Speaker: Remembering the Chartists
269 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 11 Newer→ Last
-
Kyle - in essence what your family is doing is trying to avoid death duties - which is OK so long as it's legal - I'm not suggesting here that you should not be able to - but I do think there should be a quid-pro-quo in the public interest - if you want to move your wealth into a trust the details of what's going on should be made public with an annual return - that way we (and the IRD) can all see if it's above board
Maybe... but... why stop there? It's not an easy line to draw, but I get a little suspicious of whether, as often as not, "the public interest" gets confused with "what I think the public would be interested in". Where is the line where legitimate disclosure becomes simple prurience -- Ministers, MPs, senior public servants, anyone in the public sector? How about their families -- and how far out do you go?
-
Kyle - in essence what your family is doing is trying to avoid death duties - which is OK so long as it's legal
Paul,
Not an expert but death duties not payable in NZ anymore - zero rated in 1992 and abolished in 1999. There have been attempts since to change tax rates on Trusts or suchlike to effectively introduce something like the tax/duty and any capital gains tax may also tax estates.
-
I bled once.
Did I lead?
Did I bollocks.
I come to PAS for my average daily intake of poetry these days.
-
in essence what your family is doing is trying to avoid death duties
With respect I think that's rubbish, trusts are used for many things. For example to ensure that your child's gold digging spouse cannot get hold of some family property
Not everyone who set's up a trust is trying to avoid tax (although many are)
Aparently one of the best ways to avoid gift duty from your Lotto win is buy the tickets from your Family trust bank account each week ;-)
-
yeah maybe that was the wrong term to use - I was away when all that changed - but I do see all these people moving their money into trusts largely to pass stuff on to their kids - but I think that that's rather different that putting stuff into trusts because they act a bit like a swiss bank account and leave no money trail
-
This quote from English confuses me somewhat:
""The fact is that no amount of detail will change the perception that in some way I am gaining a bigger allowance than other members of Parliament."
Er, in the way where you're getting $1000/week and they're getting $460/week? That way? Not ringing any bells?
(Possibly he meant "bigger" in the sense of "more than I am entitled to", but it's a damn silly way to say it.)
-
BTW, not saying Paul's any kind of scandal-hunting panty-sniffer, just that he (perhaps unintentionally) opened an interesting can of worms around where the line between legitimate public interest and the idea that entering public life doesn't totally void legitmate privacy concerns,
-
I think Adam Hunt's reminder about the Chartists is well made. We certainly do not want to return to the situation where only men with money can afford to be members of parliament. However we also do not want to get to the situation where people seek a 'career' as an MP because it pays well, and I think we have allowed the pendulum to swing too close to the latter situation today.
It seems to me to be reasonable that any MP who can show that she/he is maintaining two households one in Wellington and one where they are based when not in Wellington should be paid a housing allowance set at a rate that would cover the rent of a reasonable house in an inner Wellington suburb.
MPs remuneration should not be set by comparisons with the private sector or even senior public servants. Rather at a ratio of the average wage - possibly a generous ratio of twice or even three times. This would ensure that people were not precluded from being an MP because they could nor afford it. The rate should be the same for all MPs, with no extra for being a cabinet minister or the PM.
-
I will treasure this post for referencing the Chartists and most especially Object 2.
Don't ever give away your secret ballot, no matter how attractive internet/postal voting looks.
-
I think Adam Hunt's reminder about the Chartists is well made. We certainly do not want to return to the situation where only men with money can afford to be members of parliament.
That's a straw man argument though. I haven't heard (on here at least, I haven't turned over any rock on the Herald's Your Views) anyone arguing that they shouldn't be paid, indeed well paid at that.
I don't really mind the minister of finance getting a big salary with a 2 at the front and five more numbers before it hits the decimal.
I mind MPs wriggling their finances around like worms to get an extra $24K/year on top of that. I mind that Ministers, who earn the most, seem to be doing it the most.
One of the things I'd like to see from our Members of Parliament is a bit of humble pie when they take their big salaries which we all pay. Not sticking their hand into as many obscure pockets to grab some more.
-
From the Herald:
The fact is that no amount of detail will change the perception that in some way I am gaining a bigger allowance than other members of Parliament.
But the DomPost words it slightly differently:
But he said today he accepted there was a perception that he was claiming more than ordinary MPs who live in homes they have an interest in, and though he had done nothing wrong, there was only one way to change that perception.
Am assuming that "have an interest in" refers to those MP's receiving market rentals for houses in Wellington rented out to other people rather than those getting housing allowances.
-
heh! - what I was suggesting that perhaps the deal with trusts could/should be something of a quid pro quo between public and private interests along the line of "we let you partition your money in this particular way for whatever reason you see fit - but in exchange you open the kimono" - after all people don't have to put money into trusts, nor does the government/public have to allow them to exist in any form
It's all a bit like the public bargain around copyrights and patents: we give you protection for your created works and in exchange you agree that you'll put them into the public domain after a fixed time has passed (Disney excluded of course)
-
Can Kyle be my proxy in any further discussion on this matter, he's said exactly what I would like to have...
-
I mind MPs wriggling their finances
One of the things that bureaucrats - Ministerial Services, IIRC< but it could have been another group - did each year was to remind Ministers about two months ahead of time that the deadline for the declarations for the Register of Ministers Interests was looming, and that Ministers could 'take the opportunity to rearrange their finances'.
Yes, they went to that length to encourage the practice.
-
Don't ever give away your secret ballot, no matter how attractive internet/postal voting looks.
We have a voting system for Parliament that is both secret and allows dual votes to be found and removed. It can be ubject to vigorous scrutiny by parties and stands up to scrutiny. It has audit trails and is verifiable.
Postal voting for local Councils passes the same tests.
Internet voting does not. </hobbyhorse> But happy to provide more info to those who click the little envelope below my name.
-
Does it seem strange to anyone else that Bill can reclaim the high ground as a decent bloke by paying back part of the money BUT only after days of fending off questions and six months of spending? As that all that you have to do? Say "Sorry." and give some of the money back? Must try that on my good wife!
-
We have a voting system for Parliament that is both secret and allows dual votes to be found and removed.
Are you sure its really secret by design, or just secret by convention?
I'm completely happy to accept that nobody does actually match up the voting form numbers and the name/number lists..... so my ballot in practice remains secret... but as far as I understand, its only convention and the presence of witnesses that removes the actual ability to check who someone voted for... if no-one was watching you can easily figure out who people voted for.
Its a flaw I accept to reduce the likely-hood of multiple voting, but its not 100% water-tight.
No?
-
Phil - I am reasonably au fait with the NZ electoral process and systems. It is pretty sound.
Postal voting for local Councils passes the same tests.
It doesn't pass the "secret ballot" test.
-
I mind MPs wriggling their finances around like worms
I'd like to know a little more about MPs renting properties of each other. Do they manage to save the taxpayer money or is there some kind of double up of payments going on?
Maybe MSD have the information.
-
I'd like to know a little more about MPs renting properties of each other. Do they manage to save the taxpayer money or is there some kind of double up of payments going on?
Personally, I'd like to know that in future nobody is renting out perfectly habitable property to anyone, while at the same time the taxpayer is paying for (or heavily subsidizing) another. If Members of Parliament want to build up a portfolio of rental properties in Wellington, they should be doing it entirely at their own expense.
FletcherB:
I've stood up as a scutineer several times, and rest assured that the security and confidentiality of ballots is taken incredibly seriously. To be honest (and only slightly facetious), trying to find out how you voted really wouldn't be worth the effort. :)
A constitutional scholar might beg to differ, but think our electoral agencies do a good job of keeping the balance between the secrecy of the ballot and securing against electoral fraud.
-
Deputy Prime Minister Bill English has decided to pay back part of his ministerial housing allowance to Ministerial Services, saying that as Finance Minister he had to lead by example.
Only part?
He lives in Wellington. It's his normal place of residence, whatever he tells the voters of Southland (for the purposes of electoral law, you live where you say you do, and factual investigation cannot affect candidacy). As a Minister who lives in Wellington, he should be receiving nothing for accomodation, and repaying everything he rorted - just like Hobbs and Bunkle.
-
IRD are on to most of the common ways trusts are used to rort the tax system. Unless you're really clever your family trust probably won't help you to avoid much tax.
Most people I know set up trusts for asset protection purposes. If all your assets are in a trust it can be harder for creditors to get at them.
I have a trust for that reason, and I don't feel a bit guilty about it. If I were to become a partner of a law firm I would have to assume personal liability for what my other partners did, which is a bit silly, but hey that's the law. So most partners of law firms stick their assets in trust so they don't lose the lot if someone they work for is negligent and the firm gets sued for squillions.
Which is reasonable, because just about every other businessperson in the country is allowed to limit their liability by forming a company.
As for public disclosure, why? I don't see what right the public has to know how a person structures their personal and financial affairs if they're not breaking any laws. Although I can see why disclosure might be important where we are dealing with the likes of politicians.
-
Personally, I'd like to know that in future nobody is renting out perfectly habitable property to anyone, while at the same time the taxpayer is paying for (or heavily subsidizing) another.
Though, in such cases, I'm tickled by the idea that any accommodation allowance you'd otherwise receive would be subject to an abatement of 100% of the rental income. :)
-
As for secret ballots secure against electoral fraud, I remember being really impressed when I heard about Punchscan a couple of years ago.
-
Firstly: everything Stephen Judd said.
Also, would like to reiterate that the presumption of this article is that the "best" people for the job are already highly paid.
4. PAYMENT OF MEMBERS, thus enabling an honest tradesman, working man, or other person, to serve a constituency, when taken from his business to attend to the interests of the Country.
I prefer to vote for former teachers, GPs, academics, protesters & union reps over businessmen & bankers.
I'm fine with MPs & ministers getting a healthy remuneration for their hard work, but this whole accommodation expenses thing seems to have been set up to address a *need*, rather than counting as an entitlement for the the hard work of a minister. This is how National have been defending it. Kinda fair enough, but creative accounting is the issue in the cases in question - pretending a need where none exists. Therefore, the whole "corruption" thing can be easily resolved by establishing the accom expense account as a perq of a difficult job - eliminate the distinction of those who "need" to support a second home & just give every MP & every minister the same accommodation expenses, regardless of where they live.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.