Offers for readers

The comment stream

Recent comments

Join the Interest community to be a registered commenter so you can:
- Edit your comments
- Avoid the CAPTCHA
- Vote on comments
Register Here

Already registered? log back in here ..

Forgotten your password? No problem! Click here

Finance sector jobs

Corporate Recovery Senior – Australia, Audit experience welcomed
Successful applicants will have the opportunity to work with this leading Australian Advis...more
Australia
Transaction Services Assistant Manager/ Manager – Melbourne
Think Global Recruitment is working with this exceptionally respected Australian Boutique ...more
Australia
Audit Senior - Australia
Sought after opportunity to move to one of the most beautiful westernised countries in the...more
Australia
Research & Master Trust Relationship Manager
Strategic and Senior Appointment...more
Australia
efinancialcareers.com

Reader poll

Who do you think should be appointed Reserve Bank Governor to replace Alan Bollard when he retires in September?

Choices

Have your say: Key says NZ needs world class tax system to compete

Posted in News

Prime Minister John Key has said in a speech to a business breakfast hosted by Cullen Law that New Zealand is a third division and unbalanced economy with low productivity growth that risks losing its best and brightest to overseas employers. Among other things, he said New Zealand needed a world class tax system and he was looking closely at what was coming out of Australia's tax review as New Zealand's own Tax Working Group prepared its report for the end of the year. This echoed comments made to us in an interview last week by Bill English. My view The speech is well worth a read to get an idea of what the Prime Minister is thinking. I sense he and English realise they will not narrow the gap with Australia without substantial tax and public sector reform. Their own Treasury Secretary John Whitehead has laid out the types of reforms needed, including a broader, flatter tax system that somehow removes the incentive for property rather than productive investment. I think Key and English are softening up the electorate for an election debate in 2011 about substantial tax and public sector reform. They cannot and will not implement a flat tax or property tax or asset sales in this term. But they might propose it before the election after they've convinced the public, rightly, that the status quo is not enough. Your view? We welcome your comments and insights on the speech below in the comments below.

New Zealand's economic performance is vitally important. This Government wants New Zealanders to have a decent enough wage packet to have real choices in their lives, and a genuine sense of opportunity. As a nation, the income we generate enables us all to enjoy world-class public services "“ like health care and education "“ and to strengthen our national institutions. And in a mobile world, relative differences matter a lot. Skilled people will move to countries where they can earn more. Businesses will locate where conditions are favourable to them. Investors will put their money where it can get a good return. I don't want our talented young people leaving permanently for Australia, the US, Europe, or Asia, because they feel they have to go overseas to better themselves. That's why this Government is focused squarely on improving New Zealand's economic performance. And to be frank, New Zealand's economic performance over a number of years has been disappointing. We have a lot of things going for us, but in the OECD's league of developed countries our economy is now essentially a third-division economy, and our closest comparators are countries like Greece, Korea, and the Czech Republic. Even in the last decade we have slipped down a couple of places in the OECD rankings, despite "Knowledge", "Economic Transformation" and the "Growth and Innovation Framework". In recent times the New Zealand economy has flattered to deceive. Growth in our GDP has been driven by more people joining the workforce and working longer, rather than through an increase in the value of what we produce. Furthermore, our growth has been very unbalanced. It has been built on an increase in consumption, a debt-fuelled housing boom, and large increases in government spending. It has not been built on the more solid foundations of growth and investment in the internationally competitive sectors of the economy. Because of this unbalanced growth, and because of the effects of the global recession, the New Zealand economy is now more vulnerable to future economic shocks. First things first: we are currently dealing with the deepest, most synchronised global recession since the 1930s. What is more, this global slump came on top of our own home-grown recession. The Treasury predicts that over the next three years, the economy will be NZ$50 billion smaller than was expected a year ago in the 2008 Budget. The Treasury also predicts that unemployment will reach a high of eight percent. That is why much of the Government's economic attention over the last eight months has been on managing through the immediate impacts of the recession. We cannot magic away a deep recession; nor can we turn back the tide of rising unemployment. What the Government can do, however, is take the sharpest edges off the recession. That involves a careful balancing act, and we got that balance right in the Budget. The Government maintained all entitlements to income support, and increased spending on front-line public services, particularly in health, education and justice. That support for the economy has helped to maintain activity, support jobs, and give people a degree of security during tough times. At the same time, however, we put in place measures to keep government debt from skyrocketing and we avoided the very real threat of a credit downgrade, which would have pushed up interest rates and cost jobs in the longer term. As far as this recession goes we are not out of the woods yet, but the Government is keeping a careful watch on international developments and is ready to respond accordingly. What I want to focus on today, however, are our longer-term economic objectives and what we are doing to meet them. This Government has three key economic objectives, which together will result in improved and enduring economic growth. These are: increasing New Zealand's productivity growth; maintaining high levels of employment, and reducing New Zealand's vulnerability to adverse events. Increasing our productivity growth basically means getting better at producing goods and services the world wants, and getting paid more for them. At the same time we want to keep employment high, although this will always fluctuate along with the economic cycle. Reducing New Zealand's vulnerability means lessening the risk that another economic shock could severely affect our economy. We will always have better-than-average periods and worse-than-average periods "“ that is the nature of economic cycles "“ but meeting these three objectives will result in an increased long-term growth rate. And meeting these objectives depends on the fundamental strengths and weaknesses of the New Zealand economy. Let's start with our strengths. New Zealand has sound economic foundations, like low levels of corruption, an independent judiciary and strong public watchdogs, an independent central bank, highly-transparent government finances, and a flexible labour market. New Zealanders are amongst the hardest workers in the OECD. We have high rates of employment compared to other developed countries and we work relatively long hours. We have plenty of opportunities. We are closer to the emerging centres of economic growth than we have ever been. We are experts at food production, and the growing middle classes of China and India are increasingly demanding better quality food products. New Zealand has the potential to fill pantries and fridges, not just in Asia but throughout the world, with high-quality, efficiently-farmed products. We are blessed with a beautiful landscape and a unique culture that tourists want to experience. Although we remain the furthest country from world markets, ultra-fast broadband is a breakthrough technology that will give New Zealand firms the ability to reach customers far across the globe. Over the next six months I will take the message about New Zealand's strengths to the rest of the world, as I visit other countries. An important part of my job is to promote New Zealand, to help build commercial networks, and to develop a sense of where our opportunities lie with the rest of the world. But let's not ignore the weaknesses of the New Zealand economy. The most fundamental problem facing the New Zealand economy is poor productivity growth. Our productivity is already low by comparison with other developed countries, and in recent years has been growing much slower than in most other countries. A significant part of the poor productivity growth in New Zealand has been the stagnation of the tradeable sector of the economy. The tradeable sector is made up of those firms that are in competition with the rest of the world "“ that is, they either export to other countries or they compete with imports here in New Zealand. This sector includes agriculture, fisheries, manufacturing, tourism, and forestry "“ the industries that make us money in the world. The sad fact is that the tradeable sector has effectively been in recession for the last five years. During that period, output in the tradeable sector has shrunk by around 10 percent, while the non-tradeable sector of the economy "“ which has lower productivity "“ has grown by 15 percent. That constitutes highly unbalanced growth. As I mentioned earlier, we have had consumption-led growth fuelled by increasing debt and excessive government spending. There has been insufficient growth and investment in the internationally competitive sectors of the economy. We like to think of ourselves as a trading nation, yet we export less as a percentage of GDP than many other small OECD countries. And that percentage has only grown slowly over the last 30 years. Over 90% of our exports come from just under 5% of exporters, and these exports are also very concentrated in a few sectors. Because of our poor export growth, and our reliance on foreign savers to fund much of the investment in New Zealand, our current account deficit has grown unsustainably large. Over time New Zealanders have built up liabilities to foreigners of $177 billion, the vast bulk being household and business liabilities, rather than those of the Government. That total amounts to 98 percent of GDP, which is one of the highest proportions in the OECD, and constitutes a large part of New Zealand's economic vulnerability. Our challenge as a country is therefore to preserve the strengths of the New Zealand economy, while addressing its weaknesses. We need our economy to become more productive through investment in sectors that are internationally competitive. We need a business environment that enables firms to move resources to their best use. We need a public sector which is better-performing and more efficient. In short, we need to reverse the trends of recent years, and get the tradeable sector growing again. Then can we can begin to narrow the income gap with other developed countries. I cannot emphasise enough that there are no quick-fix solutions here. And we must always be conscious that New Zealand's wealth is generated by the private sector "“ by the small firms, the big companies, and the sole traders who generate the jobs, the profits, and the return on investment that drives our economy. But there are things the government can do to further our economic objectives, by providing an environment in which the private sector can thrive. The Government is working on six main policy drivers "“ these are: regulatory reform; investment in infrastructure; better public services; education and skills; innovation and business assistance, and a world-class tax system Regulatory reform The Government's first policy driver is the regulatory environment under which firms operate. Regulation helps ensure we get treated fairly, protect and manage our environment, have a competitive and efficient economy, and so on. But regulation also has its costs. As a recent ANZ publication noted: "The cost of poor regulation is investment that never takes place, jobs never created or income never earned." New Zealand needs to offer a high-quality regulatory environment if we are to overcome the economic disadvantages of our small size and geographical isolation. Other OECD countries have increased the attention they give to regulatory reform and have surpassed us in international measures of regulatory impact and competitiveness. This Government has begun to address that. We have introduced a 90 day probationary period to give smaller businesses the confidence to take on employees. We are undertaking the biggest overhaul of the Resource Management Act since its introduction in 1991. The first phase of our RMA reform programme focused on streamlining and simplifying processes under the Act. A second phase of reform is currently underway. We have repealed Labour's ban on building thermal power stations. We are changing overseas investment regulations to reduce compliance costs for minor investment applications. Bill English will detail these changes and give an update on our Overseas Investment Act review in a speech next week. We have also kicked off a programme of reviewing and reforming regulations including those in the Building Act, electricity and telecommunications rules, and the emissions trading legislation. Rodney Hide, as Minister for Regulatory Reform, has been looking out for what we call "low-hanging fruit". These are the infuriating laws that people often complain about. In an annual Regulatory Reform Bill, there will be a regular opportunity to reduce red tape and make positive changes to regulations. And together with Rodney, we are working on ways to improve the quality of new regulations, and to systematically review existing regulations. Investment in infrastructure The second policy driver is investment in productive infrastructure. A lack of investment over a number of years has resulted in infrastructure deficits that have clogged the arteries of the New Zealand economy. This Government has begun to clear out those arteries. We are investing NZ$7.5 billion over the next five years to build and upgrade schools, roads, housing, hospitals and telecommunications. We announced in February that we were fast-tracking almost NZ$500 million of this investment, and much of this is already underway. This investment is realising some immediate benefits. For example, the start date of the Victoria Park motorway project has been brought forward by a year as a result of the Government's NZ$1 billion boost to state highway spending over the next three years. Later this month, work will begin on the Kopu Bridge, and we have identified an affordable, funded option for the Waterview Connection in Auckland. We have been improving the quality of the state housing stock through a substantial upgrade programme. School building programmes have been brought forward. And we have taken the first steps towards rolling out our $1.5 billion broadband plan. We've also begun to improve the way public sector agencies manage their existing infrastructure assets and plan for future infrastructure needs. In March this year we established two bodies "“ a National Infrastructure Unit to co-ordinate the Government's infrastructure activities, and an Infrastructure Advisory Board, made up of representatives from the private sector and local government, to provide independent advice on investment priorities. These will help lift the level of capital asset management and planning across the public sector. Together they will also develop a National Infrastructure Plan by the end of the year. The challenge for New Zealand is to emerge out of recession with a better stock of infrastructure, with investment decisions better analysed and better regulated, and with the efficiency of commercial disciplines entrenched into decision-making. We are addressing that challenge. Better public services The Government's third policy driver is lifting the performance of the public sector. The wider public sector represents around a quarter of economic activity in New Zealand. Therefore the most direct thing the Government can do to improve the productivity of New Zealand economy is to get its own house in order. The previous government spent a lot of money on the public service without a corresponding increase in actual services to the public. This Government is committed to improving the quality of public spending, by delivering better, smarter services within a limited increase in funding. Our first move was to put a cap on the number of core government administration staff. And our ongoing focus will continue to be on shifting more resources to front line services. We made a good start in this year's Budget. We identified a total of more than $2 billion in spending over the next four years that either did not accord with our priorities, or that had a relatively low value. That money was used to fund other, more valuable, initiatives, including boosting frontline health and education services. That is only a start, however, and we need to make enduring and significant changes in the public sector to improve its performance. This drive for change has been given added impetus by our decision to reduce the allowance for new operating spending in future budgets to a maximum of $1.1 billion. To put that in perspective, that is less than half the new operating spending over the last five Budgets. The expectations of New Zealanders of their public services are rightly high. The restraint I'm talking about is permanent. So delivering better, smarter services with smaller increases will be an ongoing challenge. Looking ahead to Budget 2010, public sector chief executives and Crown entity boards are working with Ministers to find further savings and drive improved performance. I have tasked my Ministers with getting the best possible value out of every taxpayer's dollar. Education and skills The fourth policy driver is education and skills. We are focused on literacy and numeracy at the primary school level, driven by National Standards. National Standards will set clear expectations about what children should have learned at each stage of schooling. Schools will assess students against those standards and convey that information to parents in plain English. National Standards will be in place for Years 1 to 8 at the start of the 2010 school year. The Government wants to introduce National Standards constructively, in a cooperative spirit. We want them to be an aid to better teaching and learning rather than a cause of resentment in the sector. But there should be no doubt about the Government's commitment to National Standards. Parents want them, this Government is going to deliver them, and I am backing the Minister of Education 100 percent. Our second focus is on options for secondary-age students outside the traditional school system. The Ministry of Education has received a number of proposals for Trades Academies, and is looking to get these underway as soon as they can. Trades Academies, based in schools, will give young people wider choices in education and the ability to gain practical, hands-on vocational skills while still at school. The Government is also ensuring that there are options for students outside of the school system. Our Youth Guarantee will focus on 16 and 17 year olds and will allow them to study towards school level qualifications at a polytech, institute of technology, wananga, or private training establishment. We will soon be announcing details of a staged roll-out of the Youth Guarantee, beginning from next year. Innovation and business assistance The Government's fifth policy driver is the investment that both government and business make in research and development, in innovation, and in developing new markets and products. Broadly speaking, the Government's investment in this area, which is considerable, should contribute to either of two goals: helping firms connect with overseas markets, businesses and consumers; helping firms access, or develop, new ideas to create new and higher value products and services. Those two goals will help drive productivity growth and investment in the tradeable sector, and improve our export performance. New Zealand firms that wish to export or operate internationally face twin challenges of distance and size. To help overcome these disadvantages, our trade assistance for exporters needs to be world class. The Government is determined to ensure that our overseas presence helps pursue our wider economic objectives. We are working on ways to best deliver an "NZ Inc" approach on the part of all Government agencies operating offshore. A seamless network amongst these agencies will best support our trade and economic interests overseas, with Government working alongside New Zealand exporters. At a more general level, we are pushing ahead with our efforts to secure free trade agreements, particularly in Asia, alongside our commitment to a multilateral trade agenda. Despite what some people in the Opposition might say, I'll be disappointed if Tim Groser doesn't have a large travel bill in this parliamentary term, because that shows me he is doing his utmost for New Zealand's trade. In terms of innovation, our emphasis is on promoting a stronger interactive relationship between the business sector and our publicly-funded research institutions. Universities and Crown Research Institutes need to be more responsive to the needs of firms. Our innovation system also needs to encourage firms to increase their take-up and application of research. One of our first initiatives in this area has been the Primary Growth Partnership. This will invest in significant research and innovation programmes across the primary and food sectors. When fully up and running, it will see the Government investing $70 million annually in primary sector innovation, matched dollar-for-dollar by industry. Because it is a partnership between the sector and publicly-funded research institutions, the research will be more relevant, take-up will be greater, and it will be more effective. A world-class tax system The final policy driver is the tax system. The primary function of the tax system, not surprisingly, is to collect revenue. In the current environment, when we are facing a decade of budget deficits, we need to make sure we can fund the Government's activities in a sustainable way. But the tax system is also important because it changes the way people behave in the economy. People do things because of the way the tax system is structured, not necessarily because those things represent the most productive use of resources. So we have to ensure that New Zealand maintains a world-class tax system that doesn't get in the way of people working hard, saving, and investing in productive enterprises. This Government has already reduced personal tax rates for a great many taxpayers, in a tax cut package worth $1 billion a year. We have also introduced a $500 million tax assistance package that makes it easier and less expensive for small and medium enterprises to pay their taxes. Together with Victoria University, we have established a Tax Working Group to consider the medium-term tax policy challenges facing New Zealand. The Working Group will be chaired by Professor Bob Buckle and will report at the end of the year. The Government considers that a strategic review of the tax system is very timely at this stage "“ particularly in light of the challenges posed by the current economic and fiscal environment and by our medium-term goal of a 30 percent top personal tax rate. And since our overriding aim is to be competitive with other countries, we can't consider our tax system in isolation. In particular, the Government will be watching closely what comes out of Henry Review of taxation in Australia, which is due to report back at the end of this year. Conclusion The Government has a comprehensive plan, not just for managing through the current recession, but also for improving the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy. The six policy drivers I have outlined will help to create an environment that allows businesses to thrive. I am going to push my Ministers to get as much done as they can, as quickly as they can, inside these policy drivers. But the government cannot itself create prosperity. In the end, New Zealand's economic prosperity relies on the hard work and inventiveness of our businesses and their employees. That's who we have to back. That's the only way we will lift our economic performance.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment in the box on the right or click on the "'Register" link at the bottom of the comments. Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making these comments.

41 Comments

Anyone else notice something missing

Anyone else notice something missing from Mr Key's speech. Completely missing! Not even a hint. Not a snifter. Zip. Nothing. Oh he had a brief comment about the independence of the RBNZ. He even said something about the " increase in consumption, a debt-fuelled housing boom". But did he make even one comment about the role of the greedy trading banks, NO.
Why was that?

Having, until 4 yrs ago,

Having, until 4 yrs ago, lived and worked in Australia for 10 yrs, my memories are much more aligned with the peoples in this article below -
Even if your pay packet is larger, the money quickly disappears. Teacher Mike Arthur, who recently moved from Wellington, says he earns about $4000 more than in New Zealand. "But the higher cost of living here eats that up."
Houses and cars are the big unaffordables. Advertised prices do not include tens of thousands of dollars in stamp duty when buying a house or vehicle. "Our car was far more expensive here, and then we had to pay stamp duty on it, plus about $700 to register it," says Arthur.
Some things cost less. Furniture because of superstores like Ikea and electricity (80 per cent generated from coal, the green-minded should note) are far cheaper, he says.
Presuming you don't earn less than $A25,000 ($31,100) taxes are not too different from New Zealand - about $2500 less in Australia on average but 9 per cent of wages is taken for compulsory superannuation, a figure hidden in the salary packages that lure unsuspecting Kiwis across the Tasman (salary "packaging" to cut your tax burden is big business). Tough if you wanted to pay off the mortgage first.
That's if you can afford to buy. To live within 4km of Melbourne's centre, expect to pay well over $600,000 for a house. The house will be semi-detached, unrenovated, have a tiny courtyard and probably be next to a big highway..............
Children don't get free health care. To take a three-year-old to a GP in some parts of Melbourne, it can cost more than $80 upfront, with medicine extra. The health system means the government sends a $41 rebate cheque some weeks later.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/499476

For political expediency, purchasing power parity(PPP) is being completely left out of the equation. I personally know many Kiwis in Australia who feel much like I imagine many immigrants that have been attracted to NZ on lies that the $500 a week make them a lot better of than the $50 a week they were getting, only to be sorely disapointed that the actual cost of living sees them back on the hamster wheel. That being the hamster wheel of foreign debt priced into every good and service. No escaping the borderless banking empire.

Its an international inquiry into international banking thats needed. Debt Free BASED Public Monetary System or Debt Free BASED Public Monetary System, only debate, only solution.

Bernard, the only way to

Bernard, the only way to rate a tax system against the world is to compare income and consumption tax rates. No rates in this speech so how the hell can we compare systems? Key must realise that by now he must start supplying substance.

Wally - "But did he make even

Wally - "But did he make even one comment about the role of the greedy trading banks, NO. Why was that?"

Let's try to find out:

http://www.interest.co.nz/news/rbnz-says-fixed-mortgage-rates-ok-floatin...

Start with tax relief on

Start with tax relief on interest received on savings which will at least give an incentive to save plus help the poorly treated retirees.And cut company income tax rates to well below Australias to give businesses an incentive to employ.

John Key is right, there

John Key is right, there is no magic bullet, but his ideas make sense and will see us heading in the right direction. You are right Bernard they are getting the public ready for change and are still high in the polls so don't want to rock the boat to keep their position until the next election.
Labour on the other hand is still full of homosexuals, liberals and feminists who's only focus is changing our social values and controlling our lives, they don't care one bit about the economy or exporters or wether we are at the bottom of the OECD all they can think about is gay marriage, legal prostitution, anti smacking, euthinasia and abortion . Phil Goff and Annete King are greedy babyboomers happy to keep the status quo, and because they are in opposition they oppose everything even if its good.

Yes if the banks paid

Yes if the banks paid the tab on their "Structured finance" deals wouldn't we all be better off.

All four Australian banks being pursued for $2 Billion yes Billion in unpaid tax in relation to transactions between 1999 and 2004. I can see that being a reason why we may have slipped a couple of notches down the OECD rankings.......

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=1041...

Before we look at inventing a "world class" tax system, why not collect the huge unpaid tax due from the current system.

That speech really was a

That speech really was a lightweight effort. And John Key will be nailed to the wall with the Oz comparison, by 2011. There needs to be an easily accessible graph, on a reputable website, of real GDP for both countries starting from 1990 or so.

Then we can all get some idea of what the gap is, and how rapidly it is currently widening.

As for a world-class tax system, play across a capital gains tax to the next Federated Farmers conference, and see how it goes!

Keiran - I agree about

Keiran - I agree about Labour, but if you think the National Party Executive give two two flying frigs about the onshore enterprises of NZ, you are going to be sadly mistaken. Them and the slaveminded few in society that fund and support them are only concerned about how much they can make via commission or sale of the necessities of life and social infrastructure of this nation to the highest bidder, usually subsidiaries of the international banking fraternity.

Well said Kieran ,that grubby

Well said Kieran ,that grubby pack of self seeking losers left NZ in dire financial straits as they dominated all in sundry who didn't agree with them and wasted millions on stupid train sets as well as gouging the NZ power consumer of billions in hidden taxes,it is no wonder that two of the biggest control freaks, fell on their swords when they saw the scam had been discovered,lets hope that John Key gets our country up again where it belongs,not running around the world with a begging bowl, as a result of the financially illiterate redundant Labour Party.

Actually, key said nothing of

Actually, key said nothing of substance.

I would like to suggest

I would like to suggest a good way of cutting the number of unproductive public sector employees. Over an extended trial period give each one something like 6 weeks paid leave. If during this time their absence is not noticed then their services are no longer required. If this suggestion was implemented I would estimate that at least 25% of staff would be cut from the public payroll.

RodT - gdp is only

RodT - gdp is only a measure of economic activity, no consideration given whats so ever to fair and reasonable distribution or environmental impact. Most economists agree, stated to me in letter from Don Brash, that gdp is a poor way to measure direct prosperity between nations.
Many societies with high gdp have very poor environmental protection and massive disparities of wealth.

Previously I have worked in

Previously I have worked in the UK, New Zealand and now Japan.
In this order I have been the best off in, Japan 1st, UK 2nd, NZ 3rd.

In fact working and living in New Zealand was a struggle. Wages are not bad but taxes are high ( and why do we always compare only with Australia, compare with Japan- you'll get a shock at how low taxation is in Japan) prices of basic commodities are high, basically same price around the world but higher wage levels in UK and Japan make them easily more affordable.

One dissapointing aspect of living in NZ is that Companies in NZ always seem to charge the most they think they can possibly get away with and whether it is a fair price or not might not even come into the equation. As one simple example I once had a zipper in a bag replaced, the shop said they had a min charge even though it was 5 min job, cost me $20.00. In Japan my Umbrella broke, I had one of the stays replaced, also took the guy about 5 mins, cost me 200 yen, about $3-4. That is the difference between NZ and other countries.

I know when I do come back things will not be easy no matter how much I earn.
That is not such an appealing thought.

If Key will change that then that is all for the good. Not sure how he will change over charging companies though.

goNZ- I agree with your

goNZ- I agree with your first point. If you want NZ to save more, give us a reason!
Kiwisaver is ok- but I can manage my own money just fine thanks. Taxing us on our interest is ridiculous (especially after Bollards latest comments).
Maybe less retirees would buy into investment properties then.
We're all just trying to look after ourselves as NZer's and we're not all as green as we are cabbage looking. If there is good option financially, people will take it. So far it's been RE.

Kieran - nothing like a

Kieran - nothing like a bit of discrimination to reveal the idiot within.

Awesome

Lots of aspiration and solutions

Lots of aspiration and solutions offerred, but where is the clear understanding and definition of the underlying problems they are supposed to solve?

RodT and Wally etc .

RodT and Wally etc . Lightweight, maybe, but did you want to have to read something ten times as long?
I am on my annual 'Europe Challenge' right now and "Do you think NZ has problems?"
In UK the food is c**p, expensive and you almost have to pay the banks to hold your money safely(?)
Yes, I would like to see Key and co be bold in regard to tax inefficiency etc. (LAQCs eh Bernard?) so we could get the country on a path to prosperity.
Perhaps a few lawyers and accountants reduced to $20 and hour so they would emigrate. We certainly need less of them.
Enough ranting. Back to the watery English sun for the day.

Wally: Q:"But did he make

Wally: Q:"But did he make even one comment about the role of the greedy trading banks, NO. Why was that?...A: for the same reason turkey's don't vote for thanks giving. It requires change beyond which he/they have a Vision.

My personal suspicion (speaking as

My personal suspicion (speaking as a capitalist) is that John Key must be aware that a hyperinflationary repudiation of debt is the path that the international banking elite would prefer. Why? Because this will destroy the middle class (and along with it the foundation stone of participatory democracy) whilst effecting a massive transfer of wealth to a narrow cabal of favoured interests. In such circumstances it would be hugely advantageous for governments (and bankers) to instigate such levies as a capital gains tax because this would facilitate the confiscation of actual (if depreciating) real wages against illusory 'house price wealth'. Of course, you would start off taxing realised gains only - then you would announce that this is causing distortions and must, therefore, be extended to unrealised gains. So you are a superannuatant, or family of modest means, who can't afford to pay. Never mind! You have some 'equity' in your grossly inflated house price and against that your friendly banker will lend (at interest of course) so you can meet your capital gains tax obligations. Revenue for the banker, revenue for 'their' government - and you get to buy your house more than once! I can't wait!!!

Until we return to a system of honest money (anathema to bankers) we will have no true foundation stone for prosperity - only variations on debt enslavement.

Kieran - Dont let them

Kieran - Dont let them get you down, but remember that "only a Sith deals in absolutes"

NZ faces tough choices if

NZ faces tough choices if it is going to break out of its 40 year slide and tough choices have to be made by responsible adults. Sadly Kiwis seem to prefer a I'm alright Jack/have my cake and eat it teenage-like view of the world.

Higher productivity IS the key, but that will only come from better and greater investment, which will come from a much bigger pool of savings, which means deferring upgrading the house/buying the boat or bach, etc etc.
i.e. Compulsory super savings, tax on unproductive housing investments, more consumption taxes
How many votes in that you think ....?

isn't it hilarious that the

isn't it hilarious that the speech was presented at "Cullen Law"!!!!!!!!

"A medium-term goal of a

"A medium-term goal of a 30 percent top personal tax rate."

Now that would make Bollard's job even more difficult as housing would look even more affordable! Hope of lower taxes could prompt more people to leap into housing right now with the prospect of better cash flow through lower taxes later on.

The question is what is "medium term" - half way through a 3 year term of government or in 10 years time?

The powers that be dont

The powers that be dont want another unfettered banking inquiry without constricting terms of reference, as in 1930s and 1950s, because they know that modern telecommunications will make the findings of such an inquiry far more widely known. I will present you some of those findings in order that you can decide if those that have profitting obscenely from the status quo would like them widely known -

The Goldsborough bill 1932 US Congress -
"An overwhelming majority of the U.S. Congress (289 to 60) favored it as early as 1932, and in one form or another it has persisted since. Only the futile hope that a confident new President (Roosevelt) could restore prosperity without abandoning the credit-money system America had inherited kept Social Credit from becoming the law of the land. By 1936, when the New Deal (Roosevelt's solution) had proved incapable of dealing effectively with the Depression, the proponents of Social Credit were back again in strength. The last significant effort to gain its adoption came in 1938." (W.E. Turner, Stable Money, p. 167.)
http://www.michaeljournal.org/plenty50.htm

Royal Commission on Banking and Currency 1933 CANADA -
Bank of Canada Act, 3 July 1934, created the BANK OF CANADA 1935 in response to the 1933 Royal Commission on Banking and Currency. The Bank of Canada was at first privately owned, but was nationalized by 1938. The Act and associated revisions to the Bank Act also changed the legal framework for Canada's chartered banks, which were now obliged to maintain a specified ratio (not less than 5%, usually 10%) between liabilities to the public (current and savings accounts) and their claims on the national monetary authorities (Bank of Canada paper currency, plus deposits with the Bank of Canada).
The banks lost the right to borrow on demand from the government as had been permitted under the 1914 FINANCE ACT. Instead they could borrow from the Bank of Canada, which would also hold the main accounts of the Dominion and lend to it, while in general managing the national monetary system. It would do this by issuing paper currency, by changing the rate of INTEREST at which it would lend to the chartered banks, by buying and selling bonds in the securities markets so as to affect the supply of credit and the demand for it, or by buying and selling gold and foreign monies so as to affect the demand-supply balance in the foreign-exchange market, where Canadian dollars are exchanged for foreign monies. Through such operations the Bank of Canada can and does affect the cost and availability of credit, but it has never fixed interest rates for the public at large or rationed the supply of credit directly.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1SEC81...

The Australian Royal Commission into the Monetary and Banking system 1935 -
The Australian Royal Commission into the Monetary and Banking system of Australia made its report in 1937. After nearly two years of exhaustive inquiry the commission, in its report, was obliged to admit that the Commonwealth Bank(now the Reserve Bank) posessed all the power necessary to finance all governmental needs......it can even make money available to governments, and to others, free of any charge.
http://www.financialreform.info/f_r_money_trick_extract.pdf

1934 Parliament's Monetary Committee held an enquiry into the New Zealand financial system -
From February to July 1934 Parliament's Monetary Committee held an enquiry into the New Zealand financial system. This was in large part to answer attacks upon the system as a major, or for some the only, cause of the economic depression. The Reserve Bank Act of 1933 had moved the New Zealand Pound off the gold standard, and parity with the British Pound, to a 125 to 100 ratio to the British Pound, ie a devaluation. Until 1933 New Zealand had even used British currency. The Labour representatives on the Committee were Bill Schramm, M.P. for Auckland East from 1931, James Munro, first elected M.P. for Dunedin North in 1922, and Frank. They were joined by Captain Harold Rushworth, Country Party M.P. for Bay of Islands from 1928, who was a supporter of credit reform.
The Committee received ninety eight proposals or statements, many of which supported some variety of monetary reform. C.H. Douglas, the guru of reformers, proposed a certificate of wealth for everyone, with national dividends paid out equally on a regular basis. The Douglas Credit Movement of New Zealand on the other hand proposed a National Credit Authority to determine what it regarded as just prices, and ignored Douglas' national dividends. Discrepancies between Douglas and the New Zealand Movement that bore his name were noted by the Committee. On behalf of the Labour Party Walter Nash supported a central credit authority, a National Investment Board and nationalisation of the banking system. His Labour colleague, Rex Mason, persisted in detailing the monetary reform legislation he regularly presented to Parliament.

PARLIAMENT OF TASMANIA MONETARY SYSTEM: REPORT OF SELECT COMMITEE, WITH MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS 29th October 1935 -
The Committee urges the Commonwealth Monetary Commission to pay the greatest possible attention to the statements in the Journal of the London Chamber of Commerce concerning this gap, and the closely related fact that credit is created and issued by the banks as a debt to the community, and that the money to pay interest is not issued except as a further debt, and that it is therefore useless to seek a solution which does not involve community control of credit.............
Under the world's banking systems it has become an instrument for controlling the future production of the wealth. Whether this control is for ever to be left in the hands of profit making institutions has become a question which has been agitating the minds of thinking men in all parts of the world.
"Many eminent economists and statesmen today support the idea that the control of money should be a State function rather than a field for dividend making............
R G Hawtrey, of the British Treasury, in the "Art of Control Banking," says:
When a bank lends, it creates credit. Against advance which it enters amongst its assets, there is a deposit entered in its liabilities. But other lenders have not this mystical power of creating the means of payment out of nothing. What they lend must be money that they have acquired through their economic activities."..............
Bank Consideration
"The original theory by which it was held that the banks gave some consideration to the rest of the community in return for these privileges was that they were under the obligation to the borrowers to pay them in gold on demand. It was physically and mathematically impossible for the banks to fulfil their contracts if all those who were entitled to fulfilment demanded it, since there only existed a small part of the gold which the banks had contracted to hand over 'on demand' in consideration of which undertaking every borrower was paying interest.
"Whenever the banks were called upon to fulfil their contracts the nation was obliged to come to their rescue, and moratoria were declared in 1848, 1857, 1866, 1914, and 1931.
"The only risk the banks now run is that all those who have borrowed book entry money from them should at the same moment demand paper pounds. These, the banks are under the obligation to supply on demand, and once more there are not enough of these in existence for them to fulfil their contracts.............
State Creation of Money
The Chairman read a quotation from the recent book of Mr G D H Cole (an Oxford economist), "Principles of Economic Planning": - "It does seem to me undeniable that the State, by creating new money without thereby creating new debt, can come near to bringing about the full use of the available productive resources, and can, by recurrent infusions of additional money, keep those resources in use. (p. 217)."
Mr Watson replied, - "How can you create new money without creating a new debt?"
Did the witness mean, -
1) That when banks create new money they are in debt to no one for it, but can lend it?
2) That it is impossible, or wrong, for the community to create new money without being in debt to the banks, though they would create it on the same security as the banks now create it, that is, the joint and/or several assets of the community - a very satisfactory position for the banks as long as the community will agree to continue it?

The Report of the New Zealand Royal Commission on Monetary, Banking, and Credit Systems 1956-
Page50 The Government and the Creation and Destruction Money
177. It can be seen from above that the Government, working through the Reserve Bank, has far reaching powers to curb unwanted bank lending. Through its ownership of The Bank of New Zealand, which in 1954 handled about 40 per cent of the advances and deposit business of the trading banks in New Zealand, it can also, if it so desires, reinforce its general policy as regards bank lending, and influence bank charges by specific instructions to the Bank of New Zealand. Bank overdraft rates have been fixed by the agreement between the Government and the Associated Banks since 1941. 178. If the Government that anytime that the supply of money is inadequate, and the trading banks cannot or will not increase their lending, it may itself borrow from the Reserve Bank, and no doubt, in practice, set its own terms as to interest charges and repayment. Indeed, if it wished, it could ensure, with its existing powers, that the trading banks did not initiate any expansion of the money supply required in the future, and that all new money was advanced by the Reserve Bank to the Government. As we point out elsewhere in this report, we consider that this would be most undesirable. However, the above remarks indicate the extent of the Governments power to control the supply of money and the terms on which it is issued.
Page 60 Interest
Rates 225.Interest is the price paid for credit. If loan money becomes scarcer, rates of interest generall tend to rise; conversly, if loan money becomes more plentiful, they tend to fall. The rates of interest charged to different borrowers vary according to the lenders assessment of the relative risks involved in lending, the relative costs involved in making the loans and collecting payments on them, and so on. 229. By maintaining the rates of interest charged by the State Advances Corporation at relatively low levels the Government has also exerted a restraining influence over the general level of interest rates on mortgages. Page62 232. Finally, a measure of control over hire-purchase transactions was introduced in the 1955 Budget. Provision was made for minimum deposits and maximum periods for payment of the balance owing under hire-purchase agreements and credit-sales agreements.
END

And still it rolls on unabated. How long are sane people going to continue to surrender to this #*%@#*%

My view a world class

My view a world class tax system is like a good golf swing - low and flat. That is what he has to work toward. It is courage which is at issue here....

I think John Key's on

I think John Key's on the right track.

- Start taxing capital gains on property (close this ludicrous loophole once and for all and make up for the shortfall from lowering personal and corporation tax)
- Lower personal and corporation tax (encourage entrepreneurs)
- Slight increase in GST on non-food items to make up for any shortfall (discourage consumerism)

So basically encourage entrepreneurs and people who will generate real wealth for the country and tax consumers.... the more you consume the more tax you pay. Discourage speculation on house prices (nonproductive assets).

Unfortunately I can see many NZ voters punishing the government for these policies as most people think only for what's in their own best interests and not that of the nation... so anyone with a big mortgage on investment property will not like these policies... therefore Labour will promise to remove the property tax to get back into power.

Congratulations on John Keys speech.

Congratulations on John Keys speech. At last a debate over real direction. The answer is very simple. Direct, personal taxation must reward effort, risk, investment and sometimes sheer guts. It must be low and it must be flat. Perhaps a tax free threshold to start with then 20%. Dramatic changes for NZ which would release unbelievable energy and productivity.

Celebrate individual effort and wealth.Low taxation doesnt distort decisions or waste resources. The move to a 39 cent tax rate had a direct result of creating hundreds, if not thousands of new landlords.

So how will this happen..Government sector represents 44% of our GDP. The aim must be to reduce this to 30% or below. You dont have to touch our vitals such as police, nurses ,doctors or teachers. Target and scrutinise all boards, councils, commissions and ministries of perceived importance. Get the private sector to do it. They only survive by eliminating waste.

We have 1.3 million on welfare (receiving someone elses earnings)Helen and Michael wanted to add another 200,000 students and bring us up to as many on assistance as we actually had working. It doesnt mean we stop caring but the whole direction of welfare has to be turned around.

Our people have lost their resilience and crumble at the slightest hardship. Lets start with no unemployment benefit to single fit young men with no dependents. Shift to work, build resiience, be innovative, creative and harden up. Life is not easy. Change attitude to study and family. Pass your new hardiness and skills to your kids.

Get off the back of the few people that we actually have producing goods and services under competition. Goods and services that the world actually wants and will pay us desperately needed export income. Remove or speed up the regulation process, reward and encourage their effort. There is no easy answer but at least this is a start.

Ive had the privilege of visiting many countries. New Zealand should be the top nation on earth and we can be so lets get cracking.

Hey,Barry. Does your 1.3M on

Hey,Barry.
Does your 1.3M on welfare include us oldies?
Words are cheap aren't they?
No benefits! Why not provided you can put up with beggars on the streets and burglaries, hold ups and funding the much larger police force and bigger prisons.
But that is not what Key is about.
By the way, while we are about it we need to scrutinise the wastage in the private sector as well. Private business is much, much better than the public sector at covering up its disasters and its graft.

Question. How many other countries

Question. How many other countries and which ones have an equivalent contract between the Reserve Bank Governor and the Govt. that focuses solely on inflation?

I would be very interested in the answer. For in mho that is the root cause of all evil in NZ.

If someone can supply the answer to this we would then have some basis for comparison and you may all well be enlightened as to why you are all worrying about our debt, our house prices and not about the important issues like raising our incomes and therefore reducing our debt levels.

mousewhochasedthecat, oh I love the

mousewhochasedthecat, oh I love the image. It was so missing wasn't it. I mean not one tiny little bit of fluff about the role the greedy bastards played and still play in stuffing this nuthouse with easy credit. When do you think we will see the poodles being taken for walkies again by the fat banker?

Low and flat tax: The

Low and flat tax: The US effectively has had such a system under Bush....the income disparity has widened, the USA is no richer for it, in fact more money has been concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer while the "plebs" are allowed to run up huge debt to keep them thinking they are doing OK...You only have to look at why Obama won to realise ppl had had enough of it...and wanted something else, which of course it seems they are not getting....Obama is looking like a one term pony.

Conclusion: The NZ tax systems does indeed need reform but a simple flater system isnt going to do it. We have tried a flat GST...its simple but its not working that well. So somehow a "leveling" of the playing field has to occur, ie where "good" productive investmant is encouraged by lower tax (or some such method) and "bad" unproductive tax hammered...quite how that is achieved is another matter...that is a nightmare to setup and maintain....and given the "smart" monies ability to find loopholes probably doomed....Pollies are too slow, thick and corruptable to get it to work or want it to work....what key wants is pork barrel politics via the back door IMHO...ie manipulate the system....

Robert: Quite a few have

Robert: Quite a few have a monitary policy....those that dont are worse off than those that do...however monitary policy assumes growth/inflation is buit in at 1~4%...if you cant consistantly grow then the system is going to topple....and peak oil and greed is what is going to do it, hence what we just went through is just the first innings IMHO.

regards

A capital gains tax on

A capital gains tax on property will make no difference - people will still invest in property - Australia has CGT and stamp duty yet they boomed at a similar rate to NZ so a capital gains tax is not the answer - if anything it will benefit the wealthy.

The only reason Key and

The only reason Key and English are banging the tax change drum is because the gst take has collapsed thanks to the peasants running out of cheap credit. Now Bollard has been doing his best to boost the flow and keep it cheap but the peasants don't want to know. Soooooo up pops the idea that we need to change the system. Instead of gst we can rush into some stupid land tax or CGT and the really really important thing is the govt wants a huge dollop of loot and they want it yesterday. Think about it!

"Australia has CGT and stamp

"Australia has CGT and stamp duty yet they boomed at a similar rate to NZ so a capital gains tax is not the answer "
Not quite true, unlike here Australia's housing demand has far exceeded supply for a good number of years, that is why property price increased, and still is. Australians dont "invest" in second, third, fourth houses as a hobby like the self employed do here, because there is no tax advantage- and tax on second or more properties in Oz discourages it.
It is a damaging culture that started here a few years ago, pumping profits into loss making rental properties to avoid paying real tax- but so at same time artifically inflating their value, and using that value void as so called security for importing overseas credit.

steven: "Low and flat tax:

steven: "Low and flat tax: The US effectively has had such a system under Bush" - by no means is this true.

Re: "steven: “Low and flat

Re: "steven: "Low and flat tax: The US effectively has had such a system under Bush" - by no means is this true."

This 2003 article by Daniel Altman got a lot of coverage at the time, showing that the US already had a flat tax. Income tax is progressive but other taxes (eg social security & sales taxes) are regressive & it all balanced out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/21/business/21DOUB.html?pagewanted=1

Another study also found that Bush made the tax regime much flatter (although not completely flat). Overall taxes were about 22% in the bottom two quintiles and 30% in the upper 3 quintiles of income.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0414/p03s01-usgn.html

The thing missing from the

The thing missing from the speech for me is a commitment to reduce total tax. Government is trying to design a system that can encourage growth and so gain more tax. If they were taking 2% tax we would not need to be so concerned with exactly how.
"$1.5 million every hour, seven days a week, 365 days a year" is spend on welfare. Doesn't anyone see that Government welfare doesn't work. I say this because I care about the poor. Welfare is soul destroying. It is a cancer on our nation.

Logical Dave wrote "Why not provided you can put up with beggars on the streets and burglaries, hold ups and funding the much larger police force and bigger prisons." but we have that now. I am under 40 and in my childhood we did not lock our house. People live on the streets now. If $1.5 Million an hour won't do it. Why do you think more money will work.

PAYE Of course this is

PAYE
Of course this is really a business payroll tax only dressed up o look like something else. PAYE is a tax on a company for every employee it has. If the company hires offshore in a low or no tax environment , or if it simply outsources it will not pay this tax at all. So New Zealand misses out on the tax of everyone that does not work here that could.