It's not just the Right that is going mental, and acting like it. You also have the likes of Grant Gillon and Tony Holman (and other "lefties") on the Shore calling the draft plan "crazy", "dangerous" and "destroying the city". These two are from the former Alliance.
OTOH, I too am an Act Party supporter (not a member currently), and a member of the Kaipatiki Local Board and pretty much agree with most of what you have written here Russell.
Local body politics is a strange beast. It's ruled by unabashed populism.
Parliament should be very wary about ever giving the government the power to amend primary legislation, but that power should never include the power to expand the scope of criminal offences. And it certainly shouldn’t be doing it in a non-controversial law reform bill.
Yes. And the current Parliament/Government has done this on one occasion with the dob-in-a-child-abuser legislation, and now propose adding to that with partners of spouses who commit welfare fraud being culpable. Both of these are "new" criminal offences, according to the Ministers. I don't like it at all.
McCully is concerned about public safety and toilets.
Isn't public safety a policing issue, and isn't there a Minister of Police to be responsible for that?
As for "amenities" (McCully said elsewhere he is referring to toilets), does the Government really need to take charge of port-a-loos?
I feel sorry for the Mayor. He has fronted on TV and in the media and deserves a chance to make amends. This is pretty low stuff, IMHO.
Why should there be a huge loophole where folks can make money - serious money - without paying tax?
There's no loophole - there is a CGT now.
Why can’t folks just make money, keep it and decide whether to save it (good), pay off debt (good) or buy a TV keeping a Harvey Norman salesman(person) in a job (good)?
Ok Matt, so that extra $15k is not better off in Kiwi Saver or in a term investment or being spent on a holiday or a car or something that allows others to have jobs - it’s better off with the government.
Sorry, I'll never buy that. *Rich* pricks spend a lot of money too. That spending allows certain businesses to stay afloat and allows students to be employed in restaurants as waitresses etc. But never mind, I’m sure the government can buy a restaurant or 100 with the extra $15k.
Their recommendations on such:
Most members of the TWG have significant concerns over the practical challenges arising from a comprehensive CGT.
The majority of the TWG support detailed consideration of taxing returns from capital invested in residential rental properties on the basis of a deemed notional return calculated using a risk-free rate.
...so if you made $100k capital gain you pay $15k to the govt - you still get $85k "profit".
At the moment, yes. But we all know once it's in, it is cannon-fodder for future politicans. Then there's the general issue of whether that $15K is better left in the hands of individuals, families etc or whether the government can allocate it better.
I realise on this site I'm going to lose that one!
What I'll be looking for is whether the policy framework by Labour follows the recommendations of the experts: http://www.victoria.ac.nz/sacl/cagtr/pdf/tax-report-website.pdf
Considering Goff et al have already discredited a land tax, I don't hold out much hope they will follow the experts.
What I see happening to cover rent rises (which are almost inevitable) is another subsidy or tax credit of some sort, thereby making the tax system even more confusing and complex - the very thing the TWG warned against.
At some point in time, the major political parties are going to have to consider what is the best thing to do for the country, rather than for the 10-15% they need to win an election. I don't know when that will come, but its time has passed.
Two or three electorate seats is worthless for Mana except to avoid the ACT "problem" of relying on an electorate seat for your political survival. Parties need alternatives. Except for that reason, Mana should, if they are smart, focus on as many party votes as possible. That signifies success with a sole electorate seat, not another electorate seat (or 2).
I read an article in some newspaper when Dunne announced this that quoted a guy who actually manufactures (or imports) these "legal highs" and he basically said he would just get the "chemists" to make other legal highs if Dunne banned cannabinomimetics.
It's such bad policy that it really doesn't deserve a mention, or debate, just ridicule.