29

Random Impertinent Question

by Whaleoil on November 4, 2011

How the hell can Labour say that Capital Gains Tax will start contributing $500 million by 2015 when they haven’t even designed the tax yet and the “Expert Panel” hasn’t even been appointed?

This is just fanciful. David Cunliffe said the numbers were bullet-proof but I just put a hole in them right there.

Looks like they bought a bulk order of Wrongulators.

Tagged: • • • •

Related posts

  • Ghostwhowalksnz

    Easy , the basics are known and broad outlines of property sales are available as well.
    The $500 mill is an order of magnitude.
    Compared to nationals ‘ fully funded tax’ cuts before the last election, which had to be mostly repealed because the figures were  imagined, labour is on firmer ground.

    • MrV

      Rubbish. People will change behaviour as soon as you put in the CGT.
      i.e. rich people don’t need to sell.

    • ChrisP

      is that like the order of magnitude pete hodgson calculated?

  • Than

    So in other words, it’s a wild guess?

    Are all of Labour’s figures similarly “an order of magnitude”? Because if they are then surely so is the final result – i.e. net debt under Labour will be anything from 0.26M to 26M in the first three years.

    • thor42

      Yep,  and if Labour can play the “order of magnitude” card then so can the Nats.  Thanks, Ghost – you’ve just given National a “get out of jail free” card. 
      “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”.  

  • Ghostwhowalksnz

    Talking about Building the future-TM, heres  Keys nuggets as told to Fran O’Sullivan before the 2005 election

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/company-taxation/news/article.cfm?c_id=691&objectid=10336608“Key believes too much of New Zealand’s foreign investment has been based on investment in existing businesses – not on completely new ventures.”From New Zealand’s perspective there is the opportunity, if we wish to consider it, of saying how can we explore and grow new industries.”If National wins the election Key will be Minister of Finance. Already he is planning a feasibility study to see if some of Ireland’s measures can be adopted here to fuel an economic transformation”Adopt some of Ireland measures — way to go John. $100 Bill to bail out the banks ?Arent we so lucky Key wasnt finance minister after 2005. pigsnz ?

    • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

      Ghost your loyalty is commendable, pity it has resulted in such serious blinkers where you are no longer able to decipher basic common sense…..and maths.

      Ironic that Labour – the party of teachers, is so crap at adding…..

      • Ghostwhowalksnz

        Both parties have rubber numbers, then you have to look historically.
        Labour paid the debt back National bumped it back up again, as no budget numbers have come in correctly.
        Even before Christchurch English blew his budget every year….. and tried to make out Clark was till running the country and was to blame.

        • Than

          If you’re happy to completely ignore the circumstances they governed under, absolutely.

          For myself, I’ll vote for the party that kept debt under control (“muddled through”, to use the Labour term) in very tough times. A party being able to keep debt down in good times says nothing.

        • MrV

          Do you think it had anything to do with all Labours spending commitments in it’s prior 9 years in government?
          Recession hits Hence Tax Revenue Falls = Deficit

    • MrV

      Ireland (the governments) finances were fine until it tried to guarantee all the debts of it’s banks in full.
      In actual fact if Ireland didn’t still have all the tech/pharmacy companies that set up there in the 1990′s they would be in a far worse situation.

  • thor42

    Just for the record (and easy reference) – here are two links  – one from here, one from elsewhere – to info on LABOUR’s asset sales.  Not even **partial** sales (as National proposes), but flogging the whole kit and caboodle. 

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2011/06/now-about-those-assets.html

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2011/06/so-about-those-asset-sales/

    Hypocrisy, thy name is Labour.  

  • Fisiani

    Phil said on Wednesday it would generate first funds in 2016…….Who is telling the truth?

  • thor42

    This quote, from the first of the links I posted, completely demolishes Goff’s credibility on asset sales -  
    “Yes, dear
    readers; this Bill was about preserving the ownership of strategic
    assets in New Zealand. Can you guess what happened? We’ll tell you; it
    failed to pass First Reading. Recorded in Hansard amongst those who
    voted against its passage was ***Phil Goff***. And although Annette King was
    absent from Parliament for the vote, she was paired, as was the custom
    of the day, and is also recorded for posterity amongst the Noes.
    These
    are the people who now lead Labour’s crusade AGAINST asset sales. It is
    nothing more than a blatant attempt to rewrite history, and it should
    be seen in that light.
    No
    amount of spin can mask Phil Goff’s complicity in selling the family
    silverware in the 1980′s. Annette King is also complicit, albeit
    slightly less so. And nothing can change this simple fact;
    Cabinets including Phil Goff and/or Annette King sold 17 state assets valued at $9.49 billion.Cabinets including John Key have not sold one single state asset, in whole or in part.

    • Anonymous

      Be keen to see a reply from Ghosty on the above

      • Alex

        He’ll just lie and dissemble.  Like the retarded young Labour woman who came  to my door — she just lied and said Goff didn’t sell them.  Clare Curran is banning people on Red Blurt who remind them that Goff’s sold assets — this is “lying”.  

        • Anonymous

          Does not surprise me at all that Clare has gone to that level…. Pathetic

    • http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/ Inventory2

      Good find Thor; that post of mine from June is just about due to get another airing. The hypocrisy of Labour on the issue of asset sales takes one’s breath away.

      • thor42

        Thanks!  (Thanks also to WO for his post that I linked to above).  Heck, the Nats should actually be **welcoming** Labour’s focus on asset sales.
        It gives National a chance to poke Labour with the hypocrisy stick.  Come on, National – get stuck into them!  Get a few ads out there that expose Labour’s hypocrisy.  The young voters won’t even know about this stuff, and some of the older voters may have forgotten it. Not us though.     

  • Elma Fudd

    GWW… what makes you think that Labour will be the Govt thru to 2015 so that they “can repay the debt” by then ? On their current performance, they will just be part of NZ political history by then. And by the way… I said the other day that I thought that you were very fluent in the Merde de Cheval language, it’s comforting to note that you agree by your latest posts.

    • Boss Hogg

      It is clear that it is the only language he knows !!!

    • Ben Ross

      I highly doubt Labour would be confined to the history dustbin – even WO thinks National has a high chance of becoming the Natural Party of opposition post 2014 under MMP.

      2002, National was doing badly as I recall under English and I am sure I heard calls that National would be confined to the dust bin of history then and look now.

      So will see how the future plays out before pre-writing it

      • Elma Fudd

        I would be surprised if MMP survives in it’s present form ( and I hope it doesn’t ). You sure as hell would not want Mr. W.P. or Mr. H.H. to be in a position to decide who or which party became the Govt. It’s also wrong that some unknown person on a party list, who nobody has heard of or votes for, can get into parliament and become a Minister of Something just because they had some sort of connection with that particular subject.

      • Gazzaw

        I think that you are wrong Ben. Helen Clark’s administration was the last Labour government that NZ will see. Certainly not the last socialist government and we havent seen the back of Labour MPs. This campaign has proved that Labour’s policies are yesterday’s policies and that middle NZ sees them as irrelevant. On the one hand I think that National will win again in 2015 despite the current lack of coalition partners – three years is a long time in politics & JK is not stupid. I really believe that if & when we do have another socialist government that it will be a Greens dominated coalition propped up by the few remaining Labour MPs .

        • Elma Fudd

          Gazzaw.. I think that you are right in that the Greens will basically replace Labour who will become the “minor” party, and the other “fringe” party’s will mostly disappear. The “shop-floor” vote won’t accept retirement at 67+ etc..

      • Than

        I think Whale’s premonitions of “Natural Party of
        Opposition” are pessimistic.

         

        First point, minor parties under MMP don’t tend to last long.
        The Greens have bucked this trend so far, but my bet is once they are actually
        part of government a pragmatist/idealist schism will appear, and the party will
        divide. Once that happens the odds are no individual faction will reach the 5%
        threshold.

         

        Second point, even if the Greens defy the odds and remain
        unified, that gives National a focus to rally against. Many middle-ground
        voters find the far-left views that the Green represent worrying. If voting “Labour”
        really means voting “Labour/Greens” that’s enough to put off many
        middle-ground voters. Once the Greens go from being “potential coalition
        partners” to “guaranteed part of government” that will make a
        big difference.

  • Bob

    Hi

    Should not the Greens, Winston and Hone’s spending be added on to Labours total as well? I see the Greens are spending up large again http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10763823

    Bob

    • Gazzaw

      Very true Bob. If Labour had to cobble together a shambolic coalition as Gillard has done that would come at great cost. There’s Hone’s $1.6billion Xmas present to the poor for a start.

    • EX Navy Greg

      Holy shit I hadn’t thought of that !! If we ended up with a labour / loony coalition you could probably double the deficit.Good point Bob.