So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinion
is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matter
most.
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing
rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of
taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it
does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By
my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under
Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction
to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of
that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year
- to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has
been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring
stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending
that produced intangible results of the previous Government.
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinionWhen the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise the >patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before
is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matter
most.
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing
rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of
taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it
does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By
my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not
happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in
headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under
Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction
to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of
that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year
- to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has
been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring
stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending
that produced intangible results of the previous Government.
starting the recovery procedure.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or the >Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This
country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially.
On 31 May 2024 03:27:58 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:With Government Debt still substantially increasing and with deficit
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinionWhen the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise the >>patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before >>starting the recovery procedure.
is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matter
most.
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing
rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of
taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it
does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By
my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not
happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in
headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under
Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction
to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of
that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year
- to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has
been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring
stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending
that produced intangible results of the previous Government.
spending for the next few years, stability is some way off and the
triaging to date is enough to avoid death but not enough to bring
stability.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or the >>Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This
country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially.
National also lacks a bit of fiscal courage. Probably because if they
take a more austere approach (such as leaving tax bracket adjustment
to a future budget and paying down debt) the results may not be
apparent until after the next election.
On Fri, 31 May 2024 17:53:44 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On 31 May 2024 03:27:58 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:With Government Debt still substantially increasing and with deficit >>spending for the next few years, stability is some way off and the
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinionWhen the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise the >>>patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before >>>starting the recovery procedure.
is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matter >>>> most.
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing
rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of
taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it
does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By >>>> my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not >>>> happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in >>>> headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under
Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction
to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of
that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year
- to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has
been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring >>>> stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending
that produced intangible results of the previous Government.
triaging to date is enough to avoid death but not enough to bring >>stability.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or the >>>Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This
country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially.
National also lacks a bit of fiscal courage. Probably because if they
take a more austere approach (such as leaving tax bracket adjustment
to a future budget and paying down debt) the results may not be
apparent until after the next election.
I suspect the Government regret the cost of the handouts to landlords
- not meeting the promise on cancer drugs will already be hurting.
Matthew Hooten's comments in a Herald column are behind a paywall, but
a copy is here:
https://x.com/rugbyintel/status/1796243615204913552/photo/1
We are still experiencing Covid problems, and are likely to have
further storm / flooding damage, and water problems will come back
again when increasing rates by 10% to 15% is found to be not enough.
Not an easy time to be learning about being a Finance Minister . . .
On Fri, 31 May 2024 17:53:44 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On 31 May 2024 03:27:58 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:With Government Debt still substantially increasing and with deficit >>spending for the next few years, stability is some way off and the
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinionWhen the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise the >>>patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before >>>starting the recovery procedure.
is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matter >>>> most.
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing
rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of
taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it
does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By >>>> my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not >>>> happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in >>>> headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under
Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction
to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of
that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year
- to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has
been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring >>>> stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending
that produced intangible results of the previous Government.
triaging to date is enough to avoid death but not enough to bring >>stability.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or the >>>Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This
country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially.
National also lacks a bit of fiscal courage. Probably because if they
take a more austere approach (such as leaving tax bracket adjustment
to a future budget and paying down debt) the results may not be
apparent until after the next election.
I suspect the Government regret the cost of the handouts to landlords
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 17:53:44 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >wrote:
On 31 May 2024 03:27:58 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:With Government Debt still substantially increasing and with deficit >>spending for the next few years, stability is some way off and the >>triaging to date is enough to avoid death but not enough to bring >>stability.
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinion >>>> is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matter >>>> most.When the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise the
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing >>>> rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of
taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it >>>> does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By >>>> my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not >>>> happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in >>>> headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under >>>> Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction >>>> to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of
that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year >>>> - to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has >>>> been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring >>>> stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending
that produced intangible results of the previous Government.
patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before >>>starting the recovery procedure.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or the >>>Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This
country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially.
National also lacks a bit of fiscal courage. Probably because if they >>take a more austere approach (such as leaving tax bracket adjustment
to a future budget and paying down debt) the results may not be
apparent until after the next election.
I suspect the Government regret the cost of the handouts to landlords
Fuck Rich. What handouts to landlords?? This government just
returned things to what they were before your lot got all communist
over landlords.
In article <[email protected]>, mutley2000 >@hotmail.com says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 17:53:44 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On 31 May 2024 03:27:58 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:With Government Debt still substantially increasing and with deficit
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinionWhen the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise the
is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matter >> >>>> most.
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing >> >>>> rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of
taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it
does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By >> >>>> my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not >> >>>> happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in >> >>>> headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under
Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction >> >>>> to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of
that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year >> >>>> - to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has >> >>>> been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring >> >>>> stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending
that produced intangible results of the previous Government.
patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before
starting the recovery procedure.
spending for the next few years, stability is some way off and the
triaging to date is enough to avoid death but not enough to bring
stability.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or the >> >>>Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This
country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially.
National also lacks a bit of fiscal courage. Probably because if they
take a more austere approach (such as leaving tax bracket adjustment
to a future budget and paying down debt) the results may not be
apparent until after the next election.
I suspect the Government regret the cost of the handouts to landlords
Fuck Rich. What handouts to landlords?? This government just
returned things to what they were before your lot got all communist
over landlords.
I'm not sure how making interest not tax deducible is in any way
communist. Its not like the Government tried nationalise land ownership
or something.
The word "communist" has an actual meaning. Referring to anything you
don't like or anything on the left side of the spectrum as communist
devalues that meaning.
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:38:04 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>Hooten points out that not only is Willis spending more in the 2024/25
wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 17:53:44 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:
On 31 May 2024 03:27:58 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:With Government Debt still substantially increasing and with deficit >>>spending for the next few years, stability is some way off and the >>>triaging to date is enough to avoid death but not enough to bring >>>stability.
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinion >>>>> is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matter >>>>> most.When the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise the
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing >>>>> rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of
taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it >>>>> does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By >>>>> my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not >>>>> happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in >>>>> headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under >>>>> Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction >>>>> to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of
that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year >>>>> - to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has >>>>> been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring >>>>> stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending
that produced intangible results of the previous Government.
patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before >>>>starting the recovery procedure.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or the >>>>Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This
country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially.
National also lacks a bit of fiscal courage. Probably because if they >>>take a more austere approach (such as leaving tax bracket adjustment
to a future budget and paying down debt) the results may not be
apparent until after the next election.
I suspect the Government regret the cost of the handouts to landlords
- not meeting the promise on cancer drugs will already be hurting.
Matthew Hooten's comments in a Herald column are behind a paywall, but
a copy is here:
https://x.com/rugbyintel/status/1796243615204913552/photo/1
We are still experiencing Covid problems, and are likely to have
further storm / flooding damage, and water problems will come back
again when increasing rates by 10% to 15% is found to be not enough.
Not an easy time to be learning about being a Finance Minister . . .
You are correct Rich - it is not easy having to reverse so many
financial failures unleashed on us by the previous Government. The
3-waters establishment costs alone (over $1 billion, cites all behind
the Herald paywall) would have come real handy with expanding Pharmac >funding.
In terms of National party promises, what people seem to loose sight
of is that this is not a National Government and therefore it is the >coalition agreements, not the party promises, that are in play. The >coalition agreements all contain aspects of what each party promised
but not all of them. The promise to fund additional cancer drugs is
not in either coalition agreement, so was one of National's
commitments that Act and NZF would not agree to. The tragic reality
is that those hoping that more cancer drugs would be funded had their
hopes dashed by the coalition agreements, not the budget.
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 08:59:53 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:38:04 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:Hooten points out that not only is Willis spending more in the 2024/25
On Fri, 31 May 2024 17:53:44 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>wrote:
On 31 May 2024 03:27:58 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:With Government Debt still substantially increasing and with deficit >>>>spending for the next few years, stability is some way off and the >>>>triaging to date is enough to avoid death but not enough to bring >>>>stability.
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinion >>>>>> is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matter >>>>>> most.When the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise the
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing >>>>>> rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of
taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it >>>>>> does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By >>>>>> my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not >>>>>> happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in >>>>>> headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under >>>>>> Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction >>>>>> to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of >>>>>> that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year >>>>>> - to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has >>>>>> been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring >>>>>> stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending >>>>>> that produced intangible results of the previous Government.
patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before >>>>>starting the recovery procedure.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or the >>>>>Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This
country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially.
National also lacks a bit of fiscal courage. Probably because if they >>>>take a more austere approach (such as leaving tax bracket adjustment
to a future budget and paying down debt) the results may not be >>>>apparent until after the next election.
I suspect the Government regret the cost of the handouts to landlords
- not meeting the promise on cancer drugs will already be hurting. >>>Matthew Hooten's comments in a Herald column are behind a paywall, but
a copy is here: >>>https://x.com/rugbyintel/status/1796243615204913552/photo/1
We are still experiencing Covid problems, and are likely to have
further storm / flooding damage, and water problems will come back
again when increasing rates by 10% to 15% is found to be not enough.
Not an easy time to be learning about being a Finance Minister . . .
You are correct Rich - it is not easy having to reverse so many
financial failures unleashed on us by the previous Government. The >>3-waters establishment costs alone (over $1 billion, cites all behind
the Herald paywall) would have come real handy with expanding Pharmac >>funding.
year than Robertson/Willis combined did for 2023/24, she has had to
cut back on tax cuts that were planned. For most people, the small
reduction in income tax will be well offset by increases in rates (and
does anyone know of anyone that is saying those costs will not flow
through to rents for rental properties?)
In terms of National party promises, what people seem to loose sight
of is that this is not a National Government and therefore it is the >>coalition agreements, not the party promises, that are in play. The >>coalition agreements all contain aspects of what each party promised
but not all of them. The promise to fund additional cancer drugs is
not in either coalition agreement, so was one of National's
commitments that Act and NZF would not agree to. The tragic reality
is that those hoping that more cancer drugs would be funded had their
hopes dashed by the coalition agreements, not the budget.
Thanks Crash, yes while I haven;t looked I think you are right that
this was not in the Coalition agreements. This was however a major
promise, and from memory it was a strong commitment made late in the
election campaign, and discussed quite often subsequently. I suspect
both Luxon and Willis thought that they would be able to deliver on
that promise until late in the Budget process, and it seems they
forgot to go into damage control when they found that it would have
made their borrowing for tax cuts even more obvious. Certainly the
reaction to it not being included suggested that was news to many
families and medical people affected.
Put together with the Waikato
University Medical School having to go back for a detailed business
case before it is approved, National are not doing too well in getting >projects past Seymour. They are all a happy family though - I
understand two of Luxons staffers have previously worked for the NZ
Taxpayer Union, and Willis was on the Board of the NZ Initiative . . .
At some point. the coalition parties will have to agree on some
projects that are needed that were not anticipated in for example the
budget - I suspect we are not well prepared for another round of
storms / floods / earthquakes. They are not in the coalition agreement
but New Zealanders will expect some help in the event of a natural
disaster that makes some existing houses not able to be replaced . . .
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 08:59:53 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:38:04 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:Hooten points out that not only is Willis spending more in the 2024/25
On Fri, 31 May 2024 17:53:44 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>wrote:
On 31 May 2024 03:27:58 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:With Government Debt still substantially increasing and with deficit >>>>spending for the next few years, stability is some way off and the >>>>triaging to date is enough to avoid death but not enough to bring >>>>stability.
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinion >>>>>> is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matter >>>>>> most.When the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise the
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing >>>>>> rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of
taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it >>>>>> does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By >>>>>> my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not >>>>>> happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in >>>>>> headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under >>>>>> Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction >>>>>> to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of >>>>>> that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year >>>>>> - to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has >>>>>> been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring >>>>>> stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending >>>>>> that produced intangible results of the previous Government.
patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before >>>>>starting the recovery procedure.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or the >>>>>Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This
country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially.
National also lacks a bit of fiscal courage. Probably because if they >>>>take a more austere approach (such as leaving tax bracket adjustment
to a future budget and paying down debt) the results may not be >>>>apparent until after the next election.
I suspect the Government regret the cost of the handouts to landlords
- not meeting the promise on cancer drugs will already be hurting. >>>Matthew Hooten's comments in a Herald column are behind a paywall, but
a copy is here: >>>https://x.com/rugbyintel/status/1796243615204913552/photo/1
We are still experiencing Covid problems, and are likely to have
further storm / flooding damage, and water problems will come back
again when increasing rates by 10% to 15% is found to be not enough.
Not an easy time to be learning about being a Finance Minister . . .
You are correct Rich - it is not easy having to reverse so many
financial failures unleashed on us by the previous Government. The >>3-waters establishment costs alone (over $1 billion, cites all behind
the Herald paywall) would have come real handy with expanding Pharmac >>funding.
year than Robertson/Willis combined did for 2023/24, she has had to
cut back on tax cuts that were planned. For most people, the small
reduction in income tax will be well offset by increases in rates (and
does anyone know of anyone that is saying those costs will not flow
through to rents for rental properties?)
In terms of National party promises, what people seem to loose sight
of is that this is not a National Government and therefore it is the >>coalition agreements, not the party promises, that are in play. The >>coalition agreements all contain aspects of what each party promised
but not all of them. The promise to fund additional cancer drugs is
not in either coalition agreement, so was one of National's
commitments that Act and NZF would not agree to. The tragic reality
is that those hoping that more cancer drugs would be funded had their
hopes dashed by the coalition agreements, not the budget.
Thanks Crash, yes while I haven;t looked I think you are right that
this was not in the Coalition agreements. This was however a major
promise, and from memory it was a strong commitment made late in the
election campaign, and discussed quite often subsequently. I suspect
both Luxon and Willis thought that they would be able to deliver on
that promise until late in the Budget process, and it seems they
forgot to go into damage control when they found that it would have
made their borrowing for tax cuts even more obvious. Certainly the
reaction to it not being included suggested that was news to many
families and medical people affected. Put together with the Waikato University Medical School having to go back for a detailed business
case before it is approved, National are not doing too well in getting projects past Seymour. They are all a happy family though - I
understand two of Luxons staffers have previously worked for the NZ
Taxpayer Union, and Willis was on the Board of the NZ Initiative . . .
At some point. the coalition parties will have to agree on some
projects that are needed that were not anticipated in for example the
budget - I suspect we are not well prepared for another round of
storms / floods / earthquakes. They are not in the coalition agreement
but New Zealanders will expect some help in the event of a natural
disaster that makes some existing houses not able to be replaced . . .
On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 16:59:56 +1200, David GoodwinThe matter under discussion is one of being able to claim the cost of
<[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, mutley2000 >>@hotmail.com says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 17:53:44 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On 31 May 2024 03:27:58 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:With Government Debt still substantially increasing and with deficit
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinion >>> >>>> is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matter >>> >>>> most.When the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise the
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing >>> >>>> rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of
taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it >>> >>>> does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By >>> >>>> my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not >>> >>>> happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in >>> >>>> headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under >>> >>>> Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction >>> >>>> to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of >>> >>>> that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year >>> >>>> - to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has >>> >>>> been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring >>> >>>> stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending >>> >>>> that produced intangible results of the previous Government.
patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before
starting the recovery procedure.
spending for the next few years, stability is some way off and the
triaging to date is enough to avoid death but not enough to bring
stability.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or the >>> >>>Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This
country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially.
National also lacks a bit of fiscal courage. Probably because if they >>> >>take a more austere approach (such as leaving tax bracket adjustment
to a future budget and paying down debt) the results may not be
apparent until after the next election.
I suspect the Government regret the cost of the handouts to landlords
Fuck Rich. What handouts to landlords?? This government just
returned things to what they were before your lot got all communist
over landlords.
I'm not sure how making interest not tax deducible is in any way
communist. Its not like the Government tried nationalise land ownership
or something.
The word "communist" has an actual meaning. Referring to anything you
don't like or anything on the left side of the spectrum as communist >>devalues that meaning.
Exempting houses owned by landlords from capital gains tax is a
significant bias towards such investments that does not apply to other organisations who own property as part of their business operations.
Not allowing a tax deduction for interest on loans was a crude attempt
to balance matters that did not totally address the bias against
investment in other enterprises, but NAct1st have now restored the
blatant bias in favour of landlords - with the Prime Minister
personally benefiting, even though with only 7 properties he is far
from being the largest beneficiary. See if you can find any other
country that taxes capital gains exempting landlords from that tax . .
.
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 08:59:53 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:38:04 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:Hooten points out that not only is Willis spending more in the 2024/25
On Fri, 31 May 2024 17:53:44 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>wrote:
On 31 May 2024 03:27:58 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:With Government Debt still substantially increasing and with deficit >>>>spending for the next few years, stability is some way off and the >>>>triaging to date is enough to avoid death but not enough to bring >>>>stability.
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinion >>>>>> is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matter >>>>>> most.When the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise the
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing >>>>>> rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of
taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it >>>>>> does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By >>>>>> my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not >>>>>> happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in >>>>>> headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under >>>>>> Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction >>>>>> to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of >>>>>> that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year >>>>>> - to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has >>>>>> been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring >>>>>> stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending >>>>>> that produced intangible results of the previous Government.
patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before >>>>>starting the recovery procedure.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or the >>>>>Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This
country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially.
National also lacks a bit of fiscal courage. Probably because if they >>>>take a more austere approach (such as leaving tax bracket adjustment
to a future budget and paying down debt) the results may not be >>>>apparent until after the next election.
I suspect the Government regret the cost of the handouts to landlords
- not meeting the promise on cancer drugs will already be hurting. >>>Matthew Hooten's comments in a Herald column are behind a paywall, but
a copy is here: >>>https://x.com/rugbyintel/status/1796243615204913552/photo/1
We are still experiencing Covid problems, and are likely to have
further storm / flooding damage, and water problems will come back
again when increasing rates by 10% to 15% is found to be not enough.
Not an easy time to be learning about being a Finance Minister . . .
You are correct Rich - it is not easy having to reverse so many
financial failures unleashed on us by the previous Government. The >>3-waters establishment costs alone (over $1 billion, cites all behind
the Herald paywall) would have come real handy with expanding Pharmac >>funding.
year than Robertson/Willis combined did for 2023/24, she has had to
cut back on tax cuts that were planned. For most people, the small
reduction in income tax will be well offset by increases in rates (and
does anyone know of anyone that is saying those costs will not flow
through to rents for rental properties?)
In terms of National party promises, what people seem to loose sight
of is that this is not a National Government and therefore it is the >>coalition agreements, not the party promises, that are in play. The >>coalition agreements all contain aspects of what each party promised
but not all of them. The promise to fund additional cancer drugs is
not in either coalition agreement, so was one of National's
commitments that Act and NZF would not agree to. The tragic reality
is that those hoping that more cancer drugs would be funded had their
hopes dashed by the coalition agreements, not the budget.
Thanks Crash, yes while I haven;t looked I think you are right that
this was not in the Coalition agreements. This was however a major
promise, and from memory it was a strong commitment made late in the
election campaign, and discussed quite often subsequently.
I suspect
both Luxon and Willis thought that they would be able to deliver on
that promise until late in the Budget process, and it seems they
forgot to go into damage control when they found that it would have
made their borrowing for tax cuts even more obvious. Certainly the
reaction to it not being included suggested that was news to many
families and medical people affected. Put together with the Waikato >University Medical School having to go back for a detailed business
case before it is approved, National are not doing too well in getting >projects past Seymour. They are all a happy family though - I
understand two of Luxons staffers have previously worked for the NZ
Taxpayer Union, and Willis was on the Board of the NZ Initiative . . .
At some point. the coalition parties will have to agree on some
projects that are needed that were not anticipated in for example the
budget - I suspect we are not well prepared for another round of
storms / floods / earthquakes. They are not in the coalition agreement
but New Zealanders will expect some help in the event of a natural
disaster that makes some existing houses not able to be replaced . . .
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 17:39:14 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>Which they are working on right now. Perhaps you should check again when the announcement comes.
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 08:59:53 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:38:04 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:Hooten points out that not only is Willis spending more in the 2024/25
On Fri, 31 May 2024 17:53:44 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>wrote:
On 31 May 2024 03:27:58 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:With Government Debt still substantially increasing and with deficit >>>>>spending for the next few years, stability is some way off and the >>>>>triaging to date is enough to avoid death but not enough to bring >>>>>stability.
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinion >>>>>>> is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matter >>>>>>> most.When the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise >>>>>>the
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing >>>>>>> rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of
taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it >>>>>>> does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By >>>>>>> my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not >>>>>>> happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in >>>>>>> headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under >>>>>>> Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction >>>>>>> to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of >>>>>>> that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year >>>>>>> - to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has >>>>>>> been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring >>>>>>> stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending >>>>>>> that produced intangible results of the previous Government.
patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before >>>>>>starting the recovery procedure.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or the >>>>>>Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This
country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially.
National also lacks a bit of fiscal courage. Probably because if they >>>>>take a more austere approach (such as leaving tax bracket adjustment >>>>>to a future budget and paying down debt) the results may not be >>>>>apparent until after the next election.
I suspect the Government regret the cost of the handouts to landlords
- not meeting the promise on cancer drugs will already be hurting. >>>>Matthew Hooten's comments in a Herald column are behind a paywall, but >>>>a copy is here: >>>>https://x.com/rugbyintel/status/1796243615204913552/photo/1
We are still experiencing Covid problems, and are likely to have >>>>further storm / flooding damage, and water problems will come back >>>>again when increasing rates by 10% to 15% is found to be not enough. >>>>Not an easy time to be learning about being a Finance Minister . . .
You are correct Rich - it is not easy having to reverse so many
financial failures unleashed on us by the previous Government. The >>>3-waters establishment costs alone (over $1 billion, cites all behind
the Herald paywall) would have come real handy with expanding Pharmac >>>funding.
year than Robertson/Willis combined did for 2023/24, she has had to
cut back on tax cuts that were planned. For most people, the small >>reduction in income tax will be well offset by increases in rates (and
does anyone know of anyone that is saying those costs will not flow
through to rents for rental properties?)
In terms of National party promises, what people seem to loose sight
of is that this is not a National Government and therefore it is the >>>coalition agreements, not the party promises, that are in play. The >>>coalition agreements all contain aspects of what each party promised
but not all of them. The promise to fund additional cancer drugs is
not in either coalition agreement, so was one of National's
commitments that Act and NZF would not agree to. The tragic reality
is that those hoping that more cancer drugs would be funded had their >>>hopes dashed by the coalition agreements, not the budget.
Thanks Crash, yes while I haven;t looked I think you are right that
this was not in the Coalition agreements. This was however a major
promise, and from memory it was a strong commitment made late in the >>election campaign, and discussed quite often subsequently.
It seems I should have checked, it is in the National / NZ First
Agreement, but not in the ACT / National agreement:
"11. The Parties will also progress the following additional policies
which are a priority for the National Party:
F. Cut health waiting times by training more doctors, nurses, and
midwives, and giving Kiwis access to 13 more cancer treatments."
I suspect
both Luxon and Willis thought that they would be able to deliver on
that promise until late in the Budget process, and it seems they
forgot to go into damage control when they found that it would have
made their borrowing for tax cuts even more obvious. Certainly the
reaction to it not being included suggested that was news to many
families and medical people affected. Put together with the Waikato >>University Medical School having to go back for a detailed business
case before it is approved, National are not doing too well in getting >>projects past Seymour. They are all a happy family though - I
understand two of Luxons staffers have previously worked for the NZ >>Taxpayer Union, and Willis was on the Board of the NZ Initiative . . .
At some point. the coalition parties will have to agree on some
projects that are needed that were not anticipated in for example the >>budget - I suspect we are not well prepared for another round of
storms / floods / earthquakes. They are not in the coalition agreement
but New Zealanders will expect some help in the event of a natural
disaster that makes some existing houses not able to be replaced . . .
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 17:39:14 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 08:59:53 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:38:04 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:Hooten points out that not only is Willis spending more in the 2024/25
On Fri, 31 May 2024 17:53:44 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>wrote:
On 31 May 2024 03:27:58 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:With Government Debt still substantially increasing and with deficit >>>>>spending for the next few years, stability is some way off and the >>>>>triaging to date is enough to avoid death but not enough to bring >>>>>stability.
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinion >>>>>>> is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matter >>>>>>> most.When the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise the
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing >>>>>>> rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of
taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it >>>>>>> does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By >>>>>>> my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not >>>>>>> happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in >>>>>>> headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under >>>>>>> Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction >>>>>>> to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of >>>>>>> that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year >>>>>>> - to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has >>>>>>> been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring >>>>>>> stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending >>>>>>> that produced intangible results of the previous Government.
patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before >>>>>>starting the recovery procedure.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or the >>>>>>Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This
country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially.
National also lacks a bit of fiscal courage. Probably because if they >>>>>take a more austere approach (such as leaving tax bracket adjustment >>>>>to a future budget and paying down debt) the results may not be >>>>>apparent until after the next election.
I suspect the Government regret the cost of the handouts to landlords
- not meeting the promise on cancer drugs will already be hurting. >>>>Matthew Hooten's comments in a Herald column are behind a paywall, but >>>>a copy is here: >>>>https://x.com/rugbyintel/status/1796243615204913552/photo/1
We are still experiencing Covid problems, and are likely to have >>>>further storm / flooding damage, and water problems will come back >>>>again when increasing rates by 10% to 15% is found to be not enough. >>>>Not an easy time to be learning about being a Finance Minister . . .
You are correct Rich - it is not easy having to reverse so many
financial failures unleashed on us by the previous Government. The >>>3-waters establishment costs alone (over $1 billion, cites all behind
the Herald paywall) would have come real handy with expanding Pharmac >>>funding.
year than Robertson/Willis combined did for 2023/24, she has had to
cut back on tax cuts that were planned. For most people, the small >>reduction in income tax will be well offset by increases in rates (and
does anyone know of anyone that is saying those costs will not flow
through to rents for rental properties?)
In terms of National party promises, what people seem to loose sight
of is that this is not a National Government and therefore it is the >>>coalition agreements, not the party promises, that are in play. The >>>coalition agreements all contain aspects of what each party promised
but not all of them. The promise to fund additional cancer drugs is
not in either coalition agreement, so was one of National's
commitments that Act and NZF would not agree to. The tragic reality
is that those hoping that more cancer drugs would be funded had their >>>hopes dashed by the coalition agreements, not the budget.
Thanks Crash, yes while I haven;t looked I think you are right that
this was not in the Coalition agreements. This was however a major
promise, and from memory it was a strong commitment made late in the >>election campaign, and discussed quite often subsequently.
It seems I should have checked, it is in the National / NZ First
Agreement, but not in the ACT / National agreement:
"11. The Parties will also progress the following additional policies
which are a priority for the National Party:
F. Cut health waiting times by training more doctors, nurses, and
midwives, and giving Kiwis access to 13 more cancer treatments."
I suspect
both Luxon and Willis thought that they would be able to deliver on
that promise until late in the Budget process, and it seems they
forgot to go into damage control when they found that it would have
made their borrowing for tax cuts even more obvious. Certainly the
reaction to it not being included suggested that was news to many
families and medical people affected. Put together with the Waikato >>University Medical School having to go back for a detailed business
case before it is approved, National are not doing too well in getting >>projects past Seymour. They are all a happy family though - I
understand two of Luxons staffers have previously worked for the NZ >>Taxpayer Union, and Willis was on the Board of the NZ Initiative . . .
At some point. the coalition parties will have to agree on some
projects that are needed that were not anticipated in for example the >>budget - I suspect we are not well prepared for another round of
storms / floods / earthquakes. They are not in the coalition agreement
but New Zealanders will expect some help in the event of a natural
disaster that makes some existing houses not able to be replaced . . .
On 2024-06-01, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 16:59:56 +1200, David GoodwinThe matter under discussion is one of being able to claim the cost of >interest on properties that they own.
<[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, mutley2000 >>>@hotmail.com says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 17:53:44 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>> >wrote:Fuck Rich. What handouts to landlords?? This government just
On 31 May 2024 03:27:58 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:With Government Debt still substantially increasing and with deficit >>>> >>spending for the next few years, stability is some way off and the
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinion >>>> >>>> is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matterWhen the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise the
most.
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing >>>> >>>> rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of
taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it >>>> >>>> does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By
my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not
happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in
headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under >>>> >>>> Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction >>>> >>>> to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of >>>> >>>> that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year >>>> >>>> - to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has >>>> >>>> been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring
stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending >>>> >>>> that produced intangible results of the previous Government.
patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before >>>> >>>starting the recovery procedure.
triaging to date is enough to avoid death but not enough to bring
stability.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or the >>>> >>>Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This
country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially.
National also lacks a bit of fiscal courage. Probably because if they >>>> >>take a more austere approach (such as leaving tax bracket adjustment >>>> >>to a future budget and paying down debt) the results may not be
apparent until after the next election.
I suspect the Government regret the cost of the handouts to landlords >>>>
returned things to what they were before your lot got all communist
over landlords.
I'm not sure how making interest not tax deducible is in any way >>>communist. Its not like the Government tried nationalise land ownership >>>or something.
The word "communist" has an actual meaning. Referring to anything you >>>don't like or anything on the left side of the spectrum as communist >>>devalues that meaning.
Exempting houses owned by landlords from capital gains tax is a
significant bias towards such investments that does not apply to other
organisations who own property as part of their business operations.
Not allowing a tax deduction for interest on loans was a crude attempt
to balance matters that did not totally address the bias against
investment in other enterprises, but NAct1st have now restored the
blatant bias in favour of landlords - with the Prime Minister
personally benefiting, even though with only 7 properties he is far
from being the largest beneficiary. See if you can find any other
country that taxes capital gains exempting landlords from that tax . .
.
It is inconsistant to not allow for this cost as it is a a cost to the >business and all businesses are allowed to deduct the costs of doing >business. It has been this way for eons and to have a ramdom exception it is >muddling the waters.
If you consider that the landords are making too much profit then we/you/us >need to find another way to allow for the landlords to pay more tax.
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 17:39:14 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>Labour had talked through structures with international lenders, and
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 08:59:53 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:Correct Rich - but if Labour had been re-elected that effect on rates
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:38:04 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:Hooten points out that not only is Willis spending more in the 2024/25
On Fri, 31 May 2024 17:53:44 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>wrote:
On 31 May 2024 03:27:58 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:With Government Debt still substantially increasing and with deficit >>>>>spending for the next few years, stability is some way off and the >>>>>triaging to date is enough to avoid death but not enough to bring >>>>>stability.
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinion >>>>>>> is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matter >>>>>>> most.When the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise the
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing >>>>>>> rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of
taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it >>>>>>> does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By >>>>>>> my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not >>>>>>> happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in >>>>>>> headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under >>>>>>> Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction >>>>>>> to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of >>>>>>> that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year >>>>>>> - to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has >>>>>>> been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring >>>>>>> stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending >>>>>>> that produced intangible results of the previous Government.
patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before >>>>>>starting the recovery procedure.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or the >>>>>>Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This
country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially.
National also lacks a bit of fiscal courage. Probably because if they >>>>>take a more austere approach (such as leaving tax bracket adjustment >>>>>to a future budget and paying down debt) the results may not be >>>>>apparent until after the next election.
I suspect the Government regret the cost of the handouts to landlords
- not meeting the promise on cancer drugs will already be hurting. >>>>Matthew Hooten's comments in a Herald column are behind a paywall, but >>>>a copy is here: >>>>https://x.com/rugbyintel/status/1796243615204913552/photo/1
We are still experiencing Covid problems, and are likely to have >>>>further storm / flooding damage, and water problems will come back >>>>again when increasing rates by 10% to 15% is found to be not enough. >>>>Not an easy time to be learning about being a Finance Minister . . .
You are correct Rich - it is not easy having to reverse so many
financial failures unleashed on us by the previous Government. The >>>3-waters establishment costs alone (over $1 billion, cites all behind
the Herald paywall) would have come real handy with expanding Pharmac >>>funding.
year than Robertson/Willis combined did for 2023/24, she has had to
cut back on tax cuts that were planned. For most people, the small >>reduction in income tax will be well offset by increases in rates (and
does anyone know of anyone that is saying those costs will not flow
through to rents for rental properties?)
is unknown and the effect on 3-waters would not have been an issue for >elected local body politicians to deal with.
In terms of National party promises, what people seem to loose sight
of is that this is not a National Government and therefore it is the >>>coalition agreements, not the party promises, that are in play. The >>>coalition agreements all contain aspects of what each party promised
but not all of them. The promise to fund additional cancer drugs is
not in either coalition agreement, so was one of National's
commitments that Act and NZF would not agree to. The tragic reality
is that those hoping that more cancer drugs would be funded had their >>>hopes dashed by the coalition agreements, not the budget.
Thanks Crash, yes while I haven;t looked I think you are right that
this was not in the Coalition agreements. This was however a major
promise, and from memory it was a strong commitment made late in the >>election campaign, and discussed quite often subsequently. I suspect
both Luxon and Willis thought that they would be able to deliver on
that promise until late in the Budget process, and it seems they
forgot to go into damage control when they found that it would have
made their borrowing for tax cuts even more obvious. Certainly the
reaction to it not being included suggested that was news to many
families and medical people affected.
Pure conjecture on your part, no doubt motivated by your political
bias. Commitments that are not in the coalition agreements are not >commitments at all
Put together with the Waikato
University Medical School having to go back for a detailed business
case before it is approved, National are not doing too well in getting >>projects past Seymour. They are all a happy family though - I
understand two of Luxons staffers have previously worked for the NZ >>Taxpayer Union, and Willis was on the Board of the NZ Initiative . . .
At some point. the coalition parties will have to agree on some
projects that are needed that were not anticipated in for example the >>budget - I suspect we are not well prepared for another round of
storms / floods / earthquakes. They are not in the coalition agreement
but New Zealanders will expect some help in the event of a natural
disaster that makes some existing houses not able to be replaced . . .
More political rhetoric from you Rich. You cannot cite anything that
the Government has done that is not in the coalition agreements.
Contrast this with Labour as an outright majority in the previous >Parliamentary term legislating for things never mentioned in their
2020 manifesto. There are many Labour MPs in that government that
remain in Parliament so hidden agendas are still a risk based on their
past record.
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 22:09:08 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 17:39:14 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:Labour had talked through structures with international lenders, and
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 08:59:53 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>wrote:Correct Rich - but if Labour had been re-elected that effect on rates
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:38:04 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:Hooten points out that not only is Willis spending more in the 2024/25 >>>year than Robertson/Willis combined did for 2023/24, she has had to
On Fri, 31 May 2024 17:53:44 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>wrote:
On 31 May 2024 03:27:58 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:With Government Debt still substantially increasing and with deficit >>>>>>spending for the next few years, stability is some way off and the >>>>>>triaging to date is enough to avoid death but not enough to bring >>>>>>stability.
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinion >>>>>>>> is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matter >>>>>>>> most.When the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise the
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing >>>>>>>> rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of
taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it >>>>>>>> does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By >>>>>>>> my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not >>>>>>>> happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in >>>>>>>> headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under >>>>>>>> Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction >>>>>>>> to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of >>>>>>>> that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year >>>>>>>> - to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has >>>>>>>> been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring >>>>>>>> stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending >>>>>>>> that produced intangible results of the previous Government.
patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before >>>>>>>starting the recovery procedure.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or the >>>>>>>Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This >>>>>>>country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially.
National also lacks a bit of fiscal courage. Probably because if they >>>>>>take a more austere approach (such as leaving tax bracket adjustment >>>>>>to a future budget and paying down debt) the results may not be >>>>>>apparent until after the next election.
I suspect the Government regret the cost of the handouts to landlords >>>>>- not meeting the promise on cancer drugs will already be hurting. >>>>>Matthew Hooten's comments in a Herald column are behind a paywall, but >>>>>a copy is here: >>>>>https://x.com/rugbyintel/status/1796243615204913552/photo/1
We are still experiencing Covid problems, and are likely to have >>>>>further storm / flooding damage, and water problems will come back >>>>>again when increasing rates by 10% to 15% is found to be not enough. >>>>>Not an easy time to be learning about being a Finance Minister . . .
You are correct Rich - it is not easy having to reverse so many >>>>financial failures unleashed on us by the previous Government. The >>>>3-waters establishment costs alone (over $1 billion, cites all behind >>>>the Herald paywall) would have come real handy with expanding Pharmac >>>>funding.
cut back on tax cuts that were planned. For most people, the small >>>reduction in income tax will be well offset by increases in rates (and >>>does anyone know of anyone that is saying those costs will not flow >>>through to rents for rental properties?)
is unknown and the effect on 3-waters would not have been an issue for >>elected local body politicians to deal with.
proposed larger entities than local government, both to share
expertise and to make them able to borrow at close to government rates
- they may have been prepared to guarantee repayments. As it is many
local councils are unable to undertake any work - and Queenstown
continues to have water quality problems . . .
I suspect ActNat1st will find they have to move towards a similar
structure - we just do not have enough expertise to cover a lot of
different entities, and small councils have no-one to even start . .
.
In terms of National party promises, what people seem to loose sight
of is that this is not a National Government and therefore it is the >>>>coalition agreements, not the party promises, that are in play. The >>>>coalition agreements all contain aspects of what each party promised >>>>but not all of them. The promise to fund additional cancer drugs is >>>>not in either coalition agreement, so was one of National's
commitments that Act and NZF would not agree to. The tragic reality
is that those hoping that more cancer drugs would be funded had their >>>>hopes dashed by the coalition agreements, not the budget.
Thanks Crash, yes while I haven;t looked I think you are right that
this was not in the Coalition agreements. This was however a major >>>promise, and from memory it was a strong commitment made late in the >>>election campaign, and discussed quite often subsequently. I suspect
both Luxon and Willis thought that they would be able to deliver on
that promise until late in the Budget process, and it seems they
forgot to go into damage control when they found that it would have
made their borrowing for tax cuts even more obvious. Certainly the >>>reaction to it not being included suggested that was news to many >>>families and medical people affected.
Pure conjecture on your part, no doubt motivated by your political
bias. Commitments that are not in the coalition agreements are not >>commitments at all
Put together with the Waikato
University Medical School having to go back for a detailed business
case before it is approved, National are not doing too well in getting >>>projects past Seymour. They are all a happy family though - I
understand two of Luxons staffers have previously worked for the NZ >>>Taxpayer Union, and Willis was on the Board of the NZ Initiative . . .
At some point. the coalition parties will have to agree on some
projects that are needed that were not anticipated in for example the >>>budget - I suspect we are not well prepared for another round of
storms / floods / earthquakes. They are not in the coalition agreement >>>but New Zealanders will expect some help in the event of a natural >>>disaster that makes some existing houses not able to be replaced . . .
More political rhetoric from you Rich. You cannot cite anything that
the Government has done that is not in the coalition agreements.
Contrast this with Labour as an outright majority in the previous >>Parliamentary term legislating for things never mentioned in their
2020 manifesto. There are many Labour MPs in that government that
remain in Parliament so hidden agendas are still a risk based on their
past record.
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 15:04:59 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>It was related to 13 different treatments that Pharmac does not
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 17:39:14 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 08:59:53 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:38:04 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:Hooten points out that not only is Willis spending more in the 2024/25 >>>year than Robertson/Willis combined did for 2023/24, she has had to
On Fri, 31 May 2024 17:53:44 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>wrote:
On 31 May 2024 03:27:58 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:With Government Debt still substantially increasing and with deficit >>>>>>spending for the next few years, stability is some way off and the >>>>>>triaging to date is enough to avoid death but not enough to bring >>>>>>stability.
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinion >>>>>>>> is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matter >>>>>>>> most.When the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise the
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing >>>>>>>> rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of
taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it >>>>>>>> does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By >>>>>>>> my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not >>>>>>>> happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in >>>>>>>> headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under >>>>>>>> Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction >>>>>>>> to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of >>>>>>>> that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year >>>>>>>> - to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has >>>>>>>> been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring >>>>>>>> stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending >>>>>>>> that produced intangible results of the previous Government.
patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before >>>>>>>starting the recovery procedure.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or the >>>>>>>Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This >>>>>>>country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially.
National also lacks a bit of fiscal courage. Probably because if they >>>>>>take a more austere approach (such as leaving tax bracket adjustment >>>>>>to a future budget and paying down debt) the results may not be >>>>>>apparent until after the next election.
I suspect the Government regret the cost of the handouts to landlords >>>>>- not meeting the promise on cancer drugs will already be hurting. >>>>>Matthew Hooten's comments in a Herald column are behind a paywall, but >>>>>a copy is here: >>>>>https://x.com/rugbyintel/status/1796243615204913552/photo/1
We are still experiencing Covid problems, and are likely to have >>>>>further storm / flooding damage, and water problems will come back >>>>>again when increasing rates by 10% to 15% is found to be not enough. >>>>>Not an easy time to be learning about being a Finance Minister . . .
You are correct Rich - it is not easy having to reverse so many >>>>financial failures unleashed on us by the previous Government. The >>>>3-waters establishment costs alone (over $1 billion, cites all behind >>>>the Herald paywall) would have come real handy with expanding Pharmac >>>>funding.
cut back on tax cuts that were planned. For most people, the small >>>reduction in income tax will be well offset by increases in rates (and >>>does anyone know of anyone that is saying those costs will not flow >>>through to rents for rental properties?)
In terms of National party promises, what people seem to loose sight
of is that this is not a National Government and therefore it is the >>>>coalition agreements, not the party promises, that are in play. The >>>>coalition agreements all contain aspects of what each party promised >>>>but not all of them. The promise to fund additional cancer drugs is >>>>not in either coalition agreement, so was one of National's
commitments that Act and NZF would not agree to. The tragic reality
is that those hoping that more cancer drugs would be funded had their >>>>hopes dashed by the coalition agreements, not the budget.
Thanks Crash, yes while I haven;t looked I think you are right that
this was not in the Coalition agreements. This was however a major >>>promise, and from memory it was a strong commitment made late in the >>>election campaign, and discussed quite often subsequently.
It seems I should have checked, it is in the National / NZ First
Agreement, but not in the ACT / National agreement:
"11. The Parties will also progress the following additional policies
which are a priority for the National Party:
F. Cut health waiting times by training more doctors, nurses, and
midwives, and giving Kiwis access to 13 more cancer treatments."
I acknowledge that many would interpret 'access to 13 more cancer
treatments' as providing additional funding for cancer drugs not
currently funded. However I took this to mean that this commitment
was a reference to Cancer treatments (not drugs) in the context of
reducing waiting times for cancer treatments.
I suspect
both Luxon and Willis thought that they would be able to deliver on
that promise until late in the Budget process, and it seems they
forgot to go into damage control when they found that it would have
made their borrowing for tax cuts even more obvious. Certainly the >>>reaction to it not being included suggested that was news to many >>>families and medical people affected. Put together with the Waikato >>>University Medical School having to go back for a detailed business
case before it is approved, National are not doing too well in getting >>>projects past Seymour. They are all a happy family though - I
understand two of Luxons staffers have previously worked for the NZ >>>Taxpayer Union, and Willis was on the Board of the NZ Initiative . . .
At some point. the coalition parties will have to agree on some
projects that are needed that were not anticipated in for example the >>>budget - I suspect we are not well prepared for another round of
storms / floods / earthquakes. They are not in the coalition agreement >>>but New Zealanders will expect some help in the event of a natural >>>disaster that makes some existing houses not able to be replaced . . .
On 2024-06-01, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Of course it will not be - you may want to criticise the government
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 08:59:53 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:38:04 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:Hooten points out that not only is Willis spending more in the 2024/25
On Fri, 31 May 2024 17:53:44 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>wrote:
On 31 May 2024 03:27:58 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:With Government Debt still substantially increasing and with deficit >>>>>spending for the next few years, stability is some way off and the >>>>>triaging to date is enough to avoid death but not enough to bring >>>>>stability.
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinion >>>>>>> is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matter >>>>>>> most.When the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise the
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing >>>>>>> rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of
taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it >>>>>>> does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By >>>>>>> my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not >>>>>>> happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in >>>>>>> headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under >>>>>>> Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction >>>>>>> to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of >>>>>>> that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year >>>>>>> - to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has >>>>>>> been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring >>>>>>> stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending >>>>>>> that produced intangible results of the previous Government.
patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before >>>>>>starting the recovery procedure.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or the >>>>>>Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This
country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially.
National also lacks a bit of fiscal courage. Probably because if they >>>>>take a more austere approach (such as leaving tax bracket adjustment >>>>>to a future budget and paying down debt) the results may not be >>>>>apparent until after the next election.
I suspect the Government regret the cost of the handouts to landlords
- not meeting the promise on cancer drugs will already be hurting. >>>>Matthew Hooten's comments in a Herald column are behind a paywall, but >>>>a copy is here: >>>>https://x.com/rugbyintel/status/1796243615204913552/photo/1
We are still experiencing Covid problems, and are likely to have >>>>further storm / flooding damage, and water problems will come back >>>>again when increasing rates by 10% to 15% is found to be not enough. >>>>Not an easy time to be learning about being a Finance Minister . . .
You are correct Rich - it is not easy having to reverse so many
financial failures unleashed on us by the previous Government. The >>>3-waters establishment costs alone (over $1 billion, cites all behind
the Herald paywall) would have come real handy with expanding Pharmac >>>funding.
year than Robertson/Willis combined did for 2023/24, she has had to
cut back on tax cuts that were planned. For most people, the small
reduction in income tax will be well offset by increases in rates (and
does anyone know of anyone that is saying those costs will not flow
through to rents for rental properties?)
In terms of National party promises, what people seem to loose sight
of is that this is not a National Government and therefore it is the >>>coalition agreements, not the party promises, that are in play. The >>>coalition agreements all contain aspects of what each party promised
but not all of them. The promise to fund additional cancer drugs is
not in either coalition agreement, so was one of National's
commitments that Act and NZF would not agree to. The tragic reality
is that those hoping that more cancer drugs would be funded had their >>>hopes dashed by the coalition agreements, not the budget.
Thanks Crash, yes while I haven;t looked I think you are right that
this was not in the Coalition agreements. This was however a major
promise, and from memory it was a strong commitment made late in the
election campaign, and discussed quite often subsequently. I suspect
both Luxon and Willis thought that they would be able to deliver on
that promise until late in the Budget process, and it seems they
forgot to go into damage control when they found that it would have
made their borrowing for tax cuts even more obvious. Certainly the
reaction to it not being included suggested that was news to many
families and medical people affected. Put together with the Waikato
University Medical School having to go back for a detailed business
case before it is approved, National are not doing too well in getting
projects past Seymour. They are all a happy family though - I
understand two of Luxons staffers have previously worked for the NZ
Taxpayer Union, and Willis was on the Board of the NZ Initiative . . .
At some point. the coalition parties will have to agree on some
projects that are needed that were not anticipated in for example the
budget - I suspect we are not well prepared for another round of
storms / floods / earthquakes. They are not in the coalition agreement
but New Zealanders will expect some help in the event of a natural
disaster that makes some existing houses not able to be replaced . . .
And that no doubt will be the National's fault.
Disaters happen, some natural, and it is the expectation that the rest the >country will help out via the Govenment giving assistance. We need to keepPrudent planning is however appropriate. There was a good review of
on making this country better without being consumed by the thought of the >next disaster.
On 2 Jun 2024 01:47:00 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-06-01, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 16:59:56 +1200, David Goodwin >>><[email protected]> wrote:The matter under discussion is one of being able to claim the cost of >>interest on properties that they own.
In article <[email protected]>, mutley2000 >>>>@hotmail.com says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 17:53:44 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>> >wrote:Fuck Rich. What handouts to landlords?? This government just
On 31 May 2024 03:27:58 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:With Government Debt still substantially increasing and with deficit >>>>> >>spending for the next few years, stability is some way off and the >>>>> >>triaging to date is enough to avoid death but not enough to bring
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinion >>>>> >>>> is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matterWhen the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise the
most.
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing
rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of
taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it >>>>> >>>> does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By
my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not
happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in
headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under >>>>> >>>> Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction
to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of >>>>> >>>> that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year
- to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has
been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring
stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending >>>>> >>>> that produced intangible results of the previous Government.
patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before >>>>> >>>starting the recovery procedure.
stability.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or the
Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This
country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially.
National also lacks a bit of fiscal courage. Probably because if they >>>>> >>take a more austere approach (such as leaving tax bracket adjustment >>>>> >>to a future budget and paying down debt) the results may not be
apparent until after the next election.
I suspect the Government regret the cost of the handouts to landlords >>>>>
returned things to what they were before your lot got all communist >>>>> over landlords.
I'm not sure how making interest not tax deducible is in any way >>>>communist. Its not like the Government tried nationalise land ownership >>>>or something.
The word "communist" has an actual meaning. Referring to anything you >>>>don't like or anything on the left side of the spectrum as communist >>>>devalues that meaning.
Exempting houses owned by landlords from capital gains tax is a
significant bias towards such investments that does not apply to other
organisations who own property as part of their business operations.
Not allowing a tax deduction for interest on loans was a crude attempt
to balance matters that did not totally address the bias against
investment in other enterprises, but NAct1st have now restored the
blatant bias in favour of landlords - with the Prime Minister
personally benefiting, even though with only 7 properties he is far
from being the largest beneficiary. See if you can find any other
country that taxes capital gains exempting landlords from that tax . .
.
It is inconsistant to not allow for this cost as it is a a cost to the >>business and all businesses are allowed to deduct the costs of doing >>business. It has been this way for eons and to have a ramdom exception it is >>muddling the waters.
If you consider that the landords are making too much profit then we/you/us >>need to find another way to allow for the landlords to pay more tax.
I don't want to limit anyone's investment income or profit, but all >investments should be taxed on a consistent basis.
The "brightline
test" effectively means that landlords can easily manage their affairs
to avid paying tax on all capital gains.
I merely believe that tax on
investments should be on the same basis for all investors.
As it is,
we see a flood of money going into rental housing making it harder for >non-investors to own their own home, and immigration feeding a
shortage of houses. Despite the previous government making the biggest >increase in housing since the 1930's, we are still short, and rents
are historically high - and at the same time small companies find it
harder than they should to attract equity capital. So yes the "other
way" you speak of is to tax these investment properties on the same
basis as other investments - if a capital gain is realised, it should
be taxable. If it is good enough for capital gains realised on
investments backing Kiwisaver to be taxed, why not investments by
landlords?
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 17:01:15 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 15:04:59 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:It was related to 13 different treatments that Pharmac does not
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 17:39:14 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 08:59:53 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:38:04 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:Hooten points out that not only is Willis spending more in the 2024/25 >>>>year than Robertson/Willis combined did for 2023/24, she has had to
On Fri, 31 May 2024 17:53:44 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>wrote:You are correct Rich - it is not easy having to reverse so many >>>>>financial failures unleashed on us by the previous Government. The >>>>>3-waters establishment costs alone (over $1 billion, cites all behind >>>>>the Herald paywall) would have come real handy with expanding Pharmac >>>>>funding.
On 31 May 2024 03:27:58 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:With Government Debt still substantially increasing and with deficit >>>>>>>spending for the next few years, stability is some way off and the >>>>>>>triaging to date is enough to avoid death but not enough to bring >>>>>>>stability.
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinion >>>>>>>>> is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matterWhen the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise the
most.
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing >>>>>>>>> rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of
taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it >>>>>>>>> does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By
my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not
happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in
headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under >>>>>>>>> Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction >>>>>>>>> to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of >>>>>>>>> that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year >>>>>>>>> - to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has >>>>>>>>> been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring
stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending >>>>>>>>> that produced intangible results of the previous Government. >>>>>>>>>
patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before >>>>>>>>starting the recovery procedure.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or the >>>>>>>>Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This >>>>>>>>country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially.
National also lacks a bit of fiscal courage. Probably because if they >>>>>>>take a more austere approach (such as leaving tax bracket adjustment >>>>>>>to a future budget and paying down debt) the results may not be >>>>>>>apparent until after the next election.
I suspect the Government regret the cost of the handouts to landlords >>>>>>- not meeting the promise on cancer drugs will already be hurting. >>>>>>Matthew Hooten's comments in a Herald column are behind a paywall, but >>>>>>a copy is here: >>>>>>https://x.com/rugbyintel/status/1796243615204913552/photo/1
We are still experiencing Covid problems, and are likely to have >>>>>>further storm / flooding damage, and water problems will come back >>>>>>again when increasing rates by 10% to 15% is found to be not enough. >>>>>>Not an easy time to be learning about being a Finance Minister . . . >>>>>
cut back on tax cuts that were planned. For most people, the small >>>>reduction in income tax will be well offset by increases in rates (and >>>>does anyone know of anyone that is saying those costs will not flow >>>>through to rents for rental properties?)
In terms of National party promises, what people seem to loose sight >>>>>of is that this is not a National Government and therefore it is the >>>>>coalition agreements, not the party promises, that are in play. The >>>>>coalition agreements all contain aspects of what each party promised >>>>>but not all of them. The promise to fund additional cancer drugs is >>>>>not in either coalition agreement, so was one of National's >>>>>commitments that Act and NZF would not agree to. The tragic reality >>>>>is that those hoping that more cancer drugs would be funded had their >>>>>hopes dashed by the coalition agreements, not the budget.
Thanks Crash, yes while I haven;t looked I think you are right that >>>>this was not in the Coalition agreements. This was however a major >>>>promise, and from memory it was a strong commitment made late in the >>>>election campaign, and discussed quite often subsequently.
It seems I should have checked, it is in the National / NZ First >>>Agreement, but not in the ACT / National agreement:
"11. The Parties will also progress the following additional policies >>>which are a priority for the National Party:
F. Cut health waiting times by training more doctors, nurses, and >>>midwives, and giving Kiwis access to 13 more cancer treatments."
I acknowledge that many would interpret 'access to 13 more cancer >>treatments' as providing additional funding for cancer drugs not
currently funded. However I took this to mean that this commitment
was a reference to Cancer treatments (not drugs) in the context of
reducing waiting times for cancer treatments.
currently cover - and yes that will be represented largely by drugs to >provide treatments not currently available - from memory one patient
was quoted $160,000 a year if they wished to pay for it themselves.
Pharmac has good processes for keeping prices low, and part of that
depends on being able to negotiate with different suppliers in such a
way that overall cost is minimised. It is not helpful to Pharmac to be
put in a position where their ability to negotiate is driven by public >clamouring and political promises - if the drug companies think the >government is desperate they will charge more!
There are a wide range of treatments being developed - the work being
done by the Malaghan Institute is only one but it is one we know a
little about.
I suspect
both Luxon and Willis thought that they would be able to deliver on >>>>that promise until late in the Budget process, and it seems they
forgot to go into damage control when they found that it would have >>>>made their borrowing for tax cuts even more obvious. Certainly the >>>>reaction to it not being included suggested that was news to many >>>>families and medical people affected. Put together with the Waikato >>>>University Medical School having to go back for a detailed business >>>>case before it is approved, National are not doing too well in getting >>>>projects past Seymour. They are all a happy family though - I >>>>understand two of Luxons staffers have previously worked for the NZ >>>>Taxpayer Union, and Willis was on the Board of the NZ Initiative . . .
At some point. the coalition parties will have to agree on some >>>>projects that are needed that were not anticipated in for example the >>>>budget - I suspect we are not well prepared for another round of
storms / floods / earthquakes. They are not in the coalition agreement >>>>but New Zealanders will expect some help in the event of a natural >>>>disaster that makes some existing houses not able to be replaced . . .
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 20:26:58 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>I have not outlined anything that is not essentially similar to
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 22:09:08 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:You continue to advance this viewpoint, long debunked in its removal
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 17:39:14 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:Labour had talked through structures with international lenders, and >>proposed larger entities than local government, both to share
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 08:59:53 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>wrote:Correct Rich - but if Labour had been re-elected that effect on rates
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:38:04 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:Hooten points out that not only is Willis spending more in the 2024/25 >>>>year than Robertson/Willis combined did for 2023/24, she has had to
On Fri, 31 May 2024 17:53:44 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>wrote:You are correct Rich - it is not easy having to reverse so many >>>>>financial failures unleashed on us by the previous Government. The >>>>>3-waters establishment costs alone (over $1 billion, cites all behind >>>>>the Herald paywall) would have come real handy with expanding Pharmac >>>>>funding.
On 31 May 2024 03:27:58 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:With Government Debt still substantially increasing and with deficit >>>>>>>spending for the next few years, stability is some way off and the >>>>>>>triaging to date is enough to avoid death but not enough to bring >>>>>>>stability.
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinion >>>>>>>>> is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matterWhen the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise the
most.
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing >>>>>>>>> rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of
taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it >>>>>>>>> does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By
my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not
happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in
headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under >>>>>>>>> Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction >>>>>>>>> to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of >>>>>>>>> that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year >>>>>>>>> - to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has >>>>>>>>> been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring
stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending >>>>>>>>> that produced intangible results of the previous Government. >>>>>>>>>
patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before >>>>>>>>starting the recovery procedure.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or the >>>>>>>>Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This >>>>>>>>country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially.
National also lacks a bit of fiscal courage. Probably because if they >>>>>>>take a more austere approach (such as leaving tax bracket adjustment >>>>>>>to a future budget and paying down debt) the results may not be >>>>>>>apparent until after the next election.
I suspect the Government regret the cost of the handouts to landlords >>>>>>- not meeting the promise on cancer drugs will already be hurting. >>>>>>Matthew Hooten's comments in a Herald column are behind a paywall, but >>>>>>a copy is here: >>>>>>https://x.com/rugbyintel/status/1796243615204913552/photo/1
We are still experiencing Covid problems, and are likely to have >>>>>>further storm / flooding damage, and water problems will come back >>>>>>again when increasing rates by 10% to 15% is found to be not enough. >>>>>>Not an easy time to be learning about being a Finance Minister . . . >>>>>
cut back on tax cuts that were planned. For most people, the small >>>>reduction in income tax will be well offset by increases in rates (and >>>>does anyone know of anyone that is saying those costs will not flow >>>>through to rents for rental properties?)
is unknown and the effect on 3-waters would not have been an issue for >>>elected local body politicians to deal with.
expertise and to make them able to borrow at close to government rates
- they may have been prepared to guarantee repayments. As it is many
local councils are unable to undertake any work - and Queenstown
continues to have water quality problems . . .
I suspect ActNat1st will find they have to move towards a similar
structure - we just do not have enough expertise to cover a lot of >>different entities, and small councils have no-one to even start . .
.
of democratic fairness and total lack of local accountability.
You are too wedded to your political rhetoric to admit that theLowering costs by enabling borrowing to be cheaper than can be raised
current Government may have found a better and more locally equitable
way to deal with this.
In terms of National party promises, what people seem to loose sight >>>>>of is that this is not a National Government and therefore it is the >>>>>coalition agreements, not the party promises, that are in play. The >>>>>coalition agreements all contain aspects of what each party promised >>>>>but not all of them. The promise to fund additional cancer drugs is >>>>>not in either coalition agreement, so was one of National's >>>>>commitments that Act and NZF would not agree to. The tragic reality >>>>>is that those hoping that more cancer drugs would be funded had their >>>>>hopes dashed by the coalition agreements, not the budget.
Thanks Crash, yes while I haven;t looked I think you are right that >>>>this was not in the Coalition agreements. This was however a major >>>>promise, and from memory it was a strong commitment made late in the >>>>election campaign, and discussed quite often subsequently. I suspect >>>>both Luxon and Willis thought that they would be able to deliver on >>>>that promise until late in the Budget process, and it seems they
forgot to go into damage control when they found that it would have >>>>made their borrowing for tax cuts even more obvious. Certainly the >>>>reaction to it not being included suggested that was news to many >>>>families and medical people affected.
Pure conjecture on your part, no doubt motivated by your political
bias. Commitments that are not in the coalition agreements are not >>>commitments at all
Put together with the Waikato
University Medical School having to go back for a detailed business >>>>case before it is approved, National are not doing too well in getting >>>>projects past Seymour. They are all a happy family though - I >>>>understand two of Luxons staffers have previously worked for the NZ >>>>Taxpayer Union, and Willis was on the Board of the NZ Initiative . . .
At some point. the coalition parties will have to agree on some >>>>projects that are needed that were not anticipated in for example the >>>>budget - I suspect we are not well prepared for another round of
storms / floods / earthquakes. They are not in the coalition agreement >>>>but New Zealanders will expect some help in the event of a natural >>>>disaster that makes some existing houses not able to be replaced . . .
More political rhetoric from you Rich. You cannot cite anything that
the Government has done that is not in the coalition agreements.
Contrast this with Labour as an outright majority in the previous >>>Parliamentary term legislating for things never mentioned in their
2020 manifesto. There are many Labour MPs in that government that
remain in Parliament so hidden agendas are still a risk based on their >>>past record.
as I understand it the only difference would be that Labour would have
put some suitable Maori appointees on the Board, whereas National may not.
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:16:49 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>Or indeed for Maori?
wrote:
as I understand it the only difference would be that Labour would have
put some suitable Maori appointees on the Board, whereas National may not.
Why must they be Maori?
What is the advantage in that for the ratepayers?
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 20:15:58 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 17:01:15 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 15:04:59 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:It was related to 13 different treatments that Pharmac does not
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 17:39:14 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 08:59:53 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:38:04 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>wrote:Hooten points out that not only is Willis spending more in the 2024/25 >>>>>year than Robertson/Willis combined did for 2023/24, she has had to >>>>>cut back on tax cuts that were planned. For most people, the small >>>>>reduction in income tax will be well offset by increases in rates (and >>>>>does anyone know of anyone that is saying those costs will not flow >>>>>through to rents for rental properties?)
On Fri, 31 May 2024 17:53:44 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>>wrote:You are correct Rich - it is not easy having to reverse so many >>>>>>financial failures unleashed on us by the previous Government. The >>>>>>3-waters establishment costs alone (over $1 billion, cites all behind >>>>>>the Herald paywall) would have come real handy with expanding Pharmac >>>>>>funding.
On 31 May 2024 03:27:58 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:With Government Debt still substantially increasing and with deficit >>>>>>>>spending for the next few years, stability is some way off and the >>>>>>>>triaging to date is enough to avoid death but not enough to bring >>>>>>>>stability.
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinion >>>>>>>>>> is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matterWhen the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise the
most.
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing
rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of >>>>>>>>>> taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it >>>>>>>>>> does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By
my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not
happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in
headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under >>>>>>>>>> Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction
to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of >>>>>>>>>> that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year
- to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has
been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring
stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending >>>>>>>>>> that produced intangible results of the previous Government. >>>>>>>>>>
patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before >>>>>>>>>starting the recovery procedure.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or theNational also lacks a bit of fiscal courage. Probably because if they >>>>>>>>take a more austere approach (such as leaving tax bracket adjustment >>>>>>>>to a future budget and paying down debt) the results may not be >>>>>>>>apparent until after the next election.
Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This >>>>>>>>>country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially. >>>>>>>>
I suspect the Government regret the cost of the handouts to landlords >>>>>>>- not meeting the promise on cancer drugs will already be hurting. >>>>>>>Matthew Hooten's comments in a Herald column are behind a paywall, but >>>>>>>a copy is here: >>>>>>>https://x.com/rugbyintel/status/1796243615204913552/photo/1
We are still experiencing Covid problems, and are likely to have >>>>>>>further storm / flooding damage, and water problems will come back >>>>>>>again when increasing rates by 10% to 15% is found to be not enough. >>>>>>>Not an easy time to be learning about being a Finance Minister . . . >>>>>>
In terms of National party promises, what people seem to loose sight >>>>>>of is that this is not a National Government and therefore it is the >>>>>>coalition agreements, not the party promises, that are in play. The >>>>>>coalition agreements all contain aspects of what each party promised >>>>>>but not all of them. The promise to fund additional cancer drugs is >>>>>>not in either coalition agreement, so was one of National's >>>>>>commitments that Act and NZF would not agree to. The tragic reality >>>>>>is that those hoping that more cancer drugs would be funded had their >>>>>>hopes dashed by the coalition agreements, not the budget.
Thanks Crash, yes while I haven;t looked I think you are right that >>>>>this was not in the Coalition agreements. This was however a major >>>>>promise, and from memory it was a strong commitment made late in the >>>>>election campaign, and discussed quite often subsequently.
It seems I should have checked, it is in the National / NZ First >>>>Agreement, but not in the ACT / National agreement:
"11. The Parties will also progress the following additional policies >>>>which are a priority for the National Party:
F. Cut health waiting times by training more doctors, nurses, and >>>>midwives, and giving Kiwis access to 13 more cancer treatments."
I acknowledge that many would interpret 'access to 13 more cancer >>>treatments' as providing additional funding for cancer drugs not >>>currently funded. However I took this to mean that this commitment
was a reference to Cancer treatments (not drugs) in the context of >>>reducing waiting times for cancer treatments.
currently cover - and yes that will be represented largely by drugs to >>provide treatments not currently available - from memory one patient
was quoted $160,000 a year if they wished to pay for it themselves.
Pharmac has good processes for keeping prices low, and part of that
depends on being able to negotiate with different suppliers in such a
way that overall cost is minimised. It is not helpful to Pharmac to be
put in a position where their ability to negotiate is driven by public >>clamouring and political promises - if the drug companies think the >>government is desperate they will charge more!
There are a wide range of treatments being developed - the work being
done by the Malaghan Institute is only one but it is one we know a
little about.
Since writing the above I found this link which sets out the actual >treatments they promised to fund:
https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/08/21/national-pledges-280m-for-13-cancer-treatments/
I suspect
both Luxon and Willis thought that they would be able to deliver on >>>>>that promise until late in the Budget process, and it seems they >>>>>forgot to go into damage control when they found that it would have >>>>>made their borrowing for tax cuts even more obvious. Certainly the >>>>>reaction to it not being included suggested that was news to many >>>>>families and medical people affected. Put together with the Waikato >>>>>University Medical School having to go back for a detailed business >>>>>case before it is approved, National are not doing too well in getting >>>>>projects past Seymour. They are all a happy family though - I >>>>>understand two of Luxons staffers have previously worked for the NZ >>>>>Taxpayer Union, and Willis was on the Board of the NZ Initiative . . . >>>>>
At some point. the coalition parties will have to agree on some >>>>>projects that are needed that were not anticipated in for example the >>>>>budget - I suspect we are not well prepared for another round of >>>>>storms / floods / earthquakes. They are not in the coalition agreement >>>>>but New Zealanders will expect some help in the event of a natural >>>>>disaster that makes some existing houses not able to be replaced . . .
On 2 Jun 2024 01:56:09 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:Your problem is that when somebody else uses sarcasm it flies right past your little brain without leaving a mark.
On 2024-06-01, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Of course it will not be - you may want to criticise the government
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 08:59:53 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:38:04 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:Hooten points out that not only is Willis spending more in the 2024/25
On Fri, 31 May 2024 17:53:44 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>wrote:
On 31 May 2024 03:27:58 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:With Government Debt still substantially increasing and with deficit >>>>>>spending for the next few years, stability is some way off and the >>>>>>triaging to date is enough to avoid death but not enough to bring >>>>>>stability.
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinion >>>>>>>> is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matter >>>>>>>> most.When the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise >>>>>>>the
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing >>>>>>>> rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of
taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it >>>>>>>> does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By >>>>>>>> my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not >>>>>>>> happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in >>>>>>>> headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under >>>>>>>> Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction >>>>>>>> to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of >>>>>>>> that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year >>>>>>>> - to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has >>>>>>>> been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring >>>>>>>> stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending >>>>>>>> that produced intangible results of the previous Government.
patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before >>>>>>>starting the recovery procedure.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or the >>>>>>>Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This >>>>>>>country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially.
National also lacks a bit of fiscal courage. Probably because if they >>>>>>take a more austere approach (such as leaving tax bracket adjustment >>>>>>to a future budget and paying down debt) the results may not be >>>>>>apparent until after the next election.
I suspect the Government regret the cost of the handouts to landlords >>>>>- not meeting the promise on cancer drugs will already be hurting. >>>>>Matthew Hooten's comments in a Herald column are behind a paywall, but >>>>>a copy is here: >>>>>https://x.com/rugbyintel/status/1796243615204913552/photo/1
We are still experiencing Covid problems, and are likely to have >>>>>further storm / flooding damage, and water problems will come back >>>>>again when increasing rates by 10% to 15% is found to be not enough. >>>>>Not an easy time to be learning about being a Finance Minister . . .
You are correct Rich - it is not easy having to reverse so many >>>>financial failures unleashed on us by the previous Government. The >>>>3-waters establishment costs alone (over $1 billion, cites all behind >>>>the Herald paywall) would have come real handy with expanding Pharmac >>>>funding.
year than Robertson/Willis combined did for 2023/24, she has had to
cut back on tax cuts that were planned. For most people, the small
reduction in income tax will be well offset by increases in rates (and
does anyone know of anyone that is saying those costs will not flow
through to rents for rental properties?)
In terms of National party promises, what people seem to loose sight
of is that this is not a National Government and therefore it is the >>>>coalition agreements, not the party promises, that are in play. The >>>>coalition agreements all contain aspects of what each party promised >>>>but not all of them. The promise to fund additional cancer drugs is >>>>not in either coalition agreement, so was one of National's
commitments that Act and NZF would not agree to. The tragic reality
is that those hoping that more cancer drugs would be funded had their >>>>hopes dashed by the coalition agreements, not the budget.
Thanks Crash, yes while I haven;t looked I think you are right that
this was not in the Coalition agreements. This was however a major
promise, and from memory it was a strong commitment made late in the
election campaign, and discussed quite often subsequently. I suspect
both Luxon and Willis thought that they would be able to deliver on
that promise until late in the Budget process, and it seems they
forgot to go into damage control when they found that it would have
made their borrowing for tax cuts even more obvious. Certainly the
reaction to it not being included suggested that was news to many
families and medical people affected. Put together with the Waikato
University Medical School having to go back for a detailed business
case before it is approved, National are not doing too well in getting
projects past Seymour. They are all a happy family though - I
understand two of Luxons staffers have previously worked for the NZ
Taxpayer Union, and Willis was on the Board of the NZ Initiative . . .
At some point. the coalition parties will have to agree on some
projects that are needed that were not anticipated in for example the
budget - I suspect we are not well prepared for another round of
storms / floods / earthquakes. They are not in the coalition agreement
but New Zealanders will expect some help in the event of a natural
disaster that makes some existing houses not able to be replaced . . .
And that no doubt will be the National's fault.
for a lot of things, but they are not making storms and flooding
events . . .
Prudent planning is however appropriate. There was a good review of
Disaters happen, some natural, and it is the expectation that the rest the >>country will help out via the Govenment giving assistance. We need to keep >>on making this country better without being consumed by the thought of the >>next disaster.
emergency services; part of expectations is that some of those will be
fixed (phone service being one that may remain difficult in some
areas), but that the government will also have worked through policy >responses regarding assistance across a range of circumstances. I
expect that some of that work has already been done. I agree that we
do not need to be consumed by thoughts of disasters, but we do need to >understand that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent.
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:16:49 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>I see it as recognition and fulfillment of obligations under Ti Tiriti
wrote:
as I understand it the only difference would be that Labour would have
put some suitable Maori appointees on the Board, whereas National may not.
Why must they be Maori?
What is the advantage in that for the ratepayers?
Bill.
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:54:40 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 20:15:58 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:Thanks for the detail on that. You seem to think that as National
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 17:01:15 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 15:04:59 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:It was related to 13 different treatments that Pharmac does not
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 17:39:14 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 08:59:53 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:38:04 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>wrote:Hooten points out that not only is Willis spending more in the 2024/25 >>>>>>year than Robertson/Willis combined did for 2023/24, she has had to >>>>>>cut back on tax cuts that were planned. For most people, the small >>>>>>reduction in income tax will be well offset by increases in rates (and >>>>>>does anyone know of anyone that is saying those costs will not flow >>>>>>through to rents for rental properties?)
On Fri, 31 May 2024 17:53:44 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>>>wrote:You are correct Rich - it is not easy having to reverse so many >>>>>>>financial failures unleashed on us by the previous Government. The >>>>>>>3-waters establishment costs alone (over $1 billion, cites all behind >>>>>>>the Herald paywall) would have come real handy with expanding Pharmac >>>>>>>funding.
On 31 May 2024 03:27:58 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:With Government Debt still substantially increasing and with deficit >>>>>>>>>spending for the next few years, stability is some way off and the >>>>>>>>>triaging to date is enough to avoid death but not enough to bring >>>>>>>>>stability.
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinionWhen the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise the
is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matter
most.
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing
rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of >>>>>>>>>>> taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it
does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By
my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not
happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in
headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under
Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction
to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of >>>>>>>>>>> that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year
- to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has
been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring
stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending >>>>>>>>>>> that produced intangible results of the previous Government. >>>>>>>>>>>
patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before >>>>>>>>>>starting the recovery procedure.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or theNational also lacks a bit of fiscal courage. Probably because if they >>>>>>>>>take a more austere approach (such as leaving tax bracket adjustment >>>>>>>>>to a future budget and paying down debt) the results may not be >>>>>>>>>apparent until after the next election.
Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This >>>>>>>>>>country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially. >>>>>>>>>
I suspect the Government regret the cost of the handouts to landlords >>>>>>>>- not meeting the promise on cancer drugs will already be hurting. >>>>>>>>Matthew Hooten's comments in a Herald column are behind a paywall, but >>>>>>>>a copy is here: >>>>>>>>https://x.com/rugbyintel/status/1796243615204913552/photo/1
We are still experiencing Covid problems, and are likely to have >>>>>>>>further storm / flooding damage, and water problems will come back >>>>>>>>again when increasing rates by 10% to 15% is found to be not enough. >>>>>>>>Not an easy time to be learning about being a Finance Minister . . . >>>>>>>
In terms of National party promises, what people seem to loose sight >>>>>>>of is that this is not a National Government and therefore it is the >>>>>>>coalition agreements, not the party promises, that are in play. The >>>>>>>coalition agreements all contain aspects of what each party promised >>>>>>>but not all of them. The promise to fund additional cancer drugs is >>>>>>>not in either coalition agreement, so was one of National's >>>>>>>commitments that Act and NZF would not agree to. The tragic reality >>>>>>>is that those hoping that more cancer drugs would be funded had their >>>>>>>hopes dashed by the coalition agreements, not the budget.
Thanks Crash, yes while I haven;t looked I think you are right that >>>>>>this was not in the Coalition agreements. This was however a major >>>>>>promise, and from memory it was a strong commitment made late in the >>>>>>election campaign, and discussed quite often subsequently.
It seems I should have checked, it is in the National / NZ First >>>>>Agreement, but not in the ACT / National agreement:
"11. The Parties will also progress the following additional policies >>>>>which are a priority for the National Party:
F. Cut health waiting times by training more doctors, nurses, and >>>>>midwives, and giving Kiwis access to 13 more cancer treatments."
I acknowledge that many would interpret 'access to 13 more cancer >>>>treatments' as providing additional funding for cancer drugs not >>>>currently funded. However I took this to mean that this commitment
was a reference to Cancer treatments (not drugs) in the context of >>>>reducing waiting times for cancer treatments.
currently cover - and yes that will be represented largely by drugs to >>>provide treatments not currently available - from memory one patient
was quoted $160,000 a year if they wished to pay for it themselves. >>>Pharmac has good processes for keeping prices low, and part of that >>>depends on being able to negotiate with different suppliers in such a
way that overall cost is minimised. It is not helpful to Pharmac to be >>>put in a position where their ability to negotiate is driven by public >>>clamouring and political promises - if the drug companies think the >>>government is desperate they will charge more!
There are a wide range of treatments being developed - the work being >>>done by the Malaghan Institute is only one but it is one we know a
little about.
Since writing the above I found this link which sets out the actual >>treatments they promised to fund:
https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/08/21/national-pledges-280m-for-13-cancer-treatments/
made this promise prior to the election it is bound by it when it is
not. There was a reference you found in the coalition agreement
between National and NZF but there is no detail there.
All parties in the current Government had policies that were notThanks, and yes I agree, but the politics of this are now being
adopted when the coalition was formed. In this case there was never a >commitment of anyone to deliver in this budget - the Government has
until 2026 to deliver on their coalition agreement commitments.
I suspect
both Luxon and Willis thought that they would be able to deliver on >>>>>>that promise until late in the Budget process, and it seems they >>>>>>forgot to go into damage control when they found that it would have >>>>>>made their borrowing for tax cuts even more obvious. Certainly the >>>>>>reaction to it not being included suggested that was news to many >>>>>>families and medical people affected. Put together with the Waikato >>>>>>University Medical School having to go back for a detailed business >>>>>>case before it is approved, National are not doing too well in getting >>>>>>projects past Seymour. They are all a happy family though - I >>>>>>understand two of Luxons staffers have previously worked for the NZ >>>>>>Taxpayer Union, and Willis was on the Board of the NZ Initiative . . . >>>>>>
At some point. the coalition parties will have to agree on some >>>>>>projects that are needed that were not anticipated in for example the >>>>>>budget - I suspect we are not well prepared for another round of >>>>>>storms / floods / earthquakes. They are not in the coalition agreement >>>>>>but New Zealanders will expect some help in the event of a natural >>>>>>disaster that makes some existing houses not able to be replaced . . .
On Mon, 03 Jun 2024 05:09:20 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:There is no such obligation. Provide evidence.
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:16:49 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:I see it as recognition and fulfillment of obligations under Ti Tiriti
as I understand it the only difference would be that Labour would have >>>put some suitable Maori appointees on the Board, whereas National may not. >>Why must they be Maori?
What is the advantage in that for the ratepayers?
Bill.
o Waitangi;
there is no money involved except potentially saving a lotIrrelevant.
of money which could be required dealing with Court cases - remember
the problems some years ago under "Foreshore and Seabed" proposals?
Water is a commodity that is essential to all New Zealanders, and it
is desirable that all New Zealanders have an assured supply of clean
water and efficient treatment of wastes - ensuring that different >perspectives are heard at a governance level fits well with New
Zealand wide "ownership" - such shared governance only arrangements
have worked well for some rivers and hydro-power management in some
parts of New Zealand. The advantage for ratepayers is that they can
be assured that they are well represented, and that clean and reliable
supply of water is being given appropriate priority and that the views
of major groups in our communities are represented.
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 21:14:13 -0000 (UTC), TonyExcept that was not what Labour planned. 3 waters had no place for such accountability.
<[email protected]> wrote:
BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:16:49 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:Or indeed for Maori?
as I understand it the only difference would be that Labour would have >>>>put some suitable Maori appointees on the Board, whereas National may not. >>>Why must they be Maori?
What is the advantage in that for the ratepayers?
Having said that, the Labour plan was to appoint boards that were not >>accountable to the public.
Of course any water organisation would be responsible to the public -
for the safe and reliable supply of water at the lowest price -Nonsense.
meeting standards set by government. Now we are seeing our new
government talking about reducing some of the water quality standards
to "assist" Queenstown with problems they are having.
BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:16:49 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:Or indeed for Maori?
as I understand it the only difference would be that Labour would have >>>put some suitable Maori appointees on the Board, whereas National may not. >>Why must they be Maori?
What is the advantage in that for the ratepayers?
Having said that, the Labour plan was to appoint boards that were not >accountable to the public.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:That will be up to those taking a case to the Courts.
On Mon, 03 Jun 2024 05:09:20 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:There is no such obligation. Provide evidence.
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:16:49 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:I see it as recognition and fulfillment of obligations under Ti Tiriti
as I understand it the only difference would be that Labour would have >>>>put some suitable Maori appointees on the Board, whereas National may not. >>>Why must they be Maori?
What is the advantage in that for the ratepayers?
Bill.
o Waitangi;
there is no money involved except potentially saving a lotIrrelevant.
of money which could be required dealing with Court cases - remember
the problems some years ago under "Foreshore and Seabed" proposals?
Water is a commodity that is essential to all New Zealanders, and it
is desirable that all New Zealanders have an assured supply of clean
water and efficient treatment of wastes - ensuring that different >>perspectives are heard at a governance level fits well with New
Zealand wide "ownership" - such shared governance only arrangements
have worked well for some rivers and hydro-power management in some
parts of New Zealand. The advantage for ratepayers is that they can
be assured that they are well represented, and that clean and reliable >>supply of water is being given appropriate priority and that the views
of major groups in our communities are represented.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:What rubbish. You have provided no evidence of that. Contrast the
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 21:14:13 -0000 (UTC), TonyExcept that was not what Labour planned. 3 waters had no place for such >accountability.
<[email protected]> wrote:
BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:16:49 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:Or indeed for Maori?
as I understand it the only difference would be that Labour would have >>>>>put some suitable Maori appointees on the Board, whereas National may not. >>>>Why must they be Maori?
What is the advantage in that for the ratepayers?
Having said that, the Labour plan was to appoint boards that were not >>>accountable to the public.
Of course any water organisation would be responsible to the public -
Certainly a decision has not been made, but it is being discussed as a realistic way of avoiding the problem Queenstown had last year as itfor the safe and reliable supply of water at the lowest price -Nonsense.
meeting standards set by government. Now we are seeing our new
government talking about reducing some of the water quality standards
to "assist" Queenstown with problems they are having.
On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 01:12:43 -0000 (UTC), TonySo there is no evidence of your silly comment then? ie no obligation.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:That will be up to those taking a case to the Courts.
On Mon, 03 Jun 2024 05:09:20 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:There is no such obligation. Provide evidence.
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:16:49 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:I see it as recognition and fulfillment of obligations under Ti Tiriti
as I understand it the only difference would be that Labour would have >>>>>put some suitable Maori appointees on the Board, whereas National may not. >>>>Why must they be Maori?
What is the advantage in that for the ratepayers?
Bill.
o Waitangi;
Wrong - totally irrelevant. The water initiatives are being put in place and you have zero knowledge of how well they will work. The one fact that you will happily acknowledge is that at least they will be managed by ratepayers and not central government through racially selected boards.there is no money involved except potentially saving a lotIrrelevant.
of money which could be required dealing with Court cases - remember
the problems some years ago under "Foreshore and Seabed" proposals?
Water is a commodity that is essential to all New Zealanders, and it
is desirable that all New Zealanders have an assured supply of clean >>>water and efficient treatment of wastes - ensuring that different >>>perspectives are heard at a governance level fits well with New
Zealand wide "ownership" - such shared governance only arrangements
have worked well for some rivers and hydro-power management in some
parts of New Zealand. The advantage for ratepayers is that they can
be assured that they are well represented, and that clean and reliable >>>supply of water is being given appropriate priority and that the views
of major groups in our communities are represented.
Not to water users - we don't want another disaster like the
electricity system that delivers all the risk to purchasers and none
to shareholders who get large dividends. Already damage is being down
to equity of health outcomes as increasingly the wealthy get
operations earlier than those that cannot afford to pay to avoid
waiting lists at public hospitals.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 01:12:43 -0000 (UTC), TonySo there is no evidence of your silly comment then? ie no obligation.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:That will be up to those taking a case to the Courts.
On Mon, 03 Jun 2024 05:09:20 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:There is no such obligation. Provide evidence.
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:16:49 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:I see it as recognition and fulfillment of obligations under Ti Tiriti >>>>o Waitangi;
as I understand it the only difference would be that Labour would have >>>>>>put some suitable Maori appointees on the Board, whereas National may not.
Why must they be Maori?
What is the advantage in that for the ratepayers?
Bill.
Wrong - totally irrelevant. The water initiatives are being put in place and >you have zero knowledge of how well they will work. The one fact that you will >happily acknowledge is that at least they will be managed by ratepayers and not
there is no money involved except potentially saving a lotIrrelevant.
of money which could be required dealing with Court cases - remember >>>>the problems some years ago under "Foreshore and Seabed" proposals? >>>>Water is a commodity that is essential to all New Zealanders, and it
is desirable that all New Zealanders have an assured supply of clean >>>>water and efficient treatment of wastes - ensuring that different >>>>perspectives are heard at a governance level fits well with New
Zealand wide "ownership" - such shared governance only arrangements >>>>have worked well for some rivers and hydro-power management in some >>>>parts of New Zealand. The advantage for ratepayers is that they can
be assured that they are well represented, and that clean and reliable >>>>supply of water is being given appropriate priority and that the views >>>>of major groups in our communities are represented.
Not to water users - we don't want another disaster like the
electricity system that delivers all the risk to purchasers and none
to shareholders who get large dividends. Already damage is being down
to equity of health outcomes as increasingly the wealthy get
operations earlier than those that cannot afford to pay to avoid
waiting lists at public hospitals.
central government through racially selected boards.
Good eh?
On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 01:14:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou lying prick - Labour wanted 3 waters, a race based system without community say. You know that is true. You are lying numbskull.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:What rubbish. You have provided no evidence of that. Contrast the
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 21:14:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:16:49 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:Or indeed for Maori?
as I understand it the only difference would be that Labour would have >>>>>>put some suitable Maori appointees on the Board, whereas National may >>>>>>not.
Why must they be Maori?
What is the advantage in that for the ratepayers?
Having said that, the Labour plan was to appoint boards that were not >>>>accountable to the public.
Of course any water organisation would be responsible to the public - >>Except that was not what Labour planned. 3 waters had no place for such >>accountability.
publicly owned water structures that Labour was planning with the
privatised companies that National set up in the electricity market -
they are responsible to their shareholders, who have paid out as
dividends more than operating profit, and resulted in high charges for >electricity users. The main difference was that the Labour structure
would have been able to borrow at lower interest rates.
So you are guessing again - or perhaps lying is more accurate. Sheesh do you ever tell the truth?Certainly a decision has not been made, but it is being discussed as a >realistic way of avoiding the problem Queenstown had last year as it >continues to grow.for the safe and reliable supply of water at the lowest price -Nonsense.
meeting standards set by government. Now we are seeing our new
government talking about reducing some of the water quality standards
to "assist" Queenstown with problems they are having.
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 21:14:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:16:49 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:Or indeed for Maori?
as I understand it the only difference would be that Labour would have >>>>put some suitable Maori appointees on the Board, whereas National may not. >>>Why must they be Maori?
What is the advantage in that for the ratepayers?
Having said that, the Labour plan was to appoint boards that were not >>accountable to the public.
Of course any water organisation would be responsible to the public -
On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 07:18:27 -0000 (UTC), TonyNO, the last government was racist to the core and so are you.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 01:12:43 -0000 (UTC), TonySo there is no evidence of your silly comment then? ie no obligation.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:That will be up to those taking a case to the Courts.
On Mon, 03 Jun 2024 05:09:20 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:There is no such obligation. Provide evidence.
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:16:49 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>wrote:I see it as recognition and fulfillment of obligations under Ti Tiriti >>>>>o Waitangi;
as I understand it the only difference would be that Labour would have >>>>>>>put some suitable Maori appointees on the Board, whereas National may >>>>>>>not.
Why must they be Maori?
What is the advantage in that for the ratepayers?
Bill.
Wrong - totally irrelevant. The water initiatives are being put in place and >>you have zero knowledge of how well they will work. The one fact that you >>will
there is no money involved except potentially saving a lotIrrelevant.
of money which could be required dealing with Court cases - remember >>>>>the problems some years ago under "Foreshore and Seabed" proposals? >>>>>Water is a commodity that is essential to all New Zealanders, and it >>>>>is desirable that all New Zealanders have an assured supply of clean >>>>>water and efficient treatment of wastes - ensuring that different >>>>>perspectives are heard at a governance level fits well with New >>>>>Zealand wide "ownership" - such shared governance only arrangements >>>>>have worked well for some rivers and hydro-power management in some >>>>>parts of New Zealand. The advantage for ratepayers is that they can >>>>>be assured that they are well represented, and that clean and reliable >>>>>supply of water is being given appropriate priority and that the views >>>>>of major groups in our communities are represented.
Not to water users - we don't want another disaster like the
electricity system that delivers all the risk to purchasers and none
to shareholders who get large dividends. Already damage is being down
to equity of health outcomes as increasingly the wealthy get
operations earlier than those that cannot afford to pay to avoid
waiting lists at public hospitals.
happily acknowledge is that at least they will be managed by ratepayers and >>not
central government through racially selected boards.
Good eh?
It must be hard for you misunderstanding so much. That does however
qualify you to support ACT1stNat - in whatever order you want! They
must all be grateful for your rabid support . . .
On Tue, 04 Jun 2024 04:52:17 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:Cite?
On Mon, 03 Jun 2024 12:08:32 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 21:14:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:16:49 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:Or indeed for Maori?
as I understand it the only difference would be that Labour would have >>>>>>put some suitable Maori appointees on the Board, whereas National may >>>>>>not.
Why must they be Maori?
What is the advantage in that for the ratepayers?
Having said that, the Labour plan was to appoint boards that were not >>>>accountable to the public.
Of course any water organisation would be responsible to the public -
What has appointing people of one particular race got to do with any
of that?
Bill.
Chris Finlayson is probably the person to ask - it has helped create a
number of very stable entities that have managed projects to the
satisfaction of everyone.
It also supports one of the common viewsThere is no relevant contract.
from National politicians over the ages that they are a party that
respects the sanctity of contract
- although some have said that theIrrelevant.
modern party now believes in putting assets in the hands of private >shareholders because the profit motive will result in better results -
as we have seen with the electricity generation companies. all that
has happened is that they collectively limit development so they can
operate close to capacity to keep prices high, and distribute more
than profit to shareholders as dividends. Court costs are an expensive
way of designing management of public entities - far better to have >respectful discussions with interested parties and balancing all the >different needs of our community - sadly ACT in particular want to go
through the Crash through or Crash process - they may well crash at
the next election.
On Mon, 03 Jun 2024 12:08:32 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 21:14:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:16:49 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:Or indeed for Maori?
as I understand it the only difference would be that Labour would have >>>>>put some suitable Maori appointees on the Board, whereas National may not. >>>>Why must they be Maori?
What is the advantage in that for the ratepayers?
Having said that, the Labour plan was to appoint boards that were not >>>accountable to the public.
Of course any water organisation would be responsible to the public -
What has appointing people of one particular race got to do with any
of that?
Bill.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Look back through the thread - there are a number of agreements that
On Tue, 04 Jun 2024 04:52:17 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:Cite?
On Mon, 03 Jun 2024 12:08:32 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 21:14:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:16:49 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>wrote:Or indeed for Maori?
as I understand it the only difference would be that Labour would have >>>>>>>put some suitable Maori appointees on the Board, whereas National may >>>>>>>not.
Why must they be Maori?
What is the advantage in that for the ratepayers?
Having said that, the Labour plan was to appoint boards that were not >>>>>accountable to the public.
Of course any water organisation would be responsible to the public -
What has appointing people of one particular race got to do with any
of that?
Bill.
Chris Finlayson is probably the person to ask - it has helped create a >>number of very stable entities that have managed projects to the >>satisfaction of everyone.
Of course there is - initially the contract was with the Crown, but responsibilities were vested in the government of New Zealand through legislation made New Zealand into an independent State (albeit still recognising the Crown).It also supports one of the common viewsThere is no relevant contract.
from National politicians over the ages that they are a party that >>respects the sanctity of contract
At least you do not deny the above, Tony.- although some have said that theIrrelevant.
modern party now believes in putting assets in the hands of private >>shareholders because the profit motive will result in better results -
as we have seen with the electricity generation companies. all that
has happened is that they collectively limit development so they can >>operate close to capacity to keep prices high, and distribute more
than profit to shareholders as dividends. Court costs are an expensive
way of designing management of public entities - far better to have >>respectful discussions with interested parties and balancing all the >>different needs of our community - sadly ACT in particular want to go >>through the Crash through or Crash process - they may well crash at
the next election.
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 01:14:40 -0000 (UTC), TonyDon't change the subject. There is no agreement that is relevant tpo your claim.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Look back through the thread - there are a number of agreements that
On Tue, 04 Jun 2024 04:52:17 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:Cite?
On Mon, 03 Jun 2024 12:08:32 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 21:14:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:16:49 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>wrote:Or indeed for Maori?
as I understand it the only difference would be that Labour would have >>>>>>>>put some suitable Maori appointees on the Board, whereas National may >>>>>>>>not.
Why must they be Maori?
What is the advantage in that for the ratepayers?
Having said that, the Labour plan was to appoint boards that were not >>>>>>accountable to the public.
Of course any water organisation would be responsible to the public -
What has appointing people of one particular race got to do with any
of that?
Bill.
Chris Finlayson is probably the person to ask - it has helped create a >>>number of very stable entities that have managed projects to the >>>satisfaction of everyone.
Chris Finlayson assisted that he was rightly proud of.
No there is no relevant contract. Which mythical one are you referring to?Of course there is - initially the contract was with the Crown, but >responsibilities were vested in the government of New Zealand through >legislation made New Zealand into an independent State (albeit still >recognising the Crown).It also supports one of the common viewsThere is no relevant contract.
from National politicians over the ages that they are a party that >>>respects the sanctity of contract
No interest in that nonsense.At least you do not deny the above, Tony.- although some have said that theIrrelevant.
modern party now believes in putting assets in the hands of private >>>shareholders because the profit motive will result in better results -
as we have seen with the electricity generation companies. all that
has happened is that they collectively limit development so they can >>>operate close to capacity to keep prices high, and distribute more
than profit to shareholders as dividends. Court costs are an expensive >>>way of designing management of public entities - far better to have >>>respectful discussions with interested parties and balancing all the >>>different needs of our community - sadly ACT in particular want to go >>>through the Crash through or Crash process - they may well crash at
the next election.
On Tue, 04 Jun 2024 04:52:17 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2024 12:08:32 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 21:14:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:16:49 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:Or indeed for Maori?
as I understand it the only difference would be that Labour would have >>>>>>put some suitable Maori appointees on the Board, whereas National may not.
Why must they be Maori?
What is the advantage in that for the ratepayers?
Having said that, the Labour plan was to appoint boards that were not >>>>accountable to the public.
Of course any water organisation would be responsible to the public -
What has appointing people of one particular race got to do with any
of that?
Bill.
Chris Finlayson is probably the person to ask
On Tue, 04 Jun 2024 12:37:26 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>He has explained it well - there are plenty of articles featuring him
wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2024 04:52:17 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2024 12:08:32 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 21:14:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:16:49 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>wrote:Or indeed for Maori?
as I understand it the only difference would be that Labour would have >>>>>>>put some suitable Maori appointees on the Board, whereas National may not.
Why must they be Maori?
What is the advantage in that for the ratepayers?
Having said that, the Labour plan was to appoint boards that were not >>>>>accountable to the public.
Of course any water organisation would be responsible to the public -
What has appointing people of one particular race got to do with any
of that?
Bill.
Chris Finlayson is probably the person to ask
Why would I ask Finlayson? Does he speak for you?
Bill
On Wed, 05 Jun 2024 17:46:07 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2024 12:37:26 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:He has explained it well - there are plenty of articles featuring him
On Tue, 04 Jun 2024 04:52:17 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2024 12:08:32 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 21:14:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:16:49 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>wrote:Or indeed for Maori?
as I understand it the only difference would be that Labour would have >>>>>>>>put some suitable Maori appointees on the Board, whereas National may not.
Why must they be Maori?
What is the advantage in that for the ratepayers?
Having said that, the Labour plan was to appoint boards that were not >>>>>>accountable to the public.
Of course any water organisation would be responsible to the public -
What has appointing people of one particular race got to do with any
of that?
Bill.
Chris Finlayson is probably the person to ask
Why would I ask Finlayson? Does he speak for you?
Bill
being rightly proud of having carried on the tradition of previous
Treaty Settlement ministers from both Labour and National, but I think
he was involved in the Waikato River arrangements that delivered
additional water to Auckland without any fuss or rancour.
On Mon, 03 Jun 2024 09:34:51 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:54:40 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 20:15:58 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:Thanks for the detail on that. You seem to think that as National
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 17:01:15 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 15:04:59 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:It was related to 13 different treatments that Pharmac does not >>>>currently cover - and yes that will be represented largely by drugs to >>>>provide treatments not currently available - from memory one patient >>>>was quoted $160,000 a year if they wished to pay for it themselves. >>>>Pharmac has good processes for keeping prices low, and part of that >>>>depends on being able to negotiate with different suppliers in such a >>>>way that overall cost is minimised. It is not helpful to Pharmac to be >>>>put in a position where their ability to negotiate is driven by public >>>>clamouring and political promises - if the drug companies think the >>>>government is desperate they will charge more!
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 17:39:14 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 08:59:53 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:38:04 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>wrote:Hooten points out that not only is Willis spending more in the 2024/25 >>>>>>>year than Robertson/Willis combined did for 2023/24, she has had to >>>>>>>cut back on tax cuts that were planned. For most people, the small >>>>>>>reduction in income tax will be well offset by increases in rates (and >>>>>>>does anyone know of anyone that is saying those costs will not flow >>>>>>>through to rents for rental properties?)
On Fri, 31 May 2024 17:53:44 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>>>>wrote:You are correct Rich - it is not easy having to reverse so many >>>>>>>>financial failures unleashed on us by the previous Government. The >>>>>>>>3-waters establishment costs alone (over $1 billion, cites all behind >>>>>>>>the Herald paywall) would have come real handy with expanding Pharmac >>>>>>>>funding.
On 31 May 2024 03:27:58 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
On 2024-05-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:With Government Debt still substantially increasing and with deficit >>>>>>>>>>spending for the next few years, stability is some way off and the >>>>>>>>>>triaging to date is enough to avoid death but not enough to bring >>>>>>>>>>stability.
So Nicola Willis has presented her first budget and it in my opinionWhen the patient is injured severly it is often best to just to stablise the
is generally good but the focus is too little on the areas that matter
most.
Income tax has been reduced, but by adjusting thresholds not reducing
rates. This adjustment is therefore reducing the effect of >>>>>>>>>>>> taxable-income (TI) inflation. While it reduces taxation revenue it
does not have any permanent effect as TI will continue to increase. By
my definition a 'tax cut' is a reduction in the rates and this has not
happened. The reduction in tax revenue is countered by a reduction in
headcount costs in the Civil Service.
Government Debt remains a problem. It increased substantially under
Labour but the Government has not given any indication that reduction
to pre-Covid levels is a priority. Just take a look at the cost of
that debt - if I recall correctly it is currently $9 billion per year
- to me this is an eye-watering cost given that much of this debt has
been spent on Covid and Health costs rather than building or acquiring
stuff that future generations will benefit from.
So, overall, a timid budget, but better than the pointless spending
that produced intangible results of the previous Government. >>>>>>>>>>>>
patient first and allow the patient to get onto a stable base before >>>>>>>>>>>starting the recovery procedure.
Point another way, the Goverment does not want to rock the boat, or theNational also lacks a bit of fiscal courage. Probably because if they
Government wishes to bring the people along with them. This >>>>>>>>>>>country of ours is not exactly stable finanically, or socially. >>>>>>>>>>
take a more austere approach (such as leaving tax bracket adjustment >>>>>>>>>>to a future budget and paying down debt) the results may not be >>>>>>>>>>apparent until after the next election.
I suspect the Government regret the cost of the handouts to landlords >>>>>>>>>- not meeting the promise on cancer drugs will already be hurting. >>>>>>>>>Matthew Hooten's comments in a Herald column are behind a paywall, but >>>>>>>>>a copy is here: >>>>>>>>>https://x.com/rugbyintel/status/1796243615204913552/photo/1
We are still experiencing Covid problems, and are likely to have >>>>>>>>>further storm / flooding damage, and water problems will come back >>>>>>>>>again when increasing rates by 10% to 15% is found to be not enough. >>>>>>>>>Not an easy time to be learning about being a Finance Minister . . . >>>>>>>>
In terms of National party promises, what people seem to loose sight >>>>>>>>of is that this is not a National Government and therefore it is the >>>>>>>>coalition agreements, not the party promises, that are in play. The >>>>>>>>coalition agreements all contain aspects of what each party promised >>>>>>>>but not all of them. The promise to fund additional cancer drugs is >>>>>>>>not in either coalition agreement, so was one of National's >>>>>>>>commitments that Act and NZF would not agree to. The tragic reality >>>>>>>>is that those hoping that more cancer drugs would be funded had their >>>>>>>>hopes dashed by the coalition agreements, not the budget.
Thanks Crash, yes while I haven;t looked I think you are right that >>>>>>>this was not in the Coalition agreements. This was however a major >>>>>>>promise, and from memory it was a strong commitment made late in the >>>>>>>election campaign, and discussed quite often subsequently.
It seems I should have checked, it is in the National / NZ First >>>>>>Agreement, but not in the ACT / National agreement:
"11. The Parties will also progress the following additional policies >>>>>>which are a priority for the National Party:
F. Cut health waiting times by training more doctors, nurses, and >>>>>>midwives, and giving Kiwis access to 13 more cancer treatments."
I acknowledge that many would interpret 'access to 13 more cancer >>>>>treatments' as providing additional funding for cancer drugs not >>>>>currently funded. However I took this to mean that this commitment >>>>>was a reference to Cancer treatments (not drugs) in the context of >>>>>reducing waiting times for cancer treatments.
There are a wide range of treatments being developed - the work being >>>>done by the Malaghan Institute is only one but it is one we know a >>>>little about.
Since writing the above I found this link which sets out the actual >>>treatments they promised to fund:
https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/08/21/national-pledges-280m-for-13-cancer-treatments/
made this promise prior to the election it is bound by it when it is
not. There was a reference you found in the coalition agreement
between National and NZF but there is no detail there.
I do accept that the ACT party is not bound to support National on
their promise; but it seems that missing this one out was not
highlighted in subsequent statements from National. Since it was a
very clear statement so soon before the election, and because some
current patients would benefit from the drug treatments and will
likely die without them - at least that is the perception of many -
the real problem is that neither Luxon or Reti who made that initial
promise talked about it no longer being supported. It is of course
possible for National to put forward a bill to fund it with support
from opposition parties - and some would argue that because it is in
the National / NZ First agreement they have a duty to seek that
solution, and that ACT agreed to support policies in the National / NZ
First agreements as well. There is little detail on most of the issues >covered in the coalition agreements, but they do indicate that those
two parties did agree to seek implementation of the policies listed.
Personally I have no problems with money being spent on purchasing
through Pharmac, but I am concerned that such public funding is
contrary to the principle that Pharmac conducts assessments of
priorities based on medical research into what spending will have the
most beneficial effect on the health of New Zealanders - to override
that by political edict both overrides that process and, perhaps more >importantly, signals to the suppliers that there is political
instruction to purchase so they can put their prices up (or not be
open to volume discounts). That is not in our interests. John Key made
a similar mistake before he was elected into government but wisely
never did it again - it is sad to see how short some memories can be .
. .
Thanks, and yes I agree, but the politics of this are now being
All parties in the current Government had policies that were not
adopted when the coalition was formed. In this case there was never a >>commitment of anyone to deliver in this budget - the Government has
until 2026 to deliver on their coalition agreement commitments.
responded to by Christopher Luxon and Shane Reti - and after these
policies were adopted by National and NZ First in their agreement,it
is up to those two parties to see if they can find additional support
to get the funding through parliament. A lot of New Zealanders would
applaud such cross party support for a good cause - and a lot of
people would applaud the parties for seeking a parliamentary rather
than political party solution.
I suspect
both Luxon and Willis thought that they would be able to deliver on >>>>>>>that promise until late in the Budget process, and it seems they >>>>>>>forgot to go into damage control when they found that it would have >>>>>>>made their borrowing for tax cuts even more obvious. Certainly the >>>>>>>reaction to it not being included suggested that was news to many >>>>>>>families and medical people affected. Put together with the Waikato >>>>>>>University Medical School having to go back for a detailed business >>>>>>>case before it is approved, National are not doing too well in getting >>>>>>>projects past Seymour. They are all a happy family though - I >>>>>>>understand two of Luxons staffers have previously worked for the NZ >>>>>>>Taxpayer Union, and Willis was on the Board of the NZ Initiative . . . >>>>>>>
At some point. the coalition parties will have to agree on some >>>>>>>projects that are needed that were not anticipated in for example the >>>>>>>budget - I suspect we are not well prepared for another round of >>>>>>>storms / floods / earthquakes. They are not in the coalition agreement >>>>>>>but New Zealanders will expect some help in the event of a natural >>>>>>>disaster that makes some existing houses not able to be replaced . . .
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 168:43:11 |
| Calls: | 12,097 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,823 |