they would have paid in tax,” Seymour said.

I’m sure they argue it, but I’d rather have their tax revenue.

In the year to 30 June 2016, Ngāi Tahu Holdings Corporation Limited made a net profit of $210 million, but only distributed $44m to the trust.

A Ngāi Tahu spokeswoman said the remaining profit was reinvested into Ngāi Tahu Holdings Corporation.

“Our distribution model is similar to many of the larger community trusts in New Zealand and internationally renowned Yale and Harvard Endowment Funds, so we compare well with nationally and internationally recognised intergenerational funds,” she said.

Seymour said the charitable tax loophole gives Ngāi Tahu’s Go Bus business a competitive advantage to bid for the Auckland Transport bus contract.

“People should be able to get a tax exemption for donating to charity, but when you’ve got those companies that are kind of like charity, kind of like a business, then it would make sense to split them,” Seymour said.

The commercial side of the charity can then donate to its charitable side, he said, and claim the tax credit of 33.33 per cent that applies to all charitable donations of at least $5.

That is a good way to do it.

Duncan Garner writes:

 Being a political party leader requires having a sharp and highly tuned radar. Judgment is crucial. …

That’s why I simply can’t believe Labour took so long to realise its tax policy was its biggest weakness – the party was walking around with a big target marked TAX on its forehead. “Hit me now,” said the T-shirt. A far cry from “Let’s Do This”.

This week that slogan became, arrgh: Let’s not do this.

Why would anyone with half a brain and even the smallest dose of political nous tell voters that a controversial housing and land tax would be developed in secret and behind closed doors, and it just might be introduced as law without any kind of public mandate or vote.

Yep and it was the Captain’s Call. So what does that tell us about judgement?

But Captain Jacinda forgot to ask the next question. In an attempt to look bold, strong and different the captain fluffed it. The Captain’s Call become the Captain’s Fall. In her first big call, she failed.

Jacinda became Taxinda, and she’s just learned a harsh lesson: Don’t believe the hype, heat and stardust, look at risk. And get rid of it.

Ardern may have got in early enough to limit the damage. But it still raises serious questions about her judgment. Robertson doesn’t come out smelling of Botanic Garden roses either.

It was arrogance in demanding the public of New Zealand give them a blank cheque on tax policy.

A guest post from a reader:

They say that in election campaigns you should keep families out of it, especially children.

Obviously both the NZEI and RNZ Checkpoint did not get the memo.

In an extraordinarily uncritical piece on Friday September 15, Checkpoint ran a piece detailing how primary school children in Porirua and Wainuiomata were encouraging their parents to enrol and vote.

The reporter, John Gerritson, even acknowledged the role the NZEI was playing in this piece of political treachery by saying the children were taking home “resources” provided by the union.

This soft piece on union and Labour Party promotion began with some vox pops from children. They were of primary school age. They’d been asked why it was important to enrol to vote. The first three or four answers, out of the mouths of babes, said that it was because you ”could vote for change.”

My goodness. I wonder who’d told them that ?

Not one of them said anything like “so you can vote to keep the country on a sound economic footing” or “so you can vote to keep unemployment at low levels.”

We are constantly told that children of all ages need to be taught civics as part of the school curriculum. I couldn’t agree more. They should be taught about democracy, about how it’s important to vote and about how all sides of a political argument should be explored before a vote is cast.

They should not be indoctrinated with resources supplied by a teachers’ union which is supporting the Labour Party.

The principal of one of the schools featured then had the temerity to say that it was important to get children to encourage their parents to enrol and vote ! What’s more they were holding parent evenings where parents could enrol on the night. Then they were opening an early voting booth next week so parents could cast their vote.

Am I being too cynical, but do you think the teacher/union member addressing the parents might have suggested a vote for Labour was the best way forward for the country ?

Dear me. If a parent does not know their duty and responsibility to enrol and vote by the time they have children of school age, then you wonder just what kind of education they had. At any rate, it is not the role of a primary school to be telling parents what to do politically.

Incidentally, Whaleoil has posted on this before and shown some of the brochures that children have been given to take home with them. The display of the political party symbols has Labour top left  i.e. in the most prominent position.

So this piece went on, unabated on RNZ for about 4 minutes. Not once, did the journalist think about offering a critical or inquisitive line asking whether it was the NZEI’s business to be enrolling voters through vulnerable children.

And at the end, all John Campbell could say was “lovely, thank you John Gerritson, lovely piece.”

No wonder the Labour Party want their RNZ comrades to run a TV station for them too. Just think of the propaganda Campbell et al could spout on their behalf.

A great guest post. It is outraegous that NZEI are using children to get their propoganda to parents.

An amazing score line against the Springboks, especially considering recent games. There was plenty of speculation that the All Blacks may lose.

Eight tries against the Springboks is almost unheard of. I think it is their worst ever loss. The top winning margins between the two teams are:

1. 55 points to All Blacks, Albany, 2017
2. 42 points to All Blacks, Durban 2016
3. 36 points to All Blacks, Pretoria, 2003
4. 33 points to All Blacks, Wellington 2011
5. 28 points to All Blacks, Christchurch 2016
6. 28 points to All Blacks, Dunedin 1999
7. 20 points to All Blacks, Auckland 1997

Some people have said dealing with the IRD can be like having a prostate exam. Now in one of his most bizarre policies, Winston wants it compulsory.

The Herald reports:

“Prostate cancer is a psychological condition more than anything else – mainly of men who need a good kick up you-know-where,” Peters told the gathering.

“Frankly, if I had my way I would have further compulsory requirements for every male in this country, so it goes something like this – your taxation is that, but you are not getting it back until I see you with an annualised check or a two-yearly check.

Is this really who we want deciding who gets to form a Government? Someone who thinks a tax refund should be linked to a prostate exam?

Why only require it of men. Will women have to have a cervical smear in order to get a tax refund also?