https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2311/S00204/christmas-coming-early-for-landlords-with-an-extra-900-million-present-from-nact.htm
The negotiations between the parties were clearly not easy, but they
gave themselves time to take back the draft agreements to their
parties before final agreement was reached, so why did National not
have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation
works to not have spotted this mistake. Nobody would have been
expecting National to have gone for backdating a tax change . . .
With his much vaunted (but not yet identified) experience in mergers
and acquisitions, Luxon probably thought he could not afford to let it
be delayed any further, but instead he has cost "hard working
taxpayers" an extra $900 million!
So what can they do - they had made promises! They can't now meet all
those promises, but the priority is staying in power, and keeping
faith with donors . . so the change to the top income tax rate will
still go ahead unchanged - and lower tax for others deferred to pay
for the new $900 million hole in the finances of NZ Inc. . . .
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 09:36:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2311/S00204/christmas-coming-early-for-landlords-with-an-extra-900-million-present-from-nact.htm
The negotiations between the parties were clearly not easy, but they
gave themselves time to take back the draft agreements to their
parties before final agreement was reached, so why did National not
have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation
works to not have spotted this mistake. Nobody would have been
expecting National to have gone for backdating a tax change . . .
With his much vaunted (but not yet identified) experience in mergers
and acquisitions, Luxon probably thought he could not afford to let it
be delayed any further, but instead he has cost "hard working
taxpayers" an extra $900 million!
So what can they do - they had made promises! They can't now meet all
those promises, but the priority is staying in power, and keeping
faith with donors . . so the change to the top income tax rate will
still go ahead unchanged - and lower tax for others deferred to pay
for the new $900 million hole in the finances of NZ Inc. . . .
You would do well to get good financial advice Rich - but not from the
CTU as Scoop did. The context here is that all for-profit entities
used to be allowed to claim interest costs as a cost of doing
business. Labour did away with that, the new Government has promised
to restore it. I agree though that it should not be backdated -
National should not take it upon itself to refund against the actions
of a previous government.
why did National not
have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation
works to not have spotted this mistake.
The negotiations between the parties were clearly not easy, but theyYou do not have a clue who they sought advice from.
gave themselves time to take back the draft agreements to their
parties before final agreement was reached, so why did National not
have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation
works to not have spotted this mistake.
Nobody would have beenI doubt that is true. We will see.
expecting National to have gone for backdating a tax change . . .
With his much vaunted (but not yet identified) experience in mergers
and acquisitions, Luxon probably thought he could not afford to let it
be delayed any further, but instead he has cost "hard working
taxpayers" an extra $900 million!
So what can they do - they had made promises! They can't now meet allNonsensical rhetoric.
those promises, but the priority is staying in power, and keeping
faith with donors . . so the change to the top income tax rate will
still go ahead unchanged - and lower tax for others deferred to pay
for the new $900 million hole in the finances of NZ Inc. . . .
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
why did National not
have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation
works to not have spotted this mistake.
Um, because it wasn't a mistake? More money for landlords means they
can stop raising rentals and so the renters finally get a break, duh.
The article is just the usual generic attack on the new government by
the left-wing media. Spin the bottle for the next one.
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 09:51:31 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>You would have done well to make that clear - twist and turn as usual.
wrote:
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 09:36:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2311/S00204/christmas-coming-early-for-landlords-with-an-extra-900-million-present-from-nact.htm
The negotiations between the parties were clearly not easy, but they
gave themselves time to take back the draft agreements to their
parties before final agreement was reached, so why did National not
have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation
works to not have spotted this mistake. Nobody would have been
expecting National to have gone for backdating a tax change . . .
With his much vaunted (but not yet identified) experience in mergers
and acquisitions, Luxon probably thought he could not afford to let it
be delayed any further, but instead he has cost "hard working
taxpayers" an extra $900 million!
So what can they do - they had made promises! They can't now meet all >>>those promises, but the priority is staying in power, and keeping
faith with donors . . so the change to the top income tax rate will >>>still go ahead unchanged - and lower tax for others deferred to pay
for the new $900 million hole in the finances of NZ Inc. . . .
You would do well to get good financial advice Rich - but not from the
CTU as Scoop did. The context here is that all for-profit entities
used to be allowed to claim interest costs as a cost of doing
business. Labour did away with that, the new Government has promised
to restore it. I agree though that it should not be backdated -
National should not take it upon itself to refund against the actions
of a previous government.
It is the backdating that I am referring to
- that was never mentioned
prior to the party negotiations, and as the Stuff article points out
that backdating is an unexpected change that has created an additional >financial hole for the new government.
Backdating legislation is very rare for good reason, but was spotted
very quickly - possibly when there was still time for the government
to identify and correct the ''simple mistake". See this for example
from the 29th November: >https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/11/nationals-giveaway-politics.html
- and that article (which precedes the article from the CTU) points
out the undesirable nature of backdating legislation as well . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2311/S00204/christmas-coming-early-for-landlords-with-an-extra-900-million-present-from-nact.htm
You do not have a clue who they sought advice from.
The negotiations between the parties were clearly not easy, but they
gave themselves time to take back the draft agreements to their
parties before final agreement was reached, so why did National not
have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation
works to not have spotted this mistake.
Nobody would have beenI doubt that is true. We will see.
expecting National to have gone for backdating a tax change . . .
With his much vaunted (but not yet identified) experience in mergers
and acquisitions, Luxon probably thought he could not afford to let it
be delayed any further, but instead he has cost "hard working
taxpayers" an extra $900 million!
From above, not all of the tax cuts for lower incomes have been
So what can they do - they had made promises! They can't now meet all
those promises, but the priority is staying in power, and keeping
faith with donors . . so the change to the top income tax rate will
still go ahead unchanged - and lower tax for others deferred to pay
for the new $900 million hole in the finances of NZ Inc. . . .
Nonsensical rhetoric.
Easy to kick a government that is less than a week old, let's remember our last
government that missed every single major promise and lied from the podium of >truth on an almost daily basis. Sheesh - bigots all over the left eh?
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 21:01:29 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:You don't know that - it is a lie therefore.
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
why did National not
have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation
works to not have spotted this mistake.
Um, because it wasn't a mistake? More money for landlords means they
can stop raising rentals and so the renters finally get a break, duh.
The backdating has not changed rents for the period of the backdating;
and the backdating itself has not given another estimated $900 million
for the government to find - which it is doing by delaying tax cuts by
a few months, but doing away with many other tax changes that would
have reduced tax for other than those affected by the top tax rate.
This appears to be an error that emerged from the party negotiations -
they sent a boy to do a man's task, and forgot to get anyone with
financial knowledge to review it.
No that coalition was massively defeated at the recent election.The article is just the usual generic attack on the new government by
the left-wing media. Spin the bottle for the next one.
The bottle is pointing at National - they put themselves in charge of >finances for the coalition of chaos . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Which parties were in the "coalition" that you claim was defeated,
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 21:01:29 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:You don't know that - it is a lie therefore.
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
why did National not
have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation
works to not have spotted this mistake.
Um, because it wasn't a mistake? More money for landlords means they
can stop raising rentals and so the renters finally get a break, duh.
The backdating has not changed rents for the period of the backdating;
and the backdating itself has not given another estimated $900 million
for the government to find - which it is doing by delaying tax cuts by
a few months, but doing away with many other tax changes that would
have reduced tax for other than those affected by the top tax rate.
This appears to be an error that emerged from the party negotiations -
they sent a boy to do a man's task, and forgot to get anyone with
financial knowledge to review it.
No that coalition was massively defeated at the recent election.
The article is just the usual generic attack on the new government by
the left-wing media. Spin the bottle for the next one.
The bottle is pointing at National - they put themselves in charge of >>finances for the coalition of chaos . . .
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
why did National not
have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation
works to not have spotted this mistake.
Um, because it wasn't a mistake? More money for landlords means they
can stop raising rentals and so the renters finally get a break, duh.
The article is just the usual generic attack on the new government by
the left-wing media. Spin the bottle for the next one.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 21:20:28 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou got it, they were defeted in 2020 by Labour.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Which parties were in the "coalition" that you claim was defeated,
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 21:01:29 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:You don't know that - it is a lie therefore.
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
why did National not
have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation >>>>>works to not have spotted this mistake.
Um, because it wasn't a mistake? More money for landlords means they >>>>can stop raising rentals and so the renters finally get a break, duh.
The backdating has not changed rents for the period of the backdating; >>>and the backdating itself has not given another estimated $900 million >>>for the government to find - which it is doing by delaying tax cuts by
a few months, but doing away with many other tax changes that would
have reduced tax for other than those affected by the top tax rate.
This appears to be an error that emerged from the party negotiations - >>>they sent a boy to do a man's task, and forgot to get anyone with >>>financial knowledge to review it.
No that coalition was massively defeated at the recent election.
The article is just the usual generic attack on the new government by >>>>the left-wing media. Spin the bottle for the next one.
The bottle is pointing at National - they put themselves in charge of >>>finances for the coalition of chaos . . .
Tony? The previous coalition ceased in 2020, with Winston PetersNo I keep track well. Other than that your attack on Peters is off topic.
spending some away from parliament until the recent election. It
possible seems more recent since Winston Peters was Deputy Prime
Minister at the time the Public Interest Journalism Fund was
established which is another current topic - as someone said recently >"Peters now has an elaborate narrative of how he urgently warned
against the whole thing. It's terribly unfortunate there is no record
of this." Hard to keep track sometimes, isn't it?
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 21:15:58 -0000 (UTC), TonyBiased political view.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2311/S00204/christmas-coming-early-for-landlords-with-an-extra-900-million-present-from-nact.htm
You do not have a clue who they sought advice from.
The negotiations between the parties were clearly not easy, but they
gave themselves time to take back the draft agreements to their
parties before final agreement was reached, so why did National not
have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation
works to not have spotted this mistake.
Nobody would have beenI doubt that is true. We will see.
expecting National to have gone for backdating a tax change . . .
With his much vaunted (but not yet identified) experience in mergers
and acquisitions, Luxon probably thought he could not afford to let it
be delayed any further, but instead he has cost "hard working
taxpayers" an extra $900 million!
Perhaps from here: >https://thespinoff.co.nz/the-bulletin/01-12-2023/sticky-inflation-and-expensive-policies-give-new-government-a-fiscal-headache
from which:
National has promised its tax cut programme will be fiscally neutral,
however as Thomas Coughlan notes, that promise will be harder to keep
in light of some expensive concessions made during coalition talks,
such as scrapping the foreign buyers tax and accelerating the
reinstatement of mortgage interest deductibility. On the other hand,
some new policies will boost the government’s bottom line, including >overturning the Smokefree Aotearoa policy and scrapping the plan to
increase the Working for Families abatement threshold. As a result of
the latter u-turn, families on the lowest incomes will see just $30 a
week extra rather than the $67 they were promised, writes Marc Daalder
at Newsroom. Prime minister Chris Luxon has blamed the RBNZ’s >tighter-than-expected fiscal outlook on the previous government’s
“economic vandalism” and said his government would do its part to
drive down inflation by cutting wasteful spending across the public
service.
and here: >https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/low-income-families-lose-up-to-38-a-week-as-nats-move-to-close-billion-dollar-budget-hole/BVF2W3D3OZEULISNCFV77GNFXY/Not proven - merely conjecture.
So?From above, not all of the tax cuts for lower incomes have been
So what can they do - they had made promises! They can't now meet all >>>those promises, but the priority is staying in power, and keeping
faith with donors . . so the change to the top income tax rate will >>>still go ahead unchanged - and lower tax for others deferred to pay
for the new $900 million hole in the finances of NZ Inc. . . .
deferred, families on lower incomes will still see nearly half of what
had been promised, but no change in cuts to the top tax rate.
Nonsensical rhetoric.
Easy to kick a government that is less than a week old, let's remember our >>last
government that missed every single major promise and lied from the podium of >>truth on an almost daily basis. Sheesh - bigots all over the left eh?
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 21:15:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2311/S00204/christmas-coming-early-for-landlords-with-an-extra-900-million-present-from-nact.htm
You do not have a clue who they sought advice from.
The negotiations between the parties were clearly not easy, but they
gave themselves time to take back the draft agreements to their
parties before final agreement was reached, so why did National not
have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation
works to not have spotted this mistake.
Nobody would have beenI doubt that is true. We will see.
expecting National to have gone for backdating a tax change . . .
With his much vaunted (but not yet identified) experience in mergers
and acquisitions, Luxon probably thought he could not afford to let it
be delayed any further, but instead he has cost "hard working
taxpayers" an extra $900 million!
Perhaps from here: https://thespinoff.co.nz/the-bulletin/01-12-2023/sticky-inflation-and-expensive-policies-give-new-government-a-fiscal-headache
from which:
National has promised its tax cut programme will be fiscally neutral,
however as Thomas Coughlan notes, that promise will be harder to keep
in light of some expensive concessions made during coalition talks,
such as scrapping the foreign buyers tax and accelerating the
reinstatement of mortgage interest deductibility. On the other hand,
some new policies will boost the governmentÂ’s bottom line, including overturning the Smokefree Aotearoa policy and scrapping the plan to
increase the Working for Families abatement threshold. As a result of
the latter u-turn, families on the lowest incomes will see just $30 a
week extra rather than the $67 they were promised, writes Marc Daalder
at Newsroom. Prime minister Chris Luxon has blamed the RBNZÂ’s tighter-than-expected fiscal outlook on the previous governmentÂ’s
“economic vandalism” and said his government would do its part to
drive down inflation by cutting wasteful spending across the public
service.
and here: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/low-income-families-lose-up-to-38-a-week-as-nats-move-to-close-billion-dollar-budget-hole/BVF2W3D3OZEULISNCFV77GNFXY/
From above, not all of the tax cuts for lower incomes have been
So what can they do - they had made promises! They can't now meet all >>>those promises, but the priority is staying in power, and keeping
faith with donors . . so the change to the top income tax rate will >>>still go ahead unchanged - and lower tax for others deferred to pay
for the new $900 million hole in the finances of NZ Inc. . . .
deferred, families on lower incomes will still see nearly half of what
had been promised, but no change in cuts to the top tax rate.
Nonsensical rhetoric.
Easy to kick a government that is less than a week old, let's remember our last
government that missed every single major promise and lied from the podium of >>truth on an almost daily basis. Sheesh - bigots all over the left eh?
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 21:01:29 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Correct. National have so far announced an intent. The actual
why did National not
have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation
works to not have spotted this mistake.
Um, because it wasn't a mistake? More money for landlords means they
can stop raising rentals and so the renters finally get a break, duh.
The article is just the usual generic attack on the new government by
the left-wing media. Spin the bottle for the next one.
legislation changes have yet to see the light of day.
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 09:51:31 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 09:36:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2311/S00204/christmas-coming-early-for-landlords-with-an-extra-900-million-present-from-nact.htm
The negotiations between the parties were clearly not easy, but they
gave themselves time to take back the draft agreements to their
parties before final agreement was reached, so why did National not
have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation
works to not have spotted this mistake. Nobody would have been
expecting National to have gone for backdating a tax change . . .
With his much vaunted (but not yet identified) experience in mergers
and acquisitions, Luxon probably thought he could not afford to let it
be delayed any further, but instead he has cost "hard working
taxpayers" an extra $900 million!
So what can they do - they had made promises! They can't now meet all >>>those promises, but the priority is staying in power, and keeping
faith with donors . . so the change to the top income tax rate will >>>still go ahead unchanged - and lower tax for others deferred to pay
for the new $900 million hole in the finances of NZ Inc. . . .
You would do well to get good financial advice Rich - but not from the
CTU as Scoop did. The context here is that all for-profit entities
used to be allowed to claim interest costs as a cost of doing
business. Labour did away with that, the new Government has promised
to restore it. I agree though that it should not be backdated -
National should not take it upon itself to refund against the actions
of a previous government.
It is the backdating that I am referring to - that was never mentioned
prior to the party negotiations, and as the Stuff article points out
that backdating is an unexpected change that has created an additional financial hole for the new government.
Backdating legislation is very rare for good reason, but was spotted
very quickly - possibly when there was still time for the government
to identify and correct the ''simple mistake". See this for example
from the 29th November: https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/11/nationals-giveaway-politics.html
- and that article (which precedes the article from the CTU) points
out the undesirable nature of backdating legislation as well . . .
On 2023-11-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Parliament has not yet met under the new Government, so no changes to legislation have yet been made. It is however I believe reasonable to
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 21:15:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2311/S00204/christmas-coming-early-for-landlords-with-an-extra-900-million-present-from-nact.htm
You do not have a clue who they sought advice from.
The negotiations between the parties were clearly not easy, but they >>>>gave themselves time to take back the draft agreements to their
parties before final agreement was reached, so why did National not >>>>have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation
works to not have spotted this mistake.
Nobody would have beenI doubt that is true. We will see.
expecting National to have gone for backdating a tax change . . .
With his much vaunted (but not yet identified) experience in mergers >>>>and acquisitions, Luxon probably thought he could not afford to let it >>>>be delayed any further, but instead he has cost "hard working >>>>taxpayers" an extra $900 million!
Perhaps from here:
https://thespinoff.co.nz/the-bulletin/01-12-2023/sticky-inflation-and-expensive-policies-give-new-government-a-fiscal-headache
from which:
National has promised its tax cut programme will be fiscally neutral,
however as Thomas Coughlan notes, that promise will be harder to keep
in light of some expensive concessions made during coalition talks,
such as scrapping the foreign buyers tax and accelerating the
reinstatement of mortgage interest deductibility. On the other hand,
some new policies will boost the government?s bottom line, including
overturning the Smokefree Aotearoa policy and scrapping the plan to
increase the Working for Families abatement threshold. As a result of
the latter u-turn, families on the lowest incomes will see just $30 a
week extra rather than the $67 they were promised, writes Marc Daalder
at Newsroom. Prime minister Chris Luxon has blamed the RBNZ?s
tighter-than-expected fiscal outlook on the previous government?s
?economic vandalism? and said his government would do its part to
drive down inflation by cutting wasteful spending across the public
service.
and here:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/low-income-families-lose-up-to-38-a-week-as-nats-move-to-close-billion-dollar-budget-hole/BVF2W3D3OZEULISNCFV77GNFXY/
From above, not all of the tax cuts for lower incomes have been
So what can they do - they had made promises! They can't now meet all >>>>those promises, but the priority is staying in power, and keeping
faith with donors . . so the change to the top income tax rate will >>>>still go ahead unchanged - and lower tax for others deferred to pay
for the new $900 million hole in the finances of NZ Inc. . . .
deferred, families on lower incomes will still see nearly half of what
had been promised, but no change in cuts to the top tax rate.
Have the new tax rates been placed in law, or is it just another off the top >of our heads.
And that statement is an example of an unsupported opinion - worth
Nonsensical rhetoric.
Easy to kick a government that is less than a week old, let's remember our last
government that missed every single major promise and lied from the podium of
truth on an almost daily basis. Sheesh - bigots all over the left eh?
On 2023-11-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Apparently it is in the Coalition agreement, but appears to be
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 09:51:31 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 09:36:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2311/S00204/christmas-coming-early-for-landlords-with-an-extra-900-million-present-from-nact.htm
The negotiations between the parties were clearly not easy, but they >>>>gave themselves time to take back the draft agreements to their
parties before final agreement was reached, so why did National not >>>>have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation
works to not have spotted this mistake. Nobody would have been >>>>expecting National to have gone for backdating a tax change . . .
With his much vaunted (but not yet identified) experience in mergers >>>>and acquisitions, Luxon probably thought he could not afford to let it >>>>be delayed any further, but instead he has cost "hard working >>>>taxpayers" an extra $900 million!
So what can they do - they had made promises! They can't now meet all >>>>those promises, but the priority is staying in power, and keeping
faith with donors . . so the change to the top income tax rate will >>>>still go ahead unchanged - and lower tax for others deferred to pay
for the new $900 million hole in the finances of NZ Inc. . . .
You would do well to get good financial advice Rich - but not from the >>>CTU as Scoop did. The context here is that all for-profit entities
used to be allowed to claim interest costs as a cost of doing
business. Labour did away with that, the new Government has promised
to restore it. I agree though that it should not be backdated -
National should not take it upon itself to refund against the actions
of a previous government.
It is the backdating that I am referring to - that was never mentioned
prior to the party negotiations, and as the Stuff article points out
that backdating is an unexpected change that has created an additional
financial hole for the new government.
Okay, so somewhere along the line this backdating has crept in. As you point >out back dating legislation is not done for a good reason. So my question >would be what is the reason for doing/proposing this?
Backdating legislation is very rare for good reason, but was spotted
very quickly - possibly when there was still time for the government
to identify and correct the ''simple mistake". See this for example
from the 29th November:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/11/nationals-giveaway-politics.html
- and that article (which precedes the article from the CTU) points
out the undesirable nature of backdating legislation as well . . .
On 1 Dec 2023 02:04:20 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Unless of course it is a Labour politician.
On 2023-11-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Parliament has not yet met under the new Government, so no changes to >legislation have yet been made. It is however I believe reasonable to
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 21:15:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2311/S00204/christmas-coming-early-for-landlords-with-an-extra-900-million-present-from-nact.htm
You do not have a clue who they sought advice from.
The negotiations between the parties were clearly not easy, but they >>>>>gave themselves time to take back the draft agreements to their >>>>>parties before final agreement was reached, so why did National not >>>>>have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation >>>>>works to not have spotted this mistake.
Nobody would have beenI doubt that is true. We will see.
expecting National to have gone for backdating a tax change . . .
With his much vaunted (but not yet identified) experience in mergers >>>>>and acquisitions, Luxon probably thought he could not afford to let it >>>>>be delayed any further, but instead he has cost "hard working >>>>>taxpayers" an extra $900 million!
Perhaps from here:
from which:https://thespinoff.co.nz/the-bulletin/01-12-2023/sticky-inflation-and-expensive-policies-give-new-government-a-fiscal-headache
National has promised its tax cut programme will be fiscally neutral,
however as Thomas Coughlan notes, that promise will be harder to keep
in light of some expensive concessions made during coalition talks,
such as scrapping the foreign buyers tax and accelerating the
reinstatement of mortgage interest deductibility. On the other hand,
some new policies will boost the government?s bottom line, including
overturning the Smokefree Aotearoa policy and scrapping the plan to
increase the Working for Families abatement threshold. As a result of
the latter u-turn, families on the lowest incomes will see just $30 a
week extra rather than the $67 they were promised, writes Marc Daalder
at Newsroom. Prime minister Chris Luxon has blamed the RBNZ?s
tighter-than-expected fiscal outlook on the previous government?s
?economic vandalism? and said his government would do its part to
drive down inflation by cutting wasteful spending across the public
service.
and here:
From above, not all of the tax cuts for lower incomes have beenhttps://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/low-income-families-lose-up-to-38-a-week-as-nats-move-to-close-billion-dollar-budget-hole/BVF2W3D3OZEULISNCFV77GNFXY/
So what can they do - they had made promises! They can't now meet all >>>>>those promises, but the priority is staying in power, and keeping >>>>>faith with donors . . so the change to the top income tax rate will >>>>>still go ahead unchanged - and lower tax for others deferred to pay >>>>>for the new $900 million hole in the finances of NZ Inc. . . .
deferred, families on lower incomes will still see nearly half of what
had been promised, but no change in cuts to the top tax rate.
Have the new tax rates been placed in law, or is it just another off the top >>of our heads.
take politicians (from all parties) at their word when they make clear >statements of intent that are reported in reputable media.
UnsupportedOr may be significantly more so than any politician. Having said that at least you have agreed that your unsupported opinions are no better than those of anybody else.
opinions from posters to nz.general may be less reliable . . .
Unsupported opinions are mostly what you spout - why are yours OK and mine not eh? Can you explain that?And that statement is an example of an unsupported opinion - worth
Nonsensical rhetoric.
Easy to kick a government that is less than a week old, let's remember our >>>>last
government that missed every single major promise and lied from the podium >>>>of
truth on an almost daily basis. Sheesh - bigots all over the left eh?
what you paid for it as they say - 10 seconds of life you will never
get back . . .
On 1 Dec 2023 02:20:42 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:So you know nothing of value.
On 2023-11-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Apparently it is in the Coalition agreement, but appears to be
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 09:51:31 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 09:36:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2311/S00204/christmas-coming-early-for-landlords-with-an-extra-900-million-present-from-nact.htm
The negotiations between the parties were clearly not easy, but they >>>>>gave themselves time to take back the draft agreements to their >>>>>parties before final agreement was reached, so why did National not >>>>>have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation >>>>>works to not have spotted this mistake. Nobody would have been >>>>>expecting National to have gone for backdating a tax change . . .
With his much vaunted (but not yet identified) experience in mergers >>>>>and acquisitions, Luxon probably thought he could not afford to let it >>>>>be delayed any further, but instead he has cost "hard working >>>>>taxpayers" an extra $900 million!
So what can they do - they had made promises! They can't now meet all >>>>>those promises, but the priority is staying in power, and keeping >>>>>faith with donors . . so the change to the top income tax rate will >>>>>still go ahead unchanged - and lower tax for others deferred to pay >>>>>for the new $900 million hole in the finances of NZ Inc. . . .
You would do well to get good financial advice Rich - but not from the >>>>CTU as Scoop did. The context here is that all for-profit entities >>>>used to be allowed to claim interest costs as a cost of doing
business. Labour did away with that, the new Government has promised >>>>to restore it. I agree though that it should not be backdated - >>>>National should not take it upon itself to refund against the actions >>>>of a previous government.
It is the backdating that I am referring to - that was never mentioned
prior to the party negotiations, and as the Stuff article points out
that backdating is an unexpected change that has created an additional
financial hole for the new government.
Okay, so somewhere along the line this backdating has crept in. As you point >>out back dating legislation is not done for a good reason. So my question >>would be what is the reason for doing/proposing this?
supported by Nicola Willis talking about some of the previously
announced initiatives that will be delayed or perhaps not happen as a
result of that change in policy. The reporting of the issue came
through quite quickly, and while it appears to be accepted as reality
in government statements so far, it is possible that it could be
reversed. That the financial effect of the change does not appear to
be clearly known does indicate it may have not been well considered
during the coalition negotiations, hence the question in the Subject
of this thread, but it does appear to be accepted as now being policy
in statements from government. Planning actual legislation changes
will be well under way now, but it is not clear when the actual
legislation will be put to parliament.
Backdating legislation is very rare for good reason, but was spotted
very quickly - possibly when there was still time for the government
to identify and correct the ''simple mistake". See this for example
from the 29th November:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/11/nationals-giveaway-politics.html >>> - and that article (which precedes the article from the CTU) points
out the undesirable nature of backdating legislation as well . . .
On 2023-11-30, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:Independent journalism is very rare here and all around the world. We have a small number of honest journalists but the reality is that there are three overall professions that tend strongly to the left. Teaching, journalism and academia.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 21:01:29 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:It is somewhat disconcerning that that Stuff seems hell bent on on staying >off the neturality boat. Behaving like stirrers at best.
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Correct. National have so far announced an intent. The actual
why did National not
have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation
works to not have spotted this mistake.
Um, because it wasn't a mistake? More money for landlords means they
can stop raising rentals and so the renters finally get a break, duh.
The article is just the usual generic attack on the new government by
the left-wing media. Spin the bottle for the next one.
legislation changes have yet to see the light of day.
Oh well, it is the Labour news not the main stream news.
National should not take it upon itself to refund against the actions
of a previous government.
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
National should not take it upon itself to refund against the actions
of a previous government.
No, the proposal is evidently to alter the tax code in time for the
end of the tax year (ending 31 March 2024). The start of the 2024 tax
year is 1 April 2023. This is a standard manoeuvre. But now the
media naturally calls this "retrospective" which they don't say when
Labour does it, of course.
The rule is, the media lies. Don't run with anything they say.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:That may be your characterisation of information from CLuxon and other
On 1 Dec 2023 02:20:42 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:So you know nothing of value.
On 2023-11-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Apparently it is in the Coalition agreement, but appears to be
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 09:51:31 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 09:36:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2311/S00204/christmas-coming-early-for-landlords-with-an-extra-900-million-present-from-nact.htm
The negotiations between the parties were clearly not easy, but they >>>>>>gave themselves time to take back the draft agreements to their >>>>>>parties before final agreement was reached, so why did National not >>>>>>have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation >>>>>>works to not have spotted this mistake. Nobody would have been >>>>>>expecting National to have gone for backdating a tax change . . .
With his much vaunted (but not yet identified) experience in mergers >>>>>>and acquisitions, Luxon probably thought he could not afford to let it >>>>>>be delayed any further, but instead he has cost "hard working >>>>>>taxpayers" an extra $900 million!
So what can they do - they had made promises! They can't now meet all >>>>>>those promises, but the priority is staying in power, and keeping >>>>>>faith with donors . . so the change to the top income tax rate will >>>>>>still go ahead unchanged - and lower tax for others deferred to pay >>>>>>for the new $900 million hole in the finances of NZ Inc. . . .
You would do well to get good financial advice Rich - but not from the >>>>>CTU as Scoop did. The context here is that all for-profit entities >>>>>used to be allowed to claim interest costs as a cost of doing >>>>>business. Labour did away with that, the new Government has promised >>>>>to restore it. I agree though that it should not be backdated - >>>>>National should not take it upon itself to refund against the actions >>>>>of a previous government.
It is the backdating that I am referring to - that was never mentioned >>>> prior to the party negotiations, and as the Stuff article points out
that backdating is an unexpected change that has created an additional >>>> financial hole for the new government.
Okay, so somewhere along the line this backdating has crept in. As you point >>>out back dating legislation is not done for a good reason. So my question >>>would be what is the reason for doing/proposing this?
supported by Nicola Willis talking about some of the previously
announced initiatives that will be delayed or perhaps not happen as a >>result of that change in policy. The reporting of the issue came
through quite quickly, and while it appears to be accepted as reality
in government statements so far, it is possible that it could be
reversed. That the financial effect of the change does not appear to
be clearly known does indicate it may have not been well considered
during the coalition negotiations, hence the question in the Subject
of this thread, but it does appear to be accepted as now being policy
in statements from government. Planning actual legislation changes
will be well under way now, but it is not clear when the actual
legislation will be put to parliament.
Backdating legislation is very rare for good reason, but was spotted
very quickly - possibly when there was still time for the government
to identify and correct the ''simple mistake". See this for example
from the 29th November:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/11/nationals-giveaway-politics.html >>>> - and that article (which precedes the article from the CTU) points
out the undesirable nature of backdating legislation as well . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Off topic Tony - this is about the coalition agreement and its effect
On 1 Dec 2023 02:04:20 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Unless of course it is a Labour politician.
On 2023-11-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Parliament has not yet met under the new Government, so no changes to >>legislation have yet been made. It is however I believe reasonable to
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 21:15:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2311/S00204/christmas-coming-early-for-landlords-with-an-extra-900-million-present-from-nact.htm
You do not have a clue who they sought advice from.
The negotiations between the parties were clearly not easy, but they >>>>>>gave themselves time to take back the draft agreements to their >>>>>>parties before final agreement was reached, so why did National not >>>>>>have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation >>>>>>works to not have spotted this mistake.
Nobody would have beenI doubt that is true. We will see.
expecting National to have gone for backdating a tax change . . .
With his much vaunted (but not yet identified) experience in mergers >>>>>>and acquisitions, Luxon probably thought he could not afford to let it >>>>>>be delayed any further, but instead he has cost "hard working >>>>>>taxpayers" an extra $900 million!
Perhaps from here:
from which:https://thespinoff.co.nz/the-bulletin/01-12-2023/sticky-inflation-and-expensive-policies-give-new-government-a-fiscal-headache
National has promised its tax cut programme will be fiscally neutral,
however as Thomas Coughlan notes, that promise will be harder to keep
in light of some expensive concessions made during coalition talks,
such as scrapping the foreign buyers tax and accelerating the
reinstatement of mortgage interest deductibility. On the other hand,
some new policies will boost the government?s bottom line, including
overturning the Smokefree Aotearoa policy and scrapping the plan to
increase the Working for Families abatement threshold. As a result of
the latter u-turn, families on the lowest incomes will see just $30 a
week extra rather than the $67 they were promised, writes Marc Daalder >>>> at Newsroom. Prime minister Chris Luxon has blamed the RBNZ?s
tighter-than-expected fiscal outlook on the previous government?s
?economic vandalism? and said his government would do its part to
drive down inflation by cutting wasteful spending across the public
service.
and here:
From above, not all of the tax cuts for lower incomes have beenhttps://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/low-income-families-lose-up-to-38-a-week-as-nats-move-to-close-billion-dollar-budget-hole/BVF2W3D3OZEULISNCFV77GNFXY/
So what can they do - they had made promises! They can't now meet all >>>>>>those promises, but the priority is staying in power, and keeping >>>>>>faith with donors . . so the change to the top income tax rate will >>>>>>still go ahead unchanged - and lower tax for others deferred to pay >>>>>>for the new $900 million hole in the finances of NZ Inc. . . .
deferred, families on lower incomes will still see nearly half of what >>>> had been promised, but no change in cuts to the top tax rate.
Have the new tax rates been placed in law, or is it just another off the top >>>of our heads.
take politicians (from all parties) at their word when they make clear >>statements of intent that are reported in reputable media.
I have not said that. You are off topic - this is about the coalitionUnsupportedOr may be significantly more so than any politician. Having said that at least >you have agreed that your unsupported opinions are no better than those of >anybody else.
opinions from posters to nz.general may be less reliable . . .
Fortunately you and all of us are entitled to them.It is self-evident, Tony, but you are again off topic - this thread is
Unsupported opinions are mostly what you spout - why are yours OK and mine not >eh? Can you explain that?
what you paid for it as they say - 10 seconds of life you will never
Nonsensical rhetoric.
Easy to kick a government that is less than a week old, let's remember our >>>>>last
government that missed every single major promise and lied from the podium >>>>>of
truth on an almost daily basis. Sheesh - bigots all over the left eh? >>And that statement is an example of an unsupported opinion - worth
get back . . .
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 05:51:54 -0000 (UTC), TonyOh indeed it appears to be, that last paragraph of yours said nothing.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:That may be your characterisation of information from CLuxon and other >National politicians, but it is not mine
On 1 Dec 2023 02:20:42 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:So you know nothing of value.
On 2023-11-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Apparently it is in the Coalition agreement, but appears to be
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 09:51:31 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 09:36:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2311/S00204/christmas-coming-early-for-landlords-with-an-extra-900-million-present-from-nact.htm
The negotiations between the parties were clearly not easy, but they >>>>>>>gave themselves time to take back the draft agreements to their >>>>>>>parties before final agreement was reached, so why did National not >>>>>>>have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation >>>>>>>works to not have spotted this mistake. Nobody would have been >>>>>>>expecting National to have gone for backdating a tax change . . . >>>>>>>
With his much vaunted (but not yet identified) experience in mergers >>>>>>>and acquisitions, Luxon probably thought he could not afford to let it >>>>>>>be delayed any further, but instead he has cost "hard working >>>>>>>taxpayers" an extra $900 million!
So what can they do - they had made promises! They can't now meet all >>>>>>>those promises, but the priority is staying in power, and keeping >>>>>>>faith with donors . . so the change to the top income tax rate will >>>>>>>still go ahead unchanged - and lower tax for others deferred to pay >>>>>>>for the new $900 million hole in the finances of NZ Inc. . . .
You would do well to get good financial advice Rich - but not from the >>>>>>CTU as Scoop did. The context here is that all for-profit entities >>>>>>used to be allowed to claim interest costs as a cost of doing >>>>>>business. Labour did away with that, the new Government has promised >>>>>>to restore it. I agree though that it should not be backdated - >>>>>>National should not take it upon itself to refund against the actions >>>>>>of a previous government.
It is the backdating that I am referring to - that was never mentioned >>>>> prior to the party negotiations, and as the Stuff article points out >>>>> that backdating is an unexpected change that has created an additional >>>>> financial hole for the new government.
Okay, so somewhere along the line this backdating has crept in. As you point
out back dating legislation is not done for a good reason. So my question >>>>would be what is the reason for doing/proposing this?
supported by Nicola Willis talking about some of the previously
announced initiatives that will be delayed or perhaps not happen as a >>>result of that change in policy. The reporting of the issue came
through quite quickly, and while it appears to be accepted as reality
in government statements so far, it is possible that it could be >>>reversed. That the financial effect of the change does not appear to
be clearly known does indicate it may have not been well considered >>>during the coalition negotiations, hence the question in the Subject
of this thread, but it does appear to be accepted as now being policy
in statements from government. Planning actual legislation changes
will be well under way now, but it is not clear when the actual >>>legislation will be put to parliament.
- I believe that they are
taking the coalition agreement seriously and intend to meet its
provisions, even though the backdating of the hand-out to landlords
does appear to be an expensive and unnecessary change from what was >originally announced.
Backdating legislation is very rare for good reason, but was spotted >>>>> very quickly - possibly when there was still time for the government >>>>> to identify and correct the ''simple mistake". See this for example
from the 29th November:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/11/nationals-giveaway-politics.html >>>>> - and that article (which precedes the article from the CTU) points >>>>> out the undesirable nature of backdating legislation as well . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Unlike you I do not hold C Luxon and the other politicians in contempt
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 05:51:54 -0000 (UTC), TonyOh indeed it appears to be, that last paragraph of yours said nothing.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:That may be your characterisation of information from CLuxon and other >>National politicians, but it is not mine
On 1 Dec 2023 02:20:42 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:So you know nothing of value.
On 2023-11-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Apparently it is in the Coalition agreement, but appears to be >>>>supported by Nicola Willis talking about some of the previously >>>>announced initiatives that will be delayed or perhaps not happen as a >>>>result of that change in policy. The reporting of the issue came >>>>through quite quickly, and while it appears to be accepted as reality >>>>in government statements so far, it is possible that it could be >>>>reversed. That the financial effect of the change does not appear to
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 09:51:31 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 09:36:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2311/S00204/christmas-coming-early-for-landlords-with-an-extra-900-million-present-from-nact.htm
The negotiations between the parties were clearly not easy, but they >>>>>>>>gave themselves time to take back the draft agreements to their >>>>>>>>parties before final agreement was reached, so why did National not >>>>>>>>have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation >>>>>>>>works to not have spotted this mistake. Nobody would have been >>>>>>>>expecting National to have gone for backdating a tax change . . . >>>>>>>>
With his much vaunted (but not yet identified) experience in mergers >>>>>>>>and acquisitions, Luxon probably thought he could not afford to let it >>>>>>>>be delayed any further, but instead he has cost "hard working >>>>>>>>taxpayers" an extra $900 million!
So what can they do - they had made promises! They can't now meet all >>>>>>>>those promises, but the priority is staying in power, and keeping >>>>>>>>faith with donors . . so the change to the top income tax rate will >>>>>>>>still go ahead unchanged - and lower tax for others deferred to pay >>>>>>>>for the new $900 million hole in the finances of NZ Inc. . . .
You would do well to get good financial advice Rich - but not from the >>>>>>>CTU as Scoop did. The context here is that all for-profit entities >>>>>>>used to be allowed to claim interest costs as a cost of doing >>>>>>>business. Labour did away with that, the new Government has promised >>>>>>>to restore it. I agree though that it should not be backdated - >>>>>>>National should not take it upon itself to refund against the actions >>>>>>>of a previous government.
It is the backdating that I am referring to - that was never mentioned >>>>>> prior to the party negotiations, and as the Stuff article points out >>>>>> that backdating is an unexpected change that has created an additional >>>>>> financial hole for the new government.
Okay, so somewhere along the line this backdating has crept in. As you point
out back dating legislation is not done for a good reason. So my question >>>>>would be what is the reason for doing/proposing this?
be clearly known does indicate it may have not been well considered >>>>during the coalition negotiations, hence the question in the Subject >>>>of this thread, but it does appear to be accepted as now being policy >>>>in statements from government. Planning actual legislation changes
will be well under way now, but it is not clear when the actual >>>>legislation will be put to parliament.
- I believe that they are
taking the coalition agreement seriously and intend to meet its
provisions, even though the backdating of the hand-out to landlords
does appear to be an expensive and unnecessary change from what was >>originally announced.
Backdating legislation is very rare for good reason, but was spotted >>>>>> very quickly - possibly when there was still time for the government >>>>>> to identify and correct the ''simple mistake". See this for example >>>>>> from the 29th November:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/11/nationals-giveaway-politics.html
- and that article (which precedes the article from the CTU) points >>>>>> out the undesirable nature of backdating legislation as well . . .
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 05:56:18 -0000 (UTC), TonyNope, it is about a false accusation that Luxon did not take financial advice - an accusation that is yet to be demonstrated as correct.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Off topic Tony - this is about the coalition agreement and its effect
On 1 Dec 2023 02:04:20 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Unless of course it is a Labour politician.
On 2023-11-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Parliament has not yet met under the new Government, so no changes to >>>legislation have yet been made. It is however I believe reasonable to >>>take politicians (from all parties) at their word when they make clear >>>statements of intent that are reported in reputable media.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 21:15:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2311/S00204/christmas-coming-early-for-landlords-with-an-extra-900-million-present-from-nact.htm
You do not have a clue who they sought advice from.
The negotiations between the parties were clearly not easy, but they >>>>>>>gave themselves time to take back the draft agreements to their >>>>>>>parties before final agreement was reached, so why did National not >>>>>>>have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation >>>>>>>works to not have spotted this mistake.
Nobody would have beenI doubt that is true. We will see.
expecting National to have gone for backdating a tax change . . . >>>>>>>
With his much vaunted (but not yet identified) experience in mergers >>>>>>>and acquisitions, Luxon probably thought he could not afford to let it >>>>>>>be delayed any further, but instead he has cost "hard working >>>>>>>taxpayers" an extra $900 million!
Perhaps from here:
from which:https://thespinoff.co.nz/the-bulletin/01-12-2023/sticky-inflation-and-expensive-policies-give-new-government-a-fiscal-headache
National has promised its tax cut programme will be fiscally neutral, >>>>> however as Thomas Coughlan notes, that promise will be harder to keep >>>>> in light of some expensive concessions made during coalition talks,
such as scrapping the foreign buyers tax and accelerating the
reinstatement of mortgage interest deductibility. On the other hand, >>>>> some new policies will boost the government?s bottom line, including >>>>> overturning the Smokefree Aotearoa policy and scrapping the plan to
increase the Working for Families abatement threshold. As a result of >>>>> the latter u-turn, families on the lowest incomes will see just $30 a >>>>> week extra rather than the $67 they were promised, writes Marc Daalder >>>>> at Newsroom. Prime minister Chris Luxon has blamed the RBNZ?s
tighter-than-expected fiscal outlook on the previous government?s
?economic vandalism? and said his government would do its part to
drive down inflation by cutting wasteful spending across the public
service.
and here:
From above, not all of the tax cuts for lower incomes have beenhttps://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/low-income-families-lose-up-to-38-a-week-as-nats-move-to-close-billion-dollar-budget-hole/BVF2W3D3OZEULISNCFV77GNFXY/
So what can they do - they had made promises! They can't now meet all >>>>>>>those promises, but the priority is staying in power, and keeping >>>>>>>faith with donors . . so the change to the top income tax rate will >>>>>>>still go ahead unchanged - and lower tax for others deferred to pay >>>>>>>for the new $900 million hole in the finances of NZ Inc. . . .
deferred, families on lower incomes will still see nearly half of what >>>>> had been promised, but no change in cuts to the top tax rate.
Have the new tax rates been placed in law, or is it just another off the top
of our heads.
on the upcoming budget
No of course you would not use those words but that is clearly your behaviour and opinion (unsupported of course).I have not said that.UnsupportedOr may be significantly more so than any politician. Having said that at >>least
opinions from posters to nz.general may be less reliable . . .
you have agreed that your unsupported opinions are no better than those of >>anybody else.
You are off topic - this is about the coalitionNo it is not - you started it - it is your topic - keep to it or go away. >>Fortunately you and all of us are entitled to them.
agreement and its effect on the upcoming budget
No it is not - see above.It is self-evident, Tony, but you are again off topic - this thread isUnsupported opinions are mostly what you spout - why are yours OK and mine >>not
what you paid for it as they say - 10 seconds of life you will never
Nonsensical rhetoric.
Easy to kick a government that is less than a week old, let's remember >>>>>>our
last
government that missed every single major promise and lied from the >>>>>>podium
of
truth on an almost daily basis. Sheesh - bigots all over the left eh? >>>And that statement is an example of an unsupported opinion - worth
get back . . .
eh? Can you explain that?
about the coalition agreement and its effect on the upcoming budget
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:As previously, when you are embarrassed or unable to accept that you
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 19:13:34 -0000 (UTC), TonyYes you do - proven time after time. I do not hold them in contempt however. >Your deliberate and planned abuse is revolting.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 05:51:54 -0000 (UTC), TonyOh indeed it appears to be, that last paragraph of yours said nothing. >>Unlike you I do not hold C Luxon and the other politicians in contempt
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:That may be your characterisation of information from CLuxon and other >>>>National politicians, but it is not mine
On 1 Dec 2023 02:20:42 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:So you know nothing of value.
On 2023-11-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Apparently it is in the Coalition agreement, but appears to be >>>>>>supported by Nicola Willis talking about some of the previously >>>>>>announced initiatives that will be delayed or perhaps not happen as a >>>>>>result of that change in policy. The reporting of the issue came >>>>>>through quite quickly, and while it appears to be accepted as reality >>>>>>in government statements so far, it is possible that it could be >>>>>>reversed. That the financial effect of the change does not appear to >>>>>>be clearly known does indicate it may have not been well considered >>>>>>during the coalition negotiations, hence the question in the Subject >>>>>>of this thread, but it does appear to be accepted as now being policy >>>>>>in statements from government. Planning actual legislation changes >>>>>>will be well under way now, but it is not clear when the actual >>>>>>legislation will be put to parliament.
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 09:51:31 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 09:36:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
You would do well to get good financial advice Rich - but not from the >>>>>>>>>CTU as Scoop did. The context here is that all for-profit entities >>>>>>>>>used to be allowed to claim interest costs as a cost of doing >>>>>>>>>business. Labour did away with that, the new Government has promised >>>>>>>>>to restore it. I agree though that it should not be backdated - >>>>>>>>>National should not take it upon itself to refund against the actions >>>>>>>>>of a previous government.https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2311/S00204/christmas-coming-early-for-landlords-with-an-extra-900-million-present-from-nact.htm
The negotiations between the parties were clearly not easy, but they >>>>>>>>>>gave themselves time to take back the draft agreements to their >>>>>>>>>>parties before final agreement was reached, so why did National not >>>>>>>>>>have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation >>>>>>>>>>works to not have spotted this mistake. Nobody would have been >>>>>>>>>>expecting National to have gone for backdating a tax change . . . >>>>>>>>>>
With his much vaunted (but not yet identified) experience in mergers >>>>>>>>>>and acquisitions, Luxon probably thought he could not afford to let it
be delayed any further, but instead he has cost "hard working >>>>>>>>>>taxpayers" an extra $900 million!
So what can they do - they had made promises! They can't now meet all >>>>>>>>>>those promises, but the priority is staying in power, and keeping >>>>>>>>>>faith with donors . . so the change to the top income tax rate will >>>>>>>>>>still go ahead unchanged - and lower tax for others deferred to pay >>>>>>>>>>for the new $900 million hole in the finances of NZ Inc. . . . >>>>>>>>>
It is the backdating that I am referring to - that was never mentioned >>>>>>>> prior to the party negotiations, and as the Stuff article points out >>>>>>>> that backdating is an unexpected change that has created an additional >>>>>>>> financial hole for the new government.
Okay, so somewhere along the line this backdating has crept in. As you >>>>>>>point
out back dating legislation is not done for a good reason. So my question
would be what is the reason for doing/proposing this?
Irrelevant and idiotic abusive nonsense gone for now.
- I believe that they are
taking the coalition agreement seriously and intend to meet its >>>>provisions, even though the backdating of the hand-out to landlords >>>>does appear to be an expensive and unnecessary change from what was >>>>originally announced.
Backdating legislation is very rare for good reason, but was spotted >>>>>>>> very quickly - possibly when there was still time for the government >>>>>>>> to identify and correct the ''simple mistake". See this for example >>>>>>>> from the 29th November:
- and that article (which precedes the article from the CTU) points >>>>>>>> out the undesirable nature of backdating legislation as well . . .https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/11/nationals-giveaway-politics.html
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 19:13:34 -0000 (UTC), TonyYes you do - proven time after time. I do not hold them in contempt however. Your deliberate and planned abuse is revolting.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 05:51:54 -0000 (UTC), TonyOh indeed it appears to be, that last paragraph of yours said nothing. >Unlike you I do not hold C Luxon and the other politicians in contempt
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:That may be your characterisation of information from CLuxon and other >>>National politicians, but it is not mine
On 1 Dec 2023 02:20:42 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:So you know nothing of value.
On 2023-11-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Apparently it is in the Coalition agreement, but appears to be >>>>>supported by Nicola Willis talking about some of the previously >>>>>announced initiatives that will be delayed or perhaps not happen as a >>>>>result of that change in policy. The reporting of the issue came >>>>>through quite quickly, and while it appears to be accepted as reality >>>>>in government statements so far, it is possible that it could be >>>>>reversed. That the financial effect of the change does not appear to >>>>>be clearly known does indicate it may have not been well considered >>>>>during the coalition negotiations, hence the question in the Subject >>>>>of this thread, but it does appear to be accepted as now being policy >>>>>in statements from government. Planning actual legislation changes >>>>>will be well under way now, but it is not clear when the actual >>>>>legislation will be put to parliament.
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 09:51:31 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 09:36:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
You would do well to get good financial advice Rich - but not from the >>>>>>>>CTU as Scoop did. The context here is that all for-profit entities >>>>>>>>used to be allowed to claim interest costs as a cost of doing >>>>>>>>business. Labour did away with that, the new Government has promised >>>>>>>>to restore it. I agree though that it should not be backdated - >>>>>>>>National should not take it upon itself to refund against the actions >>>>>>>>of a previous government.https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2311/S00204/christmas-coming-early-for-landlords-with-an-extra-900-million-present-from-nact.htm
The negotiations between the parties were clearly not easy, but they >>>>>>>>>gave themselves time to take back the draft agreements to their >>>>>>>>>parties before final agreement was reached, so why did National not >>>>>>>>>have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation >>>>>>>>>works to not have spotted this mistake. Nobody would have been >>>>>>>>>expecting National to have gone for backdating a tax change . . . >>>>>>>>>
With his much vaunted (but not yet identified) experience in mergers >>>>>>>>>and acquisitions, Luxon probably thought he could not afford to let it >>>>>>>>>be delayed any further, but instead he has cost "hard working >>>>>>>>>taxpayers" an extra $900 million!
So what can they do - they had made promises! They can't now meet all >>>>>>>>>those promises, but the priority is staying in power, and keeping >>>>>>>>>faith with donors . . so the change to the top income tax rate will >>>>>>>>>still go ahead unchanged - and lower tax for others deferred to pay >>>>>>>>>for the new $900 million hole in the finances of NZ Inc. . . . >>>>>>>>
It is the backdating that I am referring to - that was never mentioned >>>>>>> prior to the party negotiations, and as the Stuff article points out >>>>>>> that backdating is an unexpected change that has created an additional >>>>>>> financial hole for the new government.
Okay, so somewhere along the line this backdating has crept in. As you >>>>>>point
out back dating legislation is not done for a good reason. So my question >>>>>>would be what is the reason for doing/proposing this?
- I believe that they are
taking the coalition agreement seriously and intend to meet its >>>provisions, even though the backdating of the hand-out to landlords
does appear to be an expensive and unnecessary change from what was >>>originally announced.
Backdating legislation is very rare for good reason, but was spotted >>>>>>> very quickly - possibly when there was still time for the government >>>>>>> to identify and correct the ''simple mistake". See this for example >>>>>>> from the 29th November:
- and that article (which precedes the article from the CTU) points >>>>>>> out the undesirable nature of backdating legislation as well . . .https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/11/nationals-giveaway-politics.html
. It would be possible to pass legislation
this year to be effective from 1 January 2024 say,
but it is normal to make most changes effective from
31 March as that is the tax year for most taxpayers.
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 20:28:24 -0000 (UTC), TonyStop your faux caring - you do not care about anybody, you are a sociopath. Take the test and get help.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 19:13:34 -0000 (UTC), TonyYes you do - proven time after time. I do not hold them in contempt however. >>Your deliberate and planned abuse is revolting.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 05:51:54 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Oh indeed it appears to be, that last paragraph of yours said nothing. >>>Unlike you I do not hold C Luxon and the other politicians in contempt
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:That may be your characterisation of information from CLuxon and other >>>>>National politicians, but it is not mine
On 1 Dec 2023 02:20:42 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:So you know nothing of value.
On 2023-11-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Apparently it is in the Coalition agreement, but appears to be >>>>>>>supported by Nicola Willis talking about some of the previously >>>>>>>announced initiatives that will be delayed or perhaps not happen as a >>>>>>>result of that change in policy. The reporting of the issue came >>>>>>>through quite quickly, and while it appears to be accepted as reality >>>>>>>in government statements so far, it is possible that it could be >>>>>>>reversed. That the financial effect of the change does not appear to >>>>>>>be clearly known does indicate it may have not been well considered >>>>>>>during the coalition negotiations, hence the question in the Subject >>>>>>>of this thread, but it does appear to be accepted as now being policy >>>>>>>in statements from government. Planning actual legislation changes >>>>>>>will be well under way now, but it is not clear when the actual >>>>>>>legislation will be put to parliament.
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 09:51:31 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 09:36:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
You would do well to get good financial advice Rich - but not from thehttps://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2311/S00204/christmas-coming-early-for-landlords-with-an-extra-900-million-present-from-nact.htm
The negotiations between the parties were clearly not easy, but they >>>>>>>>>>>gave themselves time to take back the draft agreements to their >>>>>>>>>>>parties before final agreement was reached, so why did National not >>>>>>>>>>>have anyone with financial acumen and a knowledge of how taxation >>>>>>>>>>>works to not have spotted this mistake. Nobody would have been >>>>>>>>>>>expecting National to have gone for backdating a tax change . . . >>>>>>>>>>>
With his much vaunted (but not yet identified) experience in mergers >>>>>>>>>>>and acquisitions, Luxon probably thought he could not afford to let >>>>>>>>>>>it
be delayed any further, but instead he has cost "hard working >>>>>>>>>>>taxpayers" an extra $900 million!
So what can they do - they had made promises! They can't now meet all
those promises, but the priority is staying in power, and keeping >>>>>>>>>>>faith with donors . . so the change to the top income tax rate will >>>>>>>>>>>still go ahead unchanged - and lower tax for others deferred to pay >>>>>>>>>>>for the new $900 million hole in the finances of NZ Inc. . . . >>>>>>>>>>
CTU as Scoop did. The context here is that all for-profit entities >>>>>>>>>>used to be allowed to claim interest costs as a cost of doing >>>>>>>>>>business. Labour did away with that, the new Government has promised >>>>>>>>>>to restore it. I agree though that it should not be backdated - >>>>>>>>>>National should not take it upon itself to refund against the actions >>>>>>>>>>of a previous government.
It is the backdating that I am referring to - that was never mentioned
prior to the party negotiations, and as the Stuff article points out >>>>>>>>> that backdating is an unexpected change that has created an additional
financial hole for the new government.
Okay, so somewhere along the line this backdating has crept in. As you >>>>>>>>point
out back dating legislation is not done for a good reason. So my >>>>>>>>question
would be what is the reason for doing/proposing this?
Irrelevant and idiotic abusive nonsense gone for now.
- I believe that they are
taking the coalition agreement seriously and intend to meet its >>>>>provisions, even though the backdating of the hand-out to landlords >>>>>does appear to be an expensive and unnecessary change from what was >>>>>originally announced.
Backdating legislation is very rare for good reason, but was spotted >>>>>>>>> very quickly - possibly when there was still time for the government >>>>>>>>> to identify and correct the ''simple mistake". See this for example >>>>>>>>> from the 29th November:
- and that article (which precedes the article from the CTU) points >>>>>>>>> out the undesirable nature of backdating legislation as well . . .https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/11/nationals-giveaway-politics.html
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:While in general that is true, there have been many changes to
. It would be possible to pass legislation
this year to be effective from 1 January 2024 say,
Not tax legislation, as IRD cannot handle tax rules changing within
the tax year, they need consistent rules within each tax year.
but it is normal to make most changes effective from
31 March as that is the tax year for most taxpayers.
1 April, you buffoon.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 125:50:39 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,951 |