The quake and everything else has to be paid for, and regardless of the method used to garner the payment, ultimately the population of NZ has to pay. There are basically three ways to collect the capital, which can of course be combined in various proportions.

Firstly, a tax, levy or rate imposed for a limited time. This method has the lowest overall cost and fewest people clipping the ticket. It also keeps control entirely inhouse. Secondly, borrow the capital which means that we have to repay both the principal and the compound interest for a long time, and if household mortgages are any indication, the interest payment will exceed the principle. A lot of people clip this ticket. Thirdly, we sell the family silver which means that we pay at least half the profits to rentiers in perpetuity. Even more people clip this ticket.

Eugenie, I’d like to see you organise a full comparative cost analysis of these methods along with their anticipated time frames and then publicise them.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

more on that yesterdays’ news thang..

..3 news just found the solar flare thing..

..that’s 36 hrs later..

..whoar..!..eh..?

..d’yareckon they should have me on rss..?

..just saying..!

phil@whoar.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

@Elsie 5:42 PM

…central government is rather concerned about possible further credit downgrades and the likely escalating costs of debt as interests rates rise.

Interest rates would have to rise to the gargantuan level they were under Muldoon’s maladministration of wage and price freezes for that to be an issue.

I don’t see that happening anytime soon, whatever political party or parties in Parliament hold the reins of power (NZ First possibly excepted, as Peters is essentially Muldoonist, but that ain’t going to happen).

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

no body in treasury seems to notice that the infrastructure user and the ratepayer are the same person – silly to sell an essential service just to rent it back at a greater cost

http://howdaft.blogspot.co.nz/2011/06/why-selling-infrastructure-is-stupid.html

If private ownership is such an efficient model it needs to be asked why treasury is the most persistent bureaucracy in wellington and why after suffering their direction for the past three decades NZ is as broke as greece – blind ideologues with the emphasis on the blind – they can’t see the obvious

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

he is the sideshow bob to brownlees’ quimby…

phil@whoar.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I suspect, Toad, that central government is rather concerned about possible further credit downgrades and the likely escalating costs of debt as interests rates rise.

As well they should be.

Like or Dislike: 0  1 (-1)

“..Wonder what cushion Brownlee’s providing for Parker to land on..”

the soundest suggestion i have heard is that he be added to our exports to china..

phil@whoar.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

@Elsie 5:25 PM

Perhaps they can sell off unneeded liabilities.

And who is going to pay anything significant for “unneeded liabilities”? The reality is that Red Bus, Lyttelton Port, Orion Energy and Christchurch Airport all provide good returns on the capital invested in them.

Selling them off to pay for the Christchurch rebuild is the same sort of economic lunacy that motivates the National-led Government to sell off its energy SOEs that return around 4 times the revenue in dividends than the cost of servicing their debt.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

They should indeed pay tax on speculation. I do wonder why you didn’t push for this when you were “part” of the Labour government under whos watch speculation was running rampant and largely unchecked.

We long term property investors would equally like to see the back of them, so go Gareth, go Russel

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

An earthquake levy, of the type proposed by the Green Party, would raise $1 billion each year to contribute significantly to the earthquake bill. An earthquake levy would assist central Government with the task of funding earthquake recovery.

It would also drain $1B a year out of other local economies, on top of the significant rises in insurance premiums people are now facing. This would lead to job loses and hardship in other areas.

Christchurch is funded by reinsurance payouts. If you increase the money flowing in, you’ll drive up the prices of construction, which I’m sure will make developers very happy, but won’t solve the actual problem.

Christchurch will need to adapt and change. Here’s your chance to push for the low cost, medium density model you advocate. Perhaps they can sell off unneeded liabilities.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Surely its Misanthropic Curmudgeon who is joking with his fantasy comment regarding “swathes” of teachers aides.

The reality is these kids get some resources but ususaly its of a token nature and the funding is never enough. I base my observations on watching the education progress of two boys who are now both men. One was blind and the other had ADHD.

The education system realy failed them and to claim that they had “swathes” of aids and resources is a sick nasty joke from a sick nasty mind .

Back in the real world the nasty nats will only make it worse for struggling students and their familys .

Like or Dislike: 2  0 (+2)

@Elsie 4:10 PM

It should be noted that property speculators are already subject to capital gains tax.

Yep, those who declare their business to IRD as being property development/speculation. But it is all about what they declare as their primary business activity; all about the form and not about the substance.

Would be interesting to know how many tax audits IRD do each year on people who maintain their property speculation is ancillary to other business activities and therefore not taxable.

Actually, that would be a good Parliamentary Question to the Eternal Minister of Revenue Peter Dunne. Gareth? Russel? You up for it?

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Wonder what cushion Brownlee’s providing for Parker to land on once the rug’s pulled from under the CCC’s feet?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

duh..!..it’s ok bj..

the penny has dropped…

..i can be a bit slow on the uptake sometimes..

..phil@whoar.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I think property speculators may exit the market, but not investors. It should be noted that property speculators are already subject to capital gains tax.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Oh, and MC, if you don’t even faintly suspect the Government is intent on ‘streamlining’ the RMA in a manner that would allow such things to happen, you are perhaps a little behind the play.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

bj..must be a cultural/culinary-thing..

..i don’t get it..

..is it a defiant/up yours!-one-liner..?

phil@whoar.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The hydropower station On Lake Manapouri runs from water diverted from the lake and away from its natural egress to the sea, the Waiau River. Pressure to increase the generation capacity by increasing the flow through the generators would result in significant loss of productivity for the farmers along the Waiau. It has already happened. Foreign investors, intent on increasing their returns, could lever the company into doing just that. It’s clear that any efforts by locals to contain the productivity of the company can be challenged by investors who seek increasing returns. That what ya want, Misanthropic Curmudgeon?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

mc..like the dirty-dairy-farmers..

..they have had use of the resource for nothing..

phil@whoar.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

@Gerrit

The 80% you claim dont ‘give a toss’ possibly dont, because it doesn’t effect them..

BUT many ‘kiwis’ are concerned about China buying the Crafer farms & other assets sales/profits going ‘off-shore’.

Its all about your own point of perspective.. I Guess ?

Kia-ora

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)