The Government is claiming that Labour did not investigate anGee you are so stupid. You continue to spout this nonsense when the fact is it doesn't actually matter where the money comes from - it will always be paid for by New Zealanders either from rates or tax. Nothing else exists.
organisation that they claim will lend to Councils more cheaply than
banks - to do that however it appears that the Government may have to
provide an implicit guarantee by authorising higher limit for Councils
than they had previously. That gives the risk that Councils will get
into difficulty in the future, but the interest rate will also be
higher than Labour / Green had planned - they would have used
Government funding - probably about 0.25% lower than through the
''friendly'' organisation that has offered to help National . . .
Yet again Simeon Brown and Nicola Willis show that not only are they >financially illiterate, they have either not sought advice from
Treasury or were unable to understand it.
As I predicted, Councils will be worse off under NAct1st than under >Labour/Green.
0.25% of all the borrowing needed for the water projects will be quite
a few millions a year - all to enable NAct1st to claim that they are
nor responsible . . .
Will it be your local Council that goes bust as a result of this
governments ignorance?
The Government is claiming that Labour did not investigate an
organisation that they claim will lend to Councils more cheaply than
banks - to do that however it appears that the Government may have to
provide an implicit guarantee by authorising higher limit for Councils
than they had previously. That gives the risk that Councils will get
into difficulty in the future, but the interest rate will also be
higher than Labour / Green had planned - they would have used
Government funding - probably about 0.25% lower than through the
''friendly'' organisation that has offered to help National . . .
Yet again Simeon Brown and Nicola Willis show that not only are they financially illiterate, they have either not sought advice from
Treasury or were unable to understand it.
As I predicted, Councils will be worse off under NAct1st than under Labour/Green.
0.25% of all the borrowing needed for the water projects will be quite
a few millions a year - all to enable NAct1st to claim that they are
nor responsible . . .
Will it be your local Council that goes bust as a result of this
governments ignorance?
The Government is claiming that Labour did not investigate an
organisation that they claim will lend to Councils more cheaply than
banks - to do that however it appears that the Government may have to
provide an implicit guarantee by authorising higher limit for Councils
than they had previously. That gives the risk that Councils will get
into difficulty in the future, but the interest rate will also be
higher than Labour / Green had planned - they would have used
Government funding - probably about 0.25% lower than through the
''friendly'' organisation that has offered to help National . . .
Yet again Simeon Brown and Nicola Willis show that not only are they >financially illiterate, they have either not sought advice from
Treasury or were unable to understand it.
As I predicted, Councils will be worse off under NAct1st than under >Labour/Green.
0.25% of all the borrowing needed for the water projects will be quite
a few millions a year - all to enable NAct1st to claim that they are
nor responsible . . .
Will it be your local Council that goes bust as a result of this
governments ignorance?
On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 22:08:44 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:
The Government is claiming that Labour did not investigate an
organisation that they claim will lend to Councils more cheaply than
banks - to do that however it appears that the Government may have to >>provide an implicit guarantee by authorising higher limit for Councils
than they had previously. That gives the risk that Councils will get
into difficulty in the future, but the interest rate will also be
higher than Labour / Green had planned - they would have used
Government funding - probably about 0.25% lower than through the >>''friendly'' organisation that has offered to help National . . .
Yet again Simeon Brown and Nicola Willis show that not only are they >>financially illiterate, they have either not sought advice from
Treasury or were unable to understand it.
As I predicted, Councils will be worse off under NAct1st than under >>Labour/Green.
0.25% of all the borrowing needed for the water projects will be quite
a few millions a year - all to enable NAct1st to claim that they are
nor responsible . . .
Will it be your local Council that goes bust as a result of this >>governments ignorance?
At least each local council will retain control of all its water
assets and be responsible for funding them from the Local Government
Funding Agency (LGFA). Neither of these options was available under
the 3-waters policy that Labour implemented after failing to mention
it prior to the 2020 election.
It seems to have escaped your notice that the LGFA funding has to be
applied for (meaning the LGFA will set criteria which will no doubt
include financial viability to repay, and everything will be funded by
ring fenced water consumption revenue. Councils are required to use
CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) for water so ratepayers are
not affected.
This is another example of you not letting the facts get in the way of >anti-government political rhetoric.
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 12:35:29 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>You are the dreamer. Crash did not say that nor was it implied.
wrote:
On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 22:08:44 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:
The Government is claiming that Labour did not investigate an >>>organisation that they claim will lend to Councils more cheaply than >>>banks - to do that however it appears that the Government may have to >>>provide an implicit guarantee by authorising higher limit for Councils >>>than they had previously. That gives the risk that Councils will get
into difficulty in the future, but the interest rate will also be
higher than Labour / Green had planned - they would have used
Government funding - probably about 0.25% lower than through the >>>''friendly'' organisation that has offered to help National . . .
Yet again Simeon Brown and Nicola Willis show that not only are they >>>financially illiterate, they have either not sought advice from
Treasury or were unable to understand it.
As I predicted, Councils will be worse off under NAct1st than under >>>Labour/Green.
0.25% of all the borrowing needed for the water projects will be quite
a few millions a year - all to enable NAct1st to claim that they are
nor responsible . . .
Will it be your local Council that goes bust as a result of this >>>governments ignorance?
At least each local council will retain control of all its water
assets and be responsible for funding them from the Local Government >>Funding Agency (LGFA). Neither of these options was available under
the 3-waters policy that Labour implemented after failing to mention
it prior to the 2020 election.
It seems to have escaped your notice that the LGFA funding has to be >>applied for (meaning the LGFA will set criteria which will no doubt
include financial viability to repay, and everything will be funded by
ring fenced water consumption revenue. Councils are required to use
CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) for water so ratepayers are
not affected.
This is another example of you not letting the facts get in the way of >>anti-government political rhetoric.
So ratepayers will not be paying water costs? Are you dreaming?
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 12:35:29 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:You are the dreamer. Crash did not say that nor was it implied.
On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 22:08:44 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:
The Government is claiming that Labour did not investigate an >>>>organisation that they claim will lend to Councils more cheaply than >>>>banks - to do that however it appears that the Government may have to >>>>provide an implicit guarantee by authorising higher limit for Councils >>>>than they had previously. That gives the risk that Councils will get >>>>into difficulty in the future, but the interest rate will also be >>>>higher than Labour / Green had planned - they would have used >>>>Government funding - probably about 0.25% lower than through the >>>>''friendly'' organisation that has offered to help National . . .
Yet again Simeon Brown and Nicola Willis show that not only are they >>>>financially illiterate, they have either not sought advice from >>>>Treasury or were unable to understand it.
As I predicted, Councils will be worse off under NAct1st than under >>>>Labour/Green.
0.25% of all the borrowing needed for the water projects will be quite >>>>a few millions a year - all to enable NAct1st to claim that they are >>>>nor responsible . . .
Will it be your local Council that goes bust as a result of this >>>>governments ignorance?
At least each local council will retain control of all its water
assets and be responsible for funding them from the Local Government >>>Funding Agency (LGFA). Neither of these options was available under
the 3-waters policy that Labour implemented after failing to mention
it prior to the 2020 election.
It seems to have escaped your notice that the LGFA funding has to be >>>applied for (meaning the LGFA will set criteria which will no doubt >>>include financial viability to repay, and everything will be funded by >>>ring fenced water consumption revenue. Councils are required to use
CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) for water so ratepayers are
not affected.
This is another example of you not letting the facts get in the way of >>>anti-government political rhetoric.
So ratepayers will not be paying water costs? Are you dreaming?
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 12:35:29 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 22:08:44 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:
The Government is claiming that Labour did not investigate an >>>organisation that they claim will lend to Councils more cheaply than >>>banks - to do that however it appears that the Government may have to >>>provide an implicit guarantee by authorising higher limit for Councils >>>than they had previously. That gives the risk that Councils will get
into difficulty in the future, but the interest rate will also be
higher than Labour / Green had planned - they would have used
Government funding - probably about 0.25% lower than through the >>>''friendly'' organisation that has offered to help National . . .
Yet again Simeon Brown and Nicola Willis show that not only are they >>>financially illiterate, they have either not sought advice from
Treasury or were unable to understand it.
As I predicted, Councils will be worse off under NAct1st than under >>>Labour/Green.
0.25% of all the borrowing needed for the water projects will be quite
a few millions a year - all to enable NAct1st to claim that they are
nor responsible . . .
Will it be your local Council that goes bust as a result of this >>>governments ignorance?
At least each local council will retain control of all its water
assets and be responsible for funding them from the Local Government >>Funding Agency (LGFA). Neither of these options was available under
the 3-waters policy that Labour implemented after failing to mention
it prior to the 2020 election.
It seems to have escaped your notice that the LGFA funding has to be >>applied for (meaning the LGFA will set criteria which will no doubt
include financial viability to repay, and everything will be funded by
ring fenced water consumption revenue. Councils are required to use
CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) for water so ratepayers are
not affected.
This is another example of you not letting the facts get in the way of >>anti-government political rhetoric.
So ratepayers will not be paying water costs? Are you dreaming?
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 04:14:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 12:35:29 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>wrote:You are the dreamer. Crash did not say that nor was it implied.
On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 22:08:44 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:
The Government is claiming that Labour did not investigate an >>>>>organisation that they claim will lend to Councils more cheaply than >>>>>banks - to do that however it appears that the Government may have to >>>>>provide an implicit guarantee by authorising higher limit for Councils >>>>>than they had previously. That gives the risk that Councils will get >>>>>into difficulty in the future, but the interest rate will also be >>>>>higher than Labour / Green had planned - they would have used >>>>>Government funding - probably about 0.25% lower than through the >>>>>''friendly'' organisation that has offered to help National . . .
Yet again Simeon Brown and Nicola Willis show that not only are they >>>>>financially illiterate, they have either not sought advice from >>>>>Treasury or were unable to understand it.
As I predicted, Councils will be worse off under NAct1st than under >>>>>Labour/Green.
0.25% of all the borrowing needed for the water projects will be quite >>>>>a few millions a year - all to enable NAct1st to claim that they are >>>>>nor responsible . . .
Will it be your local Council that goes bust as a result of this >>>>>governments ignorance?
At least each local council will retain control of all its water
assets and be responsible for funding them from the Local Government >>>>Funding Agency (LGFA). Neither of these options was available under >>>>the 3-waters policy that Labour implemented after failing to mention
it prior to the 2020 election.
It seems to have escaped your notice that the LGFA funding has to be >>>>applied for (meaning the LGFA will set criteria which will no doubt >>>>include financial viability to repay, and everything will be funded by >>>>ring fenced water consumption revenue. Councils are required to use >>>>CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) for water so ratepayers are
not affected.
This is another example of you not letting the facts get in the way of >>>>anti-government political rhetoric.
So ratepayers will not be paying water costs? Are you dreaming?
"Councils are required to use CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations)
for water so ratepayers are not affected."
So with higher borrowing costs, and therefore higher costs to be paid
for, are ratepayers not affected?
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 04:14:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyCrash did not say what you just made up. That is what I addressed. Do get some help.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 12:35:29 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>wrote:You are the dreamer. Crash did not say that nor was it implied.
On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 22:08:44 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:
The Government is claiming that Labour did not investigate an >>>>>organisation that they claim will lend to Councils more cheaply than >>>>>banks - to do that however it appears that the Government may have to >>>>>provide an implicit guarantee by authorising higher limit for Councils >>>>>than they had previously. That gives the risk that Councils will get >>>>>into difficulty in the future, but the interest rate will also be >>>>>higher than Labour / Green had planned - they would have used >>>>>Government funding - probably about 0.25% lower than through the >>>>>''friendly'' organisation that has offered to help National . . .
Yet again Simeon Brown and Nicola Willis show that not only are they >>>>>financially illiterate, they have either not sought advice from >>>>>Treasury or were unable to understand it.
As I predicted, Councils will be worse off under NAct1st than under >>>>>Labour/Green.
0.25% of all the borrowing needed for the water projects will be quite >>>>>a few millions a year - all to enable NAct1st to claim that they are >>>>>nor responsible . . .
Will it be your local Council that goes bust as a result of this >>>>>governments ignorance?
At least each local council will retain control of all its water
assets and be responsible for funding them from the Local Government >>>>Funding Agency (LGFA). Neither of these options was available under >>>>the 3-waters policy that Labour implemented after failing to mention
it prior to the 2020 election.
It seems to have escaped your notice that the LGFA funding has to be >>>>applied for (meaning the LGFA will set criteria which will no doubt >>>>include financial viability to repay, and everything will be funded by >>>>ring fenced water consumption revenue. Councils are required to use >>>>CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) for water so ratepayers are
not affected.
This is another example of you not letting the facts get in the way of >>>>anti-government political rhetoric.
So ratepayers will not be paying water costs? Are you dreaming?
"Councils are required to use CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations)
for water so ratepayers are not affected."
So with higher borrowing costs, and therefore higher costs to be paid
for, are ratepayers not affected?
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 16:55:41 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 04:14:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 12:35:29 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>wrote:You are the dreamer. Crash did not say that nor was it implied.
On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 22:08:44 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:
The Government is claiming that Labour did not investigate an >>>>>>organisation that they claim will lend to Councils more cheaply than >>>>>>banks - to do that however it appears that the Government may have to >>>>>>provide an implicit guarantee by authorising higher limit for Councils >>>>>>than they had previously. That gives the risk that Councils will get >>>>>>into difficulty in the future, but the interest rate will also be >>>>>>higher than Labour / Green had planned - they would have used >>>>>>Government funding - probably about 0.25% lower than through the >>>>>>''friendly'' organisation that has offered to help National . . .
Yet again Simeon Brown and Nicola Willis show that not only are they >>>>>>financially illiterate, they have either not sought advice from >>>>>>Treasury or were unable to understand it.
As I predicted, Councils will be worse off under NAct1st than under >>>>>>Labour/Green.
0.25% of all the borrowing needed for the water projects will be quite >>>>>>a few millions a year - all to enable NAct1st to claim that they are >>>>>>nor responsible . . .
Will it be your local Council that goes bust as a result of this >>>>>>governments ignorance?
At least each local council will retain control of all its water >>>>>assets and be responsible for funding them from the Local Government >>>>>Funding Agency (LGFA). Neither of these options was available under >>>>>the 3-waters policy that Labour implemented after failing to mention >>>>>it prior to the 2020 election.
It seems to have escaped your notice that the LGFA funding has to be >>>>>applied for (meaning the LGFA will set criteria which will no doubt >>>>>include financial viability to repay, and everything will be funded by >>>>>ring fenced water consumption revenue. Councils are required to use >>>>>CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) for water so ratepayers are >>>>>not affected.
This is another example of you not letting the facts get in the way of >>>>>anti-government political rhetoric.
So ratepayers will not be paying water costs? Are you dreaming?
"Councils are required to use CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations)
for water so ratepayers are not affected."
So with higher borrowing costs, and therefore higher costs to be paid
for, are ratepayers not affected?
You are very thick Rich. See my response a few minutes ago in this
thread. My local council has options. They may well transfer water
assets to their existing CCO, or a new one, or a regional council CCO.
Those that use water services in my area will pay accordingly.
I live in an area where many ratepayers source their own water
services from their own supply, sewerage and storm water facilities
and these folks will see no impact on their rates.
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 20:03:54 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>Crash is correct. You are thick.
wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 16:55:41 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 04:14:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 12:35:29 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>wrote:You are the dreamer. Crash did not say that nor was it implied.
On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 22:08:44 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>wrote:
The Government is claiming that Labour did not investigate an >>>>>>>organisation that they claim will lend to Councils more cheaply than >>>>>>>banks - to do that however it appears that the Government may have to >>>>>>>provide an implicit guarantee by authorising higher limit for Councils >>>>>>>than they had previously. That gives the risk that Councils will get >>>>>>>into difficulty in the future, but the interest rate will also be >>>>>>>higher than Labour / Green had planned - they would have used >>>>>>>Government funding - probably about 0.25% lower than through the >>>>>>>''friendly'' organisation that has offered to help National . . . >>>>>>>
Yet again Simeon Brown and Nicola Willis show that not only are they >>>>>>>financially illiterate, they have either not sought advice from >>>>>>>Treasury or were unable to understand it.
As I predicted, Councils will be worse off under NAct1st than under >>>>>>>Labour/Green.
0.25% of all the borrowing needed for the water projects will be quite >>>>>>>a few millions a year - all to enable NAct1st to claim that they are >>>>>>>nor responsible . . .
Will it be your local Council that goes bust as a result of this >>>>>>>governments ignorance?
At least each local council will retain control of all its water >>>>>>assets and be responsible for funding them from the Local Government >>>>>>Funding Agency (LGFA). Neither of these options was available under >>>>>>the 3-waters policy that Labour implemented after failing to mention >>>>>>it prior to the 2020 election.
It seems to have escaped your notice that the LGFA funding has to be >>>>>>applied for (meaning the LGFA will set criteria which will no doubt >>>>>>include financial viability to repay, and everything will be funded by >>>>>>ring fenced water consumption revenue. Councils are required to use >>>>>>CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) for water so ratepayers are >>>>>>not affected.
This is another example of you not letting the facts get in the way of >>>>>>anti-government political rhetoric.
So ratepayers will not be paying water costs? Are you dreaming?
"Councils are required to use CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations)
for water so ratepayers are not affected."
So with higher borrowing costs, and therefore higher costs to be paid >>>for, are ratepayers not affected?
You are very thick Rich. See my response a few minutes ago in this
thread. My local council has options. They may well transfer water
assets to their existing CCO, or a new one, or a regional council CCO. >>Those that use water services in my area will pay accordingly.
I live in an area where many ratepayers source their own water
services from their own supply, sewerage and storm water facilities
and these folks will see no impact on their rates.
So essentially the answer is that yes ratepayers will pay a higher
cost for water, regardless of how it is paid for. Tony appears to
agree with you.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 20:03:54 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:Crash is correct. You are thick.
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 16:55:41 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 04:14:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 12:35:29 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>wrote:You are the dreamer. Crash did not say that nor was it implied.
On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 22:08:44 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>wrote:
The Government is claiming that Labour did not investigate an >>>>>>>>organisation that they claim will lend to Councils more cheaply than >>>>>>>>banks - to do that however it appears that the Government may have to >>>>>>>>provide an implicit guarantee by authorising higher limit for Councils >>>>>>>>than they had previously. That gives the risk that Councils will get >>>>>>>>into difficulty in the future, but the interest rate will also be >>>>>>>>higher than Labour / Green had planned - they would have used >>>>>>>>Government funding - probably about 0.25% lower than through the >>>>>>>>''friendly'' organisation that has offered to help National . . . >>>>>>>>
Yet again Simeon Brown and Nicola Willis show that not only are they >>>>>>>>financially illiterate, they have either not sought advice from >>>>>>>>Treasury or were unable to understand it.
As I predicted, Councils will be worse off under NAct1st than under >>>>>>>>Labour/Green.
0.25% of all the borrowing needed for the water projects will be quite >>>>>>>>a few millions a year - all to enable NAct1st to claim that they are >>>>>>>>nor responsible . . .
Will it be your local Council that goes bust as a result of this >>>>>>>>governments ignorance?
At least each local council will retain control of all its water >>>>>>>assets and be responsible for funding them from the Local Government >>>>>>>Funding Agency (LGFA). Neither of these options was available under >>>>>>>the 3-waters policy that Labour implemented after failing to mention >>>>>>>it prior to the 2020 election.
It seems to have escaped your notice that the LGFA funding has to be >>>>>>>applied for (meaning the LGFA will set criteria which will no doubt >>>>>>>include financial viability to repay, and everything will be funded by >>>>>>>ring fenced water consumption revenue. Councils are required to use >>>>>>>CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) for water so ratepayers are >>>>>>>not affected.
This is another example of you not letting the facts get in the way of >>>>>>>anti-government political rhetoric.
So ratepayers will not be paying water costs? Are you dreaming?
"Councils are required to use CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) >>>>for water so ratepayers are not affected."
So with higher borrowing costs, and therefore higher costs to be paid >>>>for, are ratepayers not affected?
You are very thick Rich. See my response a few minutes ago in this >>>thread. My local council has options. They may well transfer water >>>assets to their existing CCO, or a new one, or a regional council CCO. >>>Those that use water services in my area will pay accordingly.
I live in an area where many ratepayers source their own water
services from their own supply, sewerage and storm water facilities
and these folks will see no impact on their rates.
So essentially the answer is that yes ratepayers will pay a higher
cost for water, regardless of how it is paid for. Tony appears to
agree with you.
I do not agree that there are any increased costs for anybody at all because of
the new and massively improved water announcements, in comparison to the costs >that the last government tried to impose and in fact wasted on 3 waters. The >opposite may be true, 3 waters involved a huge expenditure that we will never >get back, and that ignores the fact, yes fact, that it was a thinly disguised >form of racism.,
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 20:03:54 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 16:55:41 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 04:14:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 12:35:29 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>wrote:You are the dreamer. Crash did not say that nor was it implied.
On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 22:08:44 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>wrote:
The Government is claiming that Labour did not investigate an >>>>>>>organisation that they claim will lend to Councils more cheaply than >>>>>>>banks - to do that however it appears that the Government may have to >>>>>>>provide an implicit guarantee by authorising higher limit for Councils >>>>>>>than they had previously. That gives the risk that Councils will get >>>>>>>into difficulty in the future, but the interest rate will also be >>>>>>>higher than Labour / Green had planned - they would have used >>>>>>>Government funding - probably about 0.25% lower than through the >>>>>>>''friendly'' organisation that has offered to help National . . . >>>>>>>
Yet again Simeon Brown and Nicola Willis show that not only are they >>>>>>>financially illiterate, they have either not sought advice from >>>>>>>Treasury or were unable to understand it.
As I predicted, Councils will be worse off under NAct1st than under >>>>>>>Labour/Green.
0.25% of all the borrowing needed for the water projects will be quite >>>>>>>a few millions a year - all to enable NAct1st to claim that they are >>>>>>>nor responsible . . .
Will it be your local Council that goes bust as a result of this >>>>>>>governments ignorance?
At least each local council will retain control of all its water >>>>>>assets and be responsible for funding them from the Local Government >>>>>>Funding Agency (LGFA). Neither of these options was available under >>>>>>the 3-waters policy that Labour implemented after failing to mention >>>>>>it prior to the 2020 election.
It seems to have escaped your notice that the LGFA funding has to be >>>>>>applied for (meaning the LGFA will set criteria which will no doubt >>>>>>include financial viability to repay, and everything will be funded by >>>>>>ring fenced water consumption revenue. Councils are required to use >>>>>>CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) for water so ratepayers are >>>>>>not affected.
This is another example of you not letting the facts get in the way of >>>>>>anti-government political rhetoric.
So ratepayers will not be paying water costs? Are you dreaming?
"Councils are required to use CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations)
for water so ratepayers are not affected."
So with higher borrowing costs, and therefore higher costs to be paid >>>for, are ratepayers not affected?
You are very thick Rich. See my response a few minutes ago in this
thread. My local council has options. They may well transfer water
assets to their existing CCO, or a new one, or a regional council CCO. >>Those that use water services in my area will pay accordingly.
I live in an area where many ratepayers source their own water
services from their own supply, sewerage and storm water facilities
and these folks will see no impact on their rates.
So essentially the answer is that yes ratepayers will pay a higher
cost for water, regardless of how it is paid for. Tony appears to
agree with you.
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 20:03:54 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 16:55:41 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 04:14:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 12:35:29 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>wrote:You are the dreamer. Crash did not say that nor was it implied.
On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 22:08:44 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>wrote:
The Government is claiming that Labour did not investigate an >>>>>>>organisation that they claim will lend to Councils more cheaply than >>>>>>>banks - to do that however it appears that the Government may have to >>>>>>>provide an implicit guarantee by authorising higher limit for Councils >>>>>>>than they had previously. That gives the risk that Councils will get >>>>>>>into difficulty in the future, but the interest rate will also be >>>>>>>higher than Labour / Green had planned - they would have used >>>>>>>Government funding - probably about 0.25% lower than through the >>>>>>>''friendly'' organisation that has offered to help National . . . >>>>>>>
Yet again Simeon Brown and Nicola Willis show that not only are they >>>>>>>financially illiterate, they have either not sought advice from >>>>>>>Treasury or were unable to understand it.
As I predicted, Councils will be worse off under NAct1st than under >>>>>>>Labour/Green.
0.25% of all the borrowing needed for the water projects will be quite >>>>>>>a few millions a year - all to enable NAct1st to claim that they are >>>>>>>nor responsible . . .
Will it be your local Council that goes bust as a result of this >>>>>>>governments ignorance?
At least each local council will retain control of all its water >>>>>>assets and be responsible for funding them from the Local Government >>>>>>Funding Agency (LGFA). Neither of these options was available under >>>>>>the 3-waters policy that Labour implemented after failing to mention >>>>>>it prior to the 2020 election.
It seems to have escaped your notice that the LGFA funding has to be >>>>>>applied for (meaning the LGFA will set criteria which will no doubt >>>>>>include financial viability to repay, and everything will be funded by >>>>>>ring fenced water consumption revenue. Councils are required to use >>>>>>CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) for water so ratepayers are >>>>>>not affected.
This is another example of you not letting the facts get in the way of >>>>>>anti-government political rhetoric.
So ratepayers will not be paying water costs? Are you dreaming?
"Councils are required to use CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations)
for water so ratepayers are not affected."
So with higher borrowing costs, and therefore higher costs to be paid >>>for, are ratepayers not affected?
You are very thick Rich. See my response a few minutes ago in this
thread. My local council has options. They may well transfer water
assets to their existing CCO, or a new one, or a regional council CCO. >>Those that use water services in my area will pay accordingly.
I live in an area where many ratepayers source their own water
services from their own supply, sewerage and storm water facilities
and these folks will see no impact on their rates.
So essentially the answer is that yes ratepayers will pay a higher
cost for water, regardless of how it is paid for. Tony appears to
agree with you.
On 2024-08-09, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:But the overall cost of the water reforms will be no greater than the cost that the last government wanted to put in place, but without the racist rules and management structure. A win win in fact.
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 20:03:54 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 16:55:41 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 04:14:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 12:35:29 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>wrote:You are the dreamer. Crash did not say that nor was it implied.
On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 22:08:44 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>wrote:
The Government is claiming that Labour did not investigate an >>>>>>>>organisation that they claim will lend to Councils more cheaply than >>>>>>>>banks - to do that however it appears that the Government may have to >>>>>>>>provide an implicit guarantee by authorising higher limit for Councils >>>>>>>>than they had previously. That gives the risk that Councils will get >>>>>>>>into difficulty in the future, but the interest rate will also be >>>>>>>>higher than Labour / Green had planned - they would have used >>>>>>>>Government funding - probably about 0.25% lower than through the >>>>>>>>''friendly'' organisation that has offered to help National . . . >>>>>>>>
Yet again Simeon Brown and Nicola Willis show that not only are they >>>>>>>>financially illiterate, they have either not sought advice from >>>>>>>>Treasury or were unable to understand it.
As I predicted, Councils will be worse off under NAct1st than under >>>>>>>>Labour/Green.
0.25% of all the borrowing needed for the water projects will be quite >>>>>>>>a few millions a year - all to enable NAct1st to claim that they are >>>>>>>>nor responsible . . .
Will it be your local Council that goes bust as a result of this >>>>>>>>governments ignorance?
At least each local council will retain control of all its water >>>>>>>assets and be responsible for funding them from the Local Government >>>>>>>Funding Agency (LGFA). Neither of these options was available under >>>>>>>the 3-waters policy that Labour implemented after failing to mention >>>>>>>it prior to the 2020 election.
It seems to have escaped your notice that the LGFA funding has to be >>>>>>>applied for (meaning the LGFA will set criteria which will no doubt >>>>>>>include financial viability to repay, and everything will be funded by >>>>>>>ring fenced water consumption revenue. Councils are required to use >>>>>>>CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) for water so ratepayers are >>>>>>>not affected.
This is another example of you not letting the facts get in the way of >>>>>>>anti-government political rhetoric.
So ratepayers will not be paying water costs? Are you dreaming?
"Councils are required to use CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) >>>>for water so ratepayers are not affected."
So with higher borrowing costs, and therefore higher costs to be paid >>>>for, are ratepayers not affected?
You are very thick Rich. See my response a few minutes ago in this >>>thread. My local council has options. They may well transfer water >>>assets to their existing CCO, or a new one, or a regional council CCO. >>>Those that use water services in my area will pay accordingly.
I live in an area where many ratepayers source their own water
services from their own supply, sewerage and storm water facilities
and these folks will see no impact on their rates.
So essentially the answer is that yes ratepayers will pay a higher
cost for water, regardless of how it is paid for. Tony appears to
agree with you.
Of course some ratepayers are going to pay more for the water as water
supply needs improving as it is is not fit for purpose.
The real point is do we, the ratepayers get value. Does the ratepayers have >control over the assests.?
On 2024-08-09, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Many Councils were near borrowing limits before all of this. They are
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 20:03:54 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 16:55:41 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 04:14:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 12:35:29 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>wrote:You are the dreamer. Crash did not say that nor was it implied.
On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 22:08:44 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>wrote:
The Government is claiming that Labour did not investigate an >>>>>>>>organisation that they claim will lend to Councils more cheaply than >>>>>>>>banks - to do that however it appears that the Government may have to >>>>>>>>provide an implicit guarantee by authorising higher limit for Councils >>>>>>>>than they had previously. That gives the risk that Councils will get >>>>>>>>into difficulty in the future, but the interest rate will also be >>>>>>>>higher than Labour / Green had planned - they would have used >>>>>>>>Government funding - probably about 0.25% lower than through the >>>>>>>>''friendly'' organisation that has offered to help National . . . >>>>>>>>
Yet again Simeon Brown and Nicola Willis show that not only are they >>>>>>>>financially illiterate, they have either not sought advice from >>>>>>>>Treasury or were unable to understand it.
As I predicted, Councils will be worse off under NAct1st than under >>>>>>>>Labour/Green.
0.25% of all the borrowing needed for the water projects will be quite >>>>>>>>a few millions a year - all to enable NAct1st to claim that they are >>>>>>>>nor responsible . . .
Will it be your local Council that goes bust as a result of this >>>>>>>>governments ignorance?
At least each local council will retain control of all its water >>>>>>>assets and be responsible for funding them from the Local Government >>>>>>>Funding Agency (LGFA). Neither of these options was available under >>>>>>>the 3-waters policy that Labour implemented after failing to mention >>>>>>>it prior to the 2020 election.
It seems to have escaped your notice that the LGFA funding has to be >>>>>>>applied for (meaning the LGFA will set criteria which will no doubt >>>>>>>include financial viability to repay, and everything will be funded by >>>>>>>ring fenced water consumption revenue. Councils are required to use >>>>>>>CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) for water so ratepayers are >>>>>>>not affected.
This is another example of you not letting the facts get in the way of >>>>>>>anti-government political rhetoric.
So ratepayers will not be paying water costs? Are you dreaming?
"Councils are required to use CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) >>>>for water so ratepayers are not affected."
So with higher borrowing costs, and therefore higher costs to be paid >>>>for, are ratepayers not affected?
You are very thick Rich. See my response a few minutes ago in this >>>thread. My local council has options. They may well transfer water >>>assets to their existing CCO, or a new one, or a regional council CCO. >>>Those that use water services in my area will pay accordingly.
I live in an area where many ratepayers source their own water
services from their own supply, sewerage and storm water facilities
and these folks will see no impact on their rates.
So essentially the answer is that yes ratepayers will pay a higher
cost for water, regardless of how it is paid for. Tony appears to
agree with you.
Of course some ratepayers are going to pay more for the water as water
supply needs improving as it is is not fit for purpose.
The real point is do we, the ratepayers get value. Does the ratepayers have >control over the assests.?In the light of the increase in costs that is a reasonable question to
On 10 Aug 2024 23:24:34 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:That is horseshit. It is a deliberate political diversion. The work always needed doing and always had to be paid for. It is now being paid for in a different way. But guess what, the same people are still paying for it - the people who live in this country.
On 2024-08-09, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Many Councils were near borrowing limits before all of this. They are
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 20:03:54 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 16:55:41 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 04:14:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 12:35:29 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 22:08:44 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>wrote:
The Government is claiming that Labour did not investigate an >>>>>>>>>organisation that they claim will lend to Councils more cheaply than >>>>>>>>>banks - to do that however it appears that the Government may have to >>>>>>>>>provide an implicit guarantee by authorising higher limit for Councils >>>>>>>>>than they had previously. That gives the risk that Councils will get >>>>>>>>>into difficulty in the future, but the interest rate will also be >>>>>>>>>higher than Labour / Green had planned - they would have used >>>>>>>>>Government funding - probably about 0.25% lower than through the >>>>>>>>>''friendly'' organisation that has offered to help National . . . >>>>>>>>>
Yet again Simeon Brown and Nicola Willis show that not only are they >>>>>>>>>financially illiterate, they have either not sought advice from >>>>>>>>>Treasury or were unable to understand it.
As I predicted, Councils will be worse off under NAct1st than under >>>>>>>>>Labour/Green.
0.25% of all the borrowing needed for the water projects will be quite >>>>>>>>>a few millions a year - all to enable NAct1st to claim that they are >>>>>>>>>nor responsible . . .
Will it be your local Council that goes bust as a result of this >>>>>>>>>governments ignorance?
At least each local council will retain control of all its water >>>>>>>>assets and be responsible for funding them from the Local Government >>>>>>>>Funding Agency (LGFA). Neither of these options was available under >>>>>>>>the 3-waters policy that Labour implemented after failing to mention >>>>>>>>it prior to the 2020 election.
It seems to have escaped your notice that the LGFA funding has to be >>>>>>>>applied for (meaning the LGFA will set criteria which will no doubt >>>>>>>>include financial viability to repay, and everything will be funded by >>>>>>>>ring fenced water consumption revenue. Councils are required to use >>>>>>>>CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) for water so ratepayers are >>>>>>>>not affected.
This is another example of you not letting the facts get in the way of >>>>>>>>anti-government political rhetoric.
So ratepayers will not be paying water costs? Are you dreaming? >>>>>>You are the dreamer. Crash did not say that nor was it implied.
"Councils are required to use CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) >>>>>for water so ratepayers are not affected."
So with higher borrowing costs, and therefore higher costs to be paid >>>>>for, are ratepayers not affected?
You are very thick Rich. See my response a few minutes ago in this >>>>thread. My local council has options. They may well transfer water >>>>assets to their existing CCO, or a new one, or a regional council CCO. >>>>Those that use water services in my area will pay accordingly.
I live in an area where many ratepayers source their own water
services from their own supply, sewerage and storm water facilities
and these folks will see no impact on their rates.
So essentially the answer is that yes ratepayers will pay a higher
cost for water, regardless of how it is paid for. Tony appears to
agree with you.
Of course some ratepayers are going to pay more for the water as water >>supply needs improving as it is is not fit for purpose.
now able set up new organisations (council controlled entities) to
borrow (presumably with no capital of their own) to undertake the
work, and each Council is now permitted to borrow up to 5 times their
annual rates. They will borrow from an organisation that is 20% owned
by Government; while it is not clear if that borrowing will be
guaranteed by the government, there will be an implicit guarantee from >government (and hence a contingent liability in the government books).
A bog issue is then what repayments will need to be - that will need
to be charged to either ratepayers or water users (the two being
largely the same; or if preferred slightly different as has been
pointed out), and any such contribution from the Council would come
through rates.
The payment of interest and principal on the debt has not been
discussed, but for those needing borrowing near the limit of 5 times
annual rates those charges may be quite high.
A barefaced lie - ther is no evidence that the costs will increase. In fact if Labour had not spend all that money on 3 waters it might now be cheaper.The real point is do we, the ratepayers get value. Does the ratepayers have >>control over the assests.?In the light of the increase in costs
that is a reasonable question toNonsense - they do not plan to put a minority in charge - no racist management is planned unlike Labour.
ask. National created quite a few "Council Controlled Organisations"
in the then new Auckland super-city - which successive Auckland
Councils have found frustrating as the only control they have is to
appoint Directors. It is unclear what is now proposed, but I would
expect the now NAct1st government to believe that a similar level of >"Control" is appropriate for these new CCOs.
The availability of sufficiently qualified and experienced staff willMore horseshit, it matters not who is paying for it or how, the same skills would still have to be found.
be critical to the success of each CCO, and I suspect that will
encourage Council to create CCOs that cover a number of Councils - we
may end up with a similar number of organisation to the previous
government proposals; one for example may include a few more local
Councils than are currently covered by the Wellington Regional Council
for example, and Auckland Water may expand to include some surrounding >Councils.
The real difference between the current proposals and those of theGeez, that is the silliest thing you have ever posted - nobody believes that rubbish.
previous government is that all costs will be met by users; giving
central government the opportunity to finally assert that there is >justification for dropping the top tax rate . . . we have all seen the
effect of the recent tax cuts with the bigger paypackets benefiting a
lot of retailers and making such a difference to our domestic economy
and employment opportunities . . .. Just remember when your water
starts to cost about the same as rates, that you are reaping the
benefits of local control instead of the benefits of sharing the costs
across the whole country by leaving it to central government . . .
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:I was responding to a question about ratepayers - and yes the cost to
On 10 Aug 2024 23:24:34 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:That is horseshit. It is a deliberate political diversion. The work always >needed doing and always had to be paid for. It is now being paid for in a >different way. But guess what, the same people are still paying for it - the >people who live in this country.
On 2024-08-09, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Many Councils were near borrowing limits before all of this. They are
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 20:03:54 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 16:55:41 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 04:14:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 12:35:29 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 22:08:44 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
The Government is claiming that Labour did not investigate an >>>>>>>>>>organisation that they claim will lend to Councils more cheaply than >>>>>>>>>>banks - to do that however it appears that the Government may have to >>>>>>>>>>provide an implicit guarantee by authorising higher limit for Councils
than they had previously. That gives the risk that Councils will get >>>>>>>>>>into difficulty in the future, but the interest rate will also be >>>>>>>>>>higher than Labour / Green had planned - they would have used >>>>>>>>>>Government funding - probably about 0.25% lower than through the >>>>>>>>>>''friendly'' organisation that has offered to help National . . . >>>>>>>>>>
Yet again Simeon Brown and Nicola Willis show that not only are they >>>>>>>>>>financially illiterate, they have either not sought advice from >>>>>>>>>>Treasury or were unable to understand it.
As I predicted, Councils will be worse off under NAct1st than under >>>>>>>>>>Labour/Green.
0.25% of all the borrowing needed for the water projects will be quite
a few millions a year - all to enable NAct1st to claim that they are >>>>>>>>>>nor responsible . . .
Will it be your local Council that goes bust as a result of this >>>>>>>>>>governments ignorance?
At least each local council will retain control of all its water >>>>>>>>>assets and be responsible for funding them from the Local Government >>>>>>>>>Funding Agency (LGFA). Neither of these options was available under >>>>>>>>>the 3-waters policy that Labour implemented after failing to mention >>>>>>>>>it prior to the 2020 election.
It seems to have escaped your notice that the LGFA funding has to be >>>>>>>>>applied for (meaning the LGFA will set criteria which will no doubt >>>>>>>>>include financial viability to repay, and everything will be funded by >>>>>>>>>ring fenced water consumption revenue. Councils are required to use >>>>>>>>>CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) for water so ratepayers are >>>>>>>>>not affected.
This is another example of you not letting the facts get in the way of >>>>>>>>>anti-government political rhetoric.
So ratepayers will not be paying water costs? Are you dreaming? >>>>>>>You are the dreamer. Crash did not say that nor was it implied.
"Councils are required to use CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) >>>>>>for water so ratepayers are not affected."
So with higher borrowing costs, and therefore higher costs to be paid >>>>>>for, are ratepayers not affected?
You are very thick Rich. See my response a few minutes ago in this >>>>>thread. My local council has options. They may well transfer water >>>>>assets to their existing CCO, or a new one, or a regional council CCO. >>>>>Those that use water services in my area will pay accordingly.
I live in an area where many ratepayers source their own water >>>>>services from their own supply, sewerage and storm water facilities >>>>>and these folks will see no impact on their rates.
So essentially the answer is that yes ratepayers will pay a higher
cost for water, regardless of how it is paid for. Tony appears to
agree with you.
Of course some ratepayers are going to pay more for the water as water >>>supply needs improving as it is is not fit for purpose.
now able set up new organisations (council controlled entities) to
borrow (presumably with no capital of their own) to undertake the
work, and each Council is now permitted to borrow up to 5 times their >>annual rates. They will borrow from an organisation that is 20% owned
by Government; while it is not clear if that borrowing will be
guaranteed by the government, there will be an implicit guarantee from >>government (and hence a contingent liability in the government books).
A bog issue is then what repayments will need to be - that will need
to be charged to either ratepayers or water users (the two being
largely the same; or if preferred slightly different as has been
pointed out), and any such contribution from the Council would come
through rates.
The payment of interest and principal on the debt has not been
discussed, but for those needing borrowing near the limit of 5 times
annual rates those charges may be quite high.
A barefaced lie - ther is no evidence that the costs will increase. In fact if >Labour had not spend all that money on 3 waters it might now be cheaper.
The real point is do we, the ratepayers get value. Does the ratepayers have >>>control over the assests.?In the light of the increase in costs
We are not talking about Labour, Tony - they are not in government -that is a reasonable question toNonsense - they do not plan to put a minority in charge - no racist management >is planned unlike Labour.
ask. National created quite a few "Council Controlled Organisations"
in the then new Auckland super-city - which successive Auckland
Councils have found frustrating as the only control they have is to
appoint Directors. It is unclear what is now proposed, but I would
expect the now NAct1st government to believe that a similar level of >>"Control" is appropriate for these new CCOs.
More horseshit, it matters not who is paying for it or how, the same skills >would still have to be found.
The availability of sufficiently qualified and experienced staff will
be critical to the success of each CCO, and I suspect that will
encourage Council to create CCOs that cover a number of Councils - we
may end up with a similar number of organisation to the previous
government proposals; one for example may include a few more local
Councils than are currently covered by the Wellington Regional Council
for example, and Auckland Water may expand to include some surrounding >>Councils.
Geez, that is the silliest thing you have ever posted - nobody believes that >rubbish.
The real difference between the current proposals and those of the
previous government is that all costs will be met by users; giving
central government the opportunity to finally assert that there is >>justification for dropping the top tax rate . . . we have all seen the >>effect of the recent tax cuts with the bigger paypackets benefiting a
lot of retailers and making such a difference to our domestic economy
and employment opportunities . . .. Just remember when your water
starts to cost about the same as rates, that you are reaping the
benefits of local control instead of the benefits of sharing the costs >>across the whole country by leaving it to central government . . .
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 02:00:12 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are beibg obtuse. The overall cost is no more and may be less than the last government proposed. I assume you pay rates and tax and so you will be paying for it, and you always were going to pay for it. Period.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:I was responding to a question about ratepayers - and yes the cost to >Councils will increase significantly over that under Labour's
On 10 Aug 2024 23:24:34 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:That is horseshit. It is a deliberate political diversion. The work always >>needed doing and always had to be paid for. It is now being paid for in a >>different way. But guess what, the same people are still paying for it - the >>people who live in this country.
On 2024-08-09, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Many Councils were near borrowing limits before all of this. They are
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 20:03:54 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 16:55:41 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 04:14:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 12:35:29 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 22:08:44 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
The Government is claiming that Labour did not investigate an >>>>>>>>>>>organisation that they claim will lend to Councils more cheaply than >>>>>>>>>>>banks - to do that however it appears that the Government may have to
provide an implicit guarantee by authorising higher limit for >>>>>>>>>>>Councils
than they had previously. That gives the risk that Councils will get >>>>>>>>>>>into difficulty in the future, but the interest rate will also be >>>>>>>>>>>higher than Labour / Green had planned - they would have used >>>>>>>>>>>Government funding - probably about 0.25% lower than through the >>>>>>>>>>>''friendly'' organisation that has offered to help National . . . >>>>>>>>>>>
Yet again Simeon Brown and Nicola Willis show that not only are they >>>>>>>>>>>financially illiterate, they have either not sought advice from >>>>>>>>>>>Treasury or were unable to understand it.
As I predicted, Councils will be worse off under NAct1st than under >>>>>>>>>>>Labour/Green.
0.25% of all the borrowing needed for the water projects will be >>>>>>>>>>>quite
a few millions a year - all to enable NAct1st to claim that they are >>>>>>>>>>>nor responsible . . .
Will it be your local Council that goes bust as a result of this >>>>>>>>>>>governments ignorance?
At least each local council will retain control of all its water >>>>>>>>>>assets and be responsible for funding them from the Local Government >>>>>>>>>>Funding Agency (LGFA). Neither of these options was available under >>>>>>>>>>the 3-waters policy that Labour implemented after failing to mention >>>>>>>>>>it prior to the 2020 election.
It seems to have escaped your notice that the LGFA funding has to be >>>>>>>>>>applied for (meaning the LGFA will set criteria which will no doubt >>>>>>>>>>include financial viability to repay, and everything will be funded by
ring fenced water consumption revenue. Councils are required to use >>>>>>>>>>CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) for water so ratepayers are >>>>>>>>>>not affected.
This is another example of you not letting the facts get in the way of
anti-government political rhetoric.
So ratepayers will not be paying water costs? Are you dreaming? >>>>>>>>You are the dreamer. Crash did not say that nor was it implied.
"Councils are required to use CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) >>>>>>>for water so ratepayers are not affected."
So with higher borrowing costs, and therefore higher costs to be paid >>>>>>>for, are ratepayers not affected?
You are very thick Rich. See my response a few minutes ago in this >>>>>>thread. My local council has options. They may well transfer water >>>>>>assets to their existing CCO, or a new one, or a regional council CCO. >>>>>>Those that use water services in my area will pay accordingly.
I live in an area where many ratepayers source their own water >>>>>>services from their own supply, sewerage and storm water facilities >>>>>>and these folks will see no impact on their rates.
So essentially the answer is that yes ratepayers will pay a higher
cost for water, regardless of how it is paid for. Tony appears to
agree with you.
Of course some ratepayers are going to pay more for the water as water >>>>supply needs improving as it is is not fit for purpose.
now able set up new organisations (council controlled entities) to
borrow (presumably with no capital of their own) to undertake the
work, and each Council is now permitted to borrow up to 5 times their >>>annual rates. They will borrow from an organisation that is 20% owned
by Government; while it is not clear if that borrowing will be
guaranteed by the government, there will be an implicit guarantee from >>>government (and hence a contingent liability in the government books).
A bog issue is then what repayments will need to be - that will need
to be charged to either ratepayers or water users (the two being
largely the same; or if preferred slightly different as has been
pointed out), and any such contribution from the Council would come >>>through rates.
The payment of interest and principal on the debt has not been
discussed, but for those needing borrowing near the limit of 5 times >>>annual rates those charges may be quite high.
A barefaced lie - ther is no evidence that the costs will increase. In fact >>if
The real point is do we, the ratepayers get value. Does the ratepayers have >>>>control over the assests.?In the light of the increase in costs
Labour had not spend all that money on 3 waters it might now be cheaper.
proposals - the government is paying less. So the question about
ratepayers getting value and whether they have control is reasonable.
Ignprant abuse gone.that is a reasonable question toNonsense - they do not plan to put a minority in charge - no racist >>management
ask. National created quite a few "Council Controlled Organisations"
in the then new Auckland super-city - which successive Auckland
Councils have found frustrating as the only control they have is to >>>appoint Directors. It is unclear what is now proposed, but I would
expect the now NAct1st government to believe that a similar level of >>>"Control" is appropriate for these new CCOs.
is planned unlike Labour.
ratepayers have control over the assets.?" Now the government (andTotally irrelevant.
that is the ACT / National / NZ First government, Tony) has indicated
that the Councils will be able to establish "council controlled
entities" - why would they not use the same basis of control as a
previous National-led government did in Auckland. Now the current
government has indeed been accused of racism by a number of people,
but I can see no evidence of racism in the ability of for example the >Auckland Council to appoint whoever they want to current Council
Controlled Organisations
Those skills were need by the Labour plan also - therefore irrelevant diversionary nonsense by you.More horseshit, it matters not who is paying for it or how, the same skills >>would still have to be found.
The availability of sufficiently qualified and experienced staff will
be critical to the success of each CCO, and I suspect that will
encourage Council to create CCOs that cover a number of Councils - we
may end up with a similar number of organisation to the previous >>>government proposals; one for example may include a few more local >>>Councils than are currently covered by the Wellington Regional Council >>>for example, and Auckland Water may expand to include some surrounding >>>Councils.
If there are twenty different projects they will each need skilled >professionals in both construction and various aspects of water for at
least the development and construction phases of the new projects -
better to have fewer projects and share the expertise; fewer will be
needed once construction is complete, and importing people from
overseas for short term (up to 5 or 10 years) may be very expensive.
You will fund that, just as I will and everybody else who pays rates and tax. No difference to the Labour plan - other than the removal of the racist plans.Geez, that is the silliest thing you have ever posted - nobody believes that >>rubbish.
The real difference between the current proposals and those of the >>>previous government is that all costs will be met by users; giving >>>central government the opportunity to finally assert that there is >>>justification for dropping the top tax rate . . . we have all seen the >>>effect of the recent tax cuts with the bigger paypackets benefiting a
lot of retailers and making such a difference to our domestic economy
and employment opportunities . . .. Just remember when your water
starts to cost about the same as rates, that you are reaping the
benefits of local control instead of the benefits of sharing the costs >>>across the whole country by leaving it to central government . . .
Councils are being told that they can borrow up to 5 times their
income from rates to pay for the work that needs to be done. How are
they to repay that borrowing, Tony?
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:You cannot prove that the cost will be no more than under previous
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 02:00:12 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are beibg obtuse. The overall cost is no more and may be less than the last
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:I was responding to a question about ratepayers - and yes the cost to >>Councils will increase significantly over that under Labour's
On 10 Aug 2024 23:24:34 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:That is horseshit. It is a deliberate political diversion. The work always >>>needed doing and always had to be paid for. It is now being paid for in a >>>different way. But guess what, the same people are still paying for it - the >>>people who live in this country.
On 2024-08-09, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Many Councils were near borrowing limits before all of this. They are >>>>now able set up new organisations (council controlled entities) to >>>>borrow (presumably with no capital of their own) to undertake the
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 20:03:54 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 16:55:41 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 04:14:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:"Councils are required to use CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) >>>>>>>>for water so ratepayers are not affected."
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 12:35:29 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 22:08:44 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:
The Government is claiming that Labour did not investigate an >>>>>>>>>>>>organisation that they claim will lend to Councils more cheaply than
banks - to do that however it appears that the Government may have to
provide an implicit guarantee by authorising higher limit for >>>>>>>>>>>>Councils
than they had previously. That gives the risk that Councils will get
into difficulty in the future, but the interest rate will also be >>>>>>>>>>>>higher than Labour / Green had planned - they would have used >>>>>>>>>>>>Government funding - probably about 0.25% lower than through the >>>>>>>>>>>>''friendly'' organisation that has offered to help National . . . >>>>>>>>>>>>
Yet again Simeon Brown and Nicola Willis show that not only are they
financially illiterate, they have either not sought advice from >>>>>>>>>>>>Treasury or were unable to understand it.
As I predicted, Councils will be worse off under NAct1st than under >>>>>>>>>>>>Labour/Green.
0.25% of all the borrowing needed for the water projects will be >>>>>>>>>>>>quite
a few millions a year - all to enable NAct1st to claim that they are
nor responsible . . .
Will it be your local Council that goes bust as a result of this >>>>>>>>>>>>governments ignorance?
At least each local council will retain control of all its water >>>>>>>>>>>assets and be responsible for funding them from the Local Government >>>>>>>>>>>Funding Agency (LGFA). Neither of these options was available under >>>>>>>>>>>the 3-waters policy that Labour implemented after failing to mention >>>>>>>>>>>it prior to the 2020 election.
It seems to have escaped your notice that the LGFA funding has to be >>>>>>>>>>>applied for (meaning the LGFA will set criteria which will no doubt >>>>>>>>>>>include financial viability to repay, and everything will be funded by
ring fenced water consumption revenue. Councils are required to use >>>>>>>>>>>CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) for water so ratepayers are >>>>>>>>>>>not affected.
This is another example of you not letting the facts get in the way of
anti-government political rhetoric.
So ratepayers will not be paying water costs? Are you dreaming? >>>>>>>>>You are the dreamer. Crash did not say that nor was it implied. >>>>>>>>
So with higher borrowing costs, and therefore higher costs to be paid >>>>>>>>for, are ratepayers not affected?
You are very thick Rich. See my response a few minutes ago in this >>>>>>>thread. My local council has options. They may well transfer water >>>>>>>assets to their existing CCO, or a new one, or a regional council CCO. >>>>>>>Those that use water services in my area will pay accordingly.
I live in an area where many ratepayers source their own water >>>>>>>services from their own supply, sewerage and storm water facilities >>>>>>>and these folks will see no impact on their rates.
So essentially the answer is that yes ratepayers will pay a higher >>>>>> cost for water, regardless of how it is paid for. Tony appears to
agree with you.
Of course some ratepayers are going to pay more for the water as water >>>>>supply needs improving as it is is not fit for purpose.
work, and each Council is now permitted to borrow up to 5 times their >>>>annual rates. They will borrow from an organisation that is 20% owned >>>>by Government; while it is not clear if that borrowing will be >>>>guaranteed by the government, there will be an implicit guarantee from >>>>government (and hence a contingent liability in the government books). >>>>A bog issue is then what repayments will need to be - that will need
to be charged to either ratepayers or water users (the two being >>>>largely the same; or if preferred slightly different as has been >>>>pointed out), and any such contribution from the Council would come >>>>through rates.
The payment of interest and principal on the debt has not been >>>>discussed, but for those needing borrowing near the limit of 5 times >>>>annual rates those charges may be quite high.
A barefaced lie - ther is no evidence that the costs will increase. In fact >>>if
The real point is do we, the ratepayers get value. Does the ratepayers haveIn the light of the increase in costs
control over the assests.?
Labour had not spend all that money on 3 waters it might now be cheaper.
proposals - the government is paying less. So the question about >>ratepayers getting value and whether they have control is reasonable.
government proposed. I assume you pay rates and tax and so you will be paying >for it, and you always were going to pay for it. Period.
Labour did not plan to put a minority in charge - why do you persist
that is a reasonable question toNonsense - they do not plan to put a minority in charge - no racist >>>management
ask. National created quite a few "Council Controlled Organisations"
in the then new Auckland super-city - which successive Auckland >>>>Councils have found frustrating as the only control they have is to >>>>appoint Directors. It is unclear what is now proposed, but I would >>>>expect the now NAct1st government to believe that a similar level of >>>>"Control" is appropriate for these new CCOs.
is planned unlike Labour.
Ignprant abuse gone.
< I was responding to the question "Does the
ratepayers have control over the assets.?" Now the government (andTotally irrelevant.
that is the ACT / National / NZ First government, Tony) has indicated
that the Councils will be able to establish "council controlled
entities" - why would they not use the same basis of control as a
previous National-led government did in Auckland. Now the current >>government has indeed been accused of racism by a number of people,
but I can see no evidence of racism in the ability of for example the >>Auckland Council to appoint whoever they want to current Council
Controlled Organisations
This government removed the racist plans that Labour put in place and there is >no evidence that the new plans will cost more. Show otherwise.
Abuse gone.Do try to be fair to the current government,
No, a fragmented system will require duplication of work, moreMore horseshit, it matters not who is paying for it or how, the same skills >>>would still have to be found.
The availability of sufficiently qualified and experienced staff will >>>>be critical to the success of each CCO, and I suspect that will >>>>encourage Council to create CCOs that cover a number of Councils - we >>>>may end up with a similar number of organisation to the previous >>>>government proposals; one for example may include a few more local >>>>Councils than are currently covered by the Wellington Regional Council >>>>for example, and Auckland Water may expand to include some surrounding >>>>Councils.
The previous governments plans ensured that each project was largeThose skills were need by the Labour plan also - therefore irrelevant >diversionary nonsense by you.
If there are twenty different projects they will each need skilled >>professionals in both construction and various aspects of water for at >>least the development and construction phases of the new projects -
better to have fewer projects and share the expertise; fewer will be
needed once construction is complete, and importing people from
overseas for short term (up to 5 or 10 years) may be very expensive.
Many current Councils are near the 'safe' level of borrowing set byGeez, that is the silliest thing you have ever posted - nobody believes that >>>rubbish.
The real difference between the current proposals and those of the >>>>previous government is that all costs will be met by users; giving >>>>central government the opportunity to finally assert that there is >>>>justification for dropping the top tax rate . . . we have all seen the >>>>effect of the recent tax cuts with the bigger paypackets benefiting a >>>>lot of retailers and making such a difference to our domestic economy >>>>and employment opportunities . . .. Just remember when your water >>>>starts to cost about the same as rates, that you are reaping the >>>>benefits of local control instead of the benefits of sharing the costs >>>>across the whole country by leaving it to central government . . .
You will fund that, just as I will and everybody else who pays rates and tax. >No difference to the Labour plan - other than the removal of the racist plans.
Councils are being told that they can borrow up to 5 times their
income from rates to pay for the work that needs to be done. How are
they to repay that borrowing, Tony?
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 02:49:25 -0000 (UTC), TonyAnd you cannot prove that they will not be, but I didn't actually say they would be. Your English comprehension is getting worse by the day,
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:You cannot prove that the cost will be no more than under previous
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 02:00:12 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are beibg obtuse. The overall cost is no more and may be less than the >>last
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:proposals - the government is paying less. So the question about >>>ratepayers getting value and whether they have control is reasonable.
On 10 Aug 2024 23:24:34 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:That is horseshit. It is a deliberate political diversion. The work always >>>>needed doing and always had to be paid for. It is now being paid for in a >>>>different way. But guess what, the same people are still paying for it - >>>>the
On 2024-08-09, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Many Councils were near borrowing limits before all of this. They are >>>>>now able set up new organisations (council controlled entities) to >>>>>borrow (presumably with no capital of their own) to undertake the >>>>>work, and each Council is now permitted to borrow up to 5 times their >>>>>annual rates. They will borrow from an organisation that is 20% owned >>>>>by Government; while it is not clear if that borrowing will be >>>>>guaranteed by the government, there will be an implicit guarantee from >>>>>government (and hence a contingent liability in the government books). >>>>>A bog issue is then what repayments will need to be - that will need >>>>>to be charged to either ratepayers or water users (the two being >>>>>largely the same; or if preferred slightly different as has been >>>>>pointed out), and any such contribution from the Council would come >>>>>through rates.
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 20:03:54 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 16:55:41 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 04:14:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:"Councils are required to use CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) >>>>>>>>>for water so ratepayers are not affected."
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 12:35:29 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 22:08:44 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>><[email protected]>
wrote:
The Government is claiming that Labour did not investigate an >>>>>>>>>>>>>organisation that they claim will lend to Councils more cheaply >>>>>>>>>>>>>than
banks - to do that however it appears that the Government may have >>>>>>>>>>>>>to
provide an implicit guarantee by authorising higher limit for >>>>>>>>>>>>>Councils
than they had previously. That gives the risk that Councils will >>>>>>>>>>>>>get
into difficulty in the future, but the interest rate will also be >>>>>>>>>>>>>higher than Labour / Green had planned - they would have used >>>>>>>>>>>>>Government funding - probably about 0.25% lower than through the >>>>>>>>>>>>>''friendly'' organisation that has offered to help National . . . >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yet again Simeon Brown and Nicola Willis show that not only are >>>>>>>>>>>>>they
financially illiterate, they have either not sought advice from >>>>>>>>>>>>>Treasury or were unable to understand it.
As I predicted, Councils will be worse off under NAct1st than under
Labour/Green.
0.25% of all the borrowing needed for the water projects will be >>>>>>>>>>>>>quite
a few millions a year - all to enable NAct1st to claim that they >>>>>>>>>>>>>are
nor responsible . . .
Will it be your local Council that goes bust as a result of this >>>>>>>>>>>>>governments ignorance?
At least each local council will retain control of all its water >>>>>>>>>>>>assets and be responsible for funding them from the Local Government
Funding Agency (LGFA). Neither of these options was available under
the 3-waters policy that Labour implemented after failing to mention
it prior to the 2020 election.
It seems to have escaped your notice that the LGFA funding has to be
applied for (meaning the LGFA will set criteria which will no doubt >>>>>>>>>>>>include financial viability to repay, and everything will be funded >>>>>>>>>>>>by
ring fenced water consumption revenue. Councils are required to use
CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations) for water so ratepayers are >>>>>>>>>>>>not affected.
This is another example of you not letting the facts get in the way >>>>>>>>>>>>of
anti-government political rhetoric.
So ratepayers will not be paying water costs? Are you dreaming? >>>>>>>>>>You are the dreamer. Crash did not say that nor was it implied. >>>>>>>>>
So with higher borrowing costs, and therefore higher costs to be paid >>>>>>>>>for, are ratepayers not affected?
You are very thick Rich. See my response a few minutes ago in this >>>>>>>>thread. My local council has options. They may well transfer water >>>>>>>>assets to their existing CCO, or a new one, or a regional council CCO. >>>>>>>>Those that use water services in my area will pay accordingly.
I live in an area where many ratepayers source their own water >>>>>>>>services from their own supply, sewerage and storm water facilities >>>>>>>>and these folks will see no impact on their rates.
So essentially the answer is that yes ratepayers will pay a higher >>>>>>> cost for water, regardless of how it is paid for. Tony appears to >>>>>>> agree with you.
Of course some ratepayers are going to pay more for the water as water >>>>>>supply needs improving as it is is not fit for purpose.
The payment of interest and principal on the debt has not been >>>>>discussed, but for those needing borrowing near the limit of 5 times >>>>>annual rates those charges may be quite high.
people who live in this country.
A barefaced lie - ther is no evidence that the costs will increase. In fact >>>>if
The real point is do we, the ratepayers get value. Does the ratepayers >>>>>>haveIn the light of the increase in costs
control over the assests.?
Labour had not spend all that money on 3 waters it might now be cheaper. >>>I was responding to a question about ratepayers - and yes the cost to >>>Councils will increase significantly over that under Labour's
government proposed. I assume you pay rates and tax and so you will be paying >>for it, and you always were going to pay for it. Period.
proposals.
You do however identify the real reason why NAct1st want itAbject nonsense.
billed through rates and water charges rather than through taxes -
they want to move from progressive tax rates to user charges wherever >possible to make the wealthy even wealthier.
Yes they did, it is you that is lying.,Labour did not plan to put a minority in charge - why do you persist
that is a reasonable question toNonsense - they do not plan to put a minority in charge - no racist >>>>management
ask. National created quite a few "Council Controlled Organisations" >>>>>in the then new Auckland super-city - which successive Auckland >>>>>Councils have found frustrating as the only control they have is to >>>>>appoint Directors. It is unclear what is now proposed, but I would >>>>>expect the now NAct1st government to believe that a similar level of >>>>>"Control" is appropriate for these new CCOs.
is planned unlike Labour.
in lying, Tony? Alternatively, prove your assertion!
You can talk about what you want and so will I.Ignprant abuse gone.
"We are not talking about Labour, Tony - they are not in government -
had you forgotten? "
Where is the abuse?
< I was responding to the question "Does the
ratepayers have control over the assets.?" Now the government (andTotally irrelevant.
that is the ACT / National / NZ First government, Tony) has indicated >>>that the Councils will be able to establish "council controlled
entities" - why would they not use the same basis of control as a >>>previous National-led government did in Auckland. Now the current >>>government has indeed been accused of racism by a number of people,
but I can see no evidence of racism in the ability of for example the >>>Auckland Council to appoint whoever they want to current Council >>>Controlled Organisations
This government removed the racist plans that Labour put in place and there >>is
no evidence that the new plans will cost more. Show otherwise.
I was not talking about costs here, Tony, but to the question about
whether the ratepayers have control over the assets. The mayor of
Auckland says that he does not believe appointing directors is enough.
Once the money is borrowed the Council will have to repay it, but
otherwise it will be controlled by each CCO - that is how the current >government is designing the system; so central government can control >everything through regulations . . .
Abuse gone.Do try to be fair to the current government,
Tony - or do you have knowledge of racism that has not yet been made
public by Luxon or other Ministers?
No abuse - unless you do have knowledge that I do not have that the
water proposals from the current government are in some way racist . .
.
No, a fragmented system will require duplication of work, moreMore horseshit, it matters not who is paying for it or how, the same skills >>>>would still have to be found.
The availability of sufficiently qualified and experienced staff will >>>>>be critical to the success of each CCO, and I suspect that will >>>>>encourage Council to create CCOs that cover a number of Councils - we >>>>>may end up with a similar number of organisation to the previous >>>>>government proposals; one for example may include a few more local >>>>>Councils than are currently covered by the Wellington Regional Council >>>>>for example, and Auckland Water may expand to include some surrounding >>>>>Councils.
difficulties for government in signing off on completions, and
undoubtedly greater costs through more specialists being needed.
The previous governments plans ensured that each project was largeThose skills were need by the Labour plan also - therefore irrelevant >>diversionary nonsense by you.
If there are twenty different projects they will each need skilled >>>professionals in both construction and various aspects of water for at >>>least the development and construction phases of the new projects - >>>better to have fewer projects and share the expertise; fewer will be >>>needed once construction is complete, and importing people from
overseas for short term (up to 5 or 10 years) may be very expensive.
enough to get economies of scale, while there were enough to give the
ability to tailor solutions to individual areas - but exactly how many
and where they would cover was being discussed with local authorities
prior to the election. The proposal from the new government may leave
some Councils struggling if a neighbouring Council is not prepared to
work with them - and there is the danger of ongoing problems and
higher costs under the new proposals from the current government.
Many current Councils are near the 'safe' level of borrowing set byrubbish.
The real difference between the current proposals and those of the >>>>>previous government is that all costs will be met by users; giving >>>>>central government the opportunity to finally assert that there is >>>>>justification for dropping the top tax rate . . . we have all seen the >>>>>effect of the recent tax cuts with the bigger paypackets benefiting a >>>>>lot of retailers and making such a difference to our domestic economy >>>>>and employment opportunities . . .. Just remember when your water >>>>>starts to cost about the same as rates, that you are reaping the >>>>>benefits of local control instead of the benefits of sharing the costs >>>>>across the whole country by leaving it to central government . . . >>>>Geez, that is the silliest thing you have ever posted - nobody believes >>>>that
both National-led governments and Labour-led governments in the past -
now the councils can borrow up to 5 times total annual rates in
addition - it is very likely to cause problems for many in the
community. How would you ensure that Councils can repay borrowing for
water issues, Tony?
You will fund that, just as I will and everybody else who pays rates and tax. >>No difference to the Labour plan - other than the removal of the racist plans.
Councils are being told that they can borrow up to 5 times their
income from rates to pay for the work that needs to be done. How are
they to repay that borrowing, Tony?
Some of us are already seeing rates increase significantly, and
electricity costs are also getting higher. But the priority for
government has been more money for landlords (around $2.9 bn - done).
There were some very small tax cuts recently, but most are already
worse off by higher rates and electricity prices - with worse to come
so NAct1st can cut the top tax rate . . .
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 152:46:30 |
| Calls: | 12,091 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,652 |