Sure, it is the laws that do have holes which is how this has come about, in that case should the laws be changed, or are they fine as is?

From book, Our Enemy, The State

http://mises.org/story/3601

Quote, "The efforts of earlier political philosophers to explain the origins of the state either as an expression of "divine will" or as the product of an alleged "social contract" begin to melt away when confronted by Nock's realism. He tells us that the state has its genesis not in some highly principled pursuit of a "common will" to resist some imagined perverse human nature, but in nothing more elevated than "conquest and confiscation." He echoes Voltaire's observation that "the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of the citizens to give to the other." The Watergate-era mantra "follow the money" reverberates this more-prosaic theme."

I don't think this should be dismissed as some above would do.

Under our taxing legislation, if a taxpayer takes one or a number of 'artificial' steps in order to gain an advantage, then that is a sham. Well these cross rental transactions have every bit the look of a sham by any definition, thus they speak to unethical behaviour on behalf of those in a position to gain by abuse of power, to our disadvantage. One law for all is what any of these politicians would state they stand for.

Moreover, from a straight fair play point of view, justice, if you will, a poor sod taxpayesr found wanting under the above tax rules would be made out by the media as immoral, unethical crooks, as they wend their hapless way through the court pages, thus, quite rightly should the same media be branding every politician practicing such rorts likewise.

And quite apart from that as the article states, Heatley, for a start, has a conflict of interest which is always significant (although in this case, I'm quite happy, as presumably he won't want to see a thieving CGT insitituted.)

What's the big deal ? They rent out an apartment to a fellow MP who pays with their living away from home allowance. So thats different to if they rent it out an ordinary citizen and the MP rents an apartment owned you or I. ? Ministers have always had Govt. houses. I maybe wrong but the rent paid for the ministers house seems to be one Govt. department paying another Dept.

I'm not sure they look like shams. If Minister A owned Apartment A and rented it to Minister B, who in turn owned Apartment B and rented it to Minister A, then maybe, but this doesn't look much different from the myriad other people who have purchased property as a form of investments. They just happen to be renting them to other ministers (possibly using to advantage their contacts to get tenants - though who wouldn't do that?).

I don't reckon we pay our politicians enough in any event...

The sham is in the fact that they qualify for the living allowance by paying rent, thus, seemingly, these cosy little artificial arrangements amongst themselves.

If they lived in their own apartments, which is why one would assume they bought them, they could not pay themselves rent, thus would not qualify for the 'reimbursement'. They need to implement the artificial step of renting each others units in order to play the system.

Artificial steps taken to extort my tax money = sham.

And the whole issue of ethical behaviour from those in a position to abuse the power they hold.

I'm not sure that is right. I think if they buy the apartment to stay in then they can use the allowance to pay off the mortgage. Then again, I don't know much so should probably stop digging.

To be honest, I'm just disappointed at the lack of reaction to my closing comment.

Sam - you have got to be joking that we don't pay them enough. Do you think Paula Bennett would actually get anywhere near her Ministerial salary from a private sector employer? I'm betting if someone did a study on it - well over the majority (my guess is around 80 - 90%) of Parliamentarians are in the best paid job they've ever had in their life.

hehe

Typical Kiwis, small minded mentally to look and fixated at small matters ...

No. Not a small matter. Such playing of the systems via the employment of shams speaks to ethics, and these are the people running our lives. I don't think they're fit to make decisions and laws that control how I live my life, this is further proof.

This is one of the most important of topics, because it is the very heart of how our individual lives are governed by others.

I had to act as advocate for two family men , whose boss gave them the " DCM " today. They, and their families ,will have to leave the country. The funds for infrastructure projects havn't come through yet. Companies are " down-sizing" hand over fist.........meanwhile, in Wellington, our illustrious leaders show no care, but for snaffling all the goodies in their trough..........makes yer skin crawl. They just don't get it !

"Billions are squandered every year on mindless bureaucracy and scandalous welfare payouts and they hardly ever rate a mention...."

How is this not a "welfare payout"? The justification for the behavior from the polis themselves is "to keep families together." Sure, a private sector businessperson (with his family) may be transferred at great expense (tax deductible), but he doesn't get the opportunity to rent company property to another party for his own benefit.

Is it morally wrong? No. Is it hypocritical? Yes, especially when these elected leaders are telling others to act responsibly. The rental returns lost to English, etc is money that is lost to the govt coffers. What they're getting away with could be theft in some peoples' books.

There is nothing wrong with what they are doing.

Lets get back to important issues like getting the economy out of this recession!

Pay them more, and don't give them allowances. People who work for an employer don't normally get allowances for living and travelling to work buying clothes and food, it is just a cost of doing that work. If you are getting paid $300k a year which is about 8 times the average wage, then they can definately afford to move their family close by and rent or buy a house form that. I think their wages should be based on a factor of the average wage, thus if the average wage goes up, so does their income, and it gives them an incentive to increase NZs wages and wealth. Currently there is no incentive for them. Enough of this current system, it is outdated.

At least English has had a the moral foresight to refund the money, even though he was entitled to it. There are some MPs who don't claim living costs, even though they could do the same thing.

If everyone who was entitled to money from the government, actually received it, then we would be paying out a lot more in benefits. There are a lot of people who don't take it, because they either don't know they are entitled to it, they don't think they need it, or they don't think they should get it for moral reasons.

Couldn't someone put all their money and assets into a trust, and not personally own or generate any income, and then claim benefits and a living allowance. Legally they may be entitled to it, but morally, they are just leeching off the taxpayer.

sean Says:
August 5th, 2009 at 4:45 pm

if BE had not purchased the house, but instead left his $800k in the bank he would be entitled to the allowance, and this debate would not occur. But because for security of accomodation he transferred his investment from the bank depsoit to a property he gets penalised? what am i missing.

He was entitled to the allowance, whether he owned the house or not.

He also possibily wouldn't have had $800k in the bank, he would have borrowed to buy thehouse, so wouldn't have been generating income off that $800k. Instead he had the mortage repayment costs, which the allowance was going towards. This is one reason why house prices have risen to unsustainable levels, because there are benefits of putting your money into property, and then claiming the mortage repayment costs, which other investment grades don't have. If you are on a benefit, and own a house, you can get an extra allowance to cover some of the mortage repayments. You wouldn't get this if you had instead put your money into shares, and owned the house mortgage free. If you were renting you could still get an allowance to cover part of the rent.

Let the pollies do what they like with their money, but only $24,000 of it for accomodation. That is generous enough for all MP's to cover their out of town expenses, especially ministers who get a huge pay margin over a backbencher. If a minister needs a bigger house to fit in his brood, then let him apply for Working for Families.

Anybody still got a link to the study that showed that the more a CEO got paid the worse the company concerned performed?

Pay a market salary for skills and responsibility and cut all perks. Fringe benefit tax did that for most employees here and removed lots of tax avoidance behavior.

For those that think this is a trivial matter it isn't. It's not about Bill English or Phil Gough (Labour or National) it's about leadership and keeping good faith with the people they serve. Helen never recovered from signing a painting for charity and saying she didn't know how fast the car was traveling to get her to a rugby game.

I suspect many of our politicians just got a warning and the red card (from the public) is next.

Selwyn, Jacko, Mark Hubbard - well said!

Mark, I wonder how much those traveling expenses could have been reduced by using some of the many webinar systems now available?

Last post for a while, am undergoing urgent hydration treatment in UK, and will be slightly distracted if not a little dizzy at times. Cheers, Les.

@Roger, I hope it was that simple. (Nice humour, it might well be that simple!)

Hey LES : this hydration treatment, that leaves you distracted and dizzy, sounds like one helluva booze up ! Good luck. And travel light ; after you've packed your bag, leave her at home, and go on your own. Cheers ! ( no offence meant, to her indoors.)

SO THATS why Heatley won't get serious about housing affordability and addressing planning regulations - so that he can bump up the values of his apartments through another bubble!!!
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
that guy is a waste of space

There'll no doubt be a full review that will considerably tighten up existing accomodation allowances. Which is obviously necessary.

But here's a quick question:

How many of you would be prepared to swap jobs with an MP?

Think about it...would you be prepared to run for office?

Ross Says:

"What's the big deal ? They rent out an apartment to a fellow MP who pays with their living away from home allowance. So thats different to if they rent it out an ordinary citizen and the MP rents an apartment owned you or I. ? "

That about sums it up....
And poses another question....who was the original idiot who could not see it, and who is the original editor who also could not see that..

Rob Says:
"At least English has had a the moral foresight to refund the money, even though he was entitled to it. There are some MPs who don't claim living costs, even though they could do the same thing."

Which also poses a further question...espec since the Field debacle
Parliament is the highest 'court' in this country, everything , traditionally stems from how Parliament is run, from acceptable language to our local club meeting prodedures...
AND acceptable morality and ethics, over and above what is legal..
They SET THE STARDARDs and as citizens we expect our elected Representatives to do so. Lead by example...
"English has had a the moral foresight" NO he hasnt, he has just had "foresight" if it was "moral" he would not have a issue on his hands in the 1st place!!

And there should be no need to tighten up...just make expenses visble, and then we can see who in parliment has ethics and morals

The whole perks and allowance structure has to go and be replaced by a transparent system of higher salaries depending on responsibilities and thats it. The govt has gotta show leadership on this when we are in a serious economic situation and the true effect of spending cuts emerges

So the pigs are caught head down in the trough, hoovering away the sidewalls untill the next inpouring of publicly funded swill arrives... and we are annoyed(and rightly I might add) because the pigs have outsmarted the keepers by changing the rules and becoming the bellringers.
Perks by definition are (pig food) appeasment for shortcomings in remuneration or..... tax dodges for those that activley seek non-transparency in regard to justifying that remuneration and consequential taxation.
As a byproduct of the latter we may reasonably assume stealth on the part of the recipient....who,.. would( I think) support the byline...tax avoidance is not tax evasion because it's legal... which at best suggests a capacity for moral corruption.

Rather than become entangled in a web of govt expenses policy and thier absolute power to defend the legality of the "RULES".... we can without contradiction say..........that ABUSE of privilige has occured,.. even under those"Rules" and that is moraly reprehensible and therefore..............rather than punish (which will not encompass
the pigs not caught at the trough).... we should seek to have full transparency of "The Rules" and thier amendments at all times.
You may sometimes be amazed at the oik beuracrat that thinks he/she's smarter than you..............Why?

Cause they wrote the rules they know the rules!

So why can't I just learn the Rules, then I'll be smart as them !

Nah ..Then they gotta write some new rules...

Sh.t I'm gettin dizzy,... but then that is the idea isn't it.

Mark Hubbard said...Sham and fraud. If you or I entered into such artificial steps with our taxes, IRD would be all over us. And he's the Minister of Finance.

Yes Mark absolutley right...... but then it infers a complicity on the part of the IRD to be more relaxed about testing the letter of the law in such circumstances!!

The thing is Simon7, the public are so thick they cannot see a ponzi rort when it jabs them in the bum. Labour did absolutely NOTHING during its power days to throttle the property binge. And we all know none of them invested in property, don't we!
Now National have their turn to run the scheme their way. QED, none of them are heavily invested in property are they!. See, nothing changes except the faces at the 9th floor windows of the Beehive. Are we going to see great 'strategy' changes to reconstruct the disfunctional turd of an economy? NO. Will Brash's little party in the public trough come up with anything we don't already know? NO.

Mark --I think Steptoe is agreeing with me , at least on my first point. I agree the English situation is abit different , but if it leads to abit more clarity in the rules then that is good

Bernard to bring the subject of conflict of interest back to a more user friendly site....

It is often touted by MPs that to introduce capital gains tax is political suicide and we at PEC www.pec.org.nz have often asked why?

There are few people (circa 200K) in New Zealand that have secondary properties and as they only have one vote each the numbers don't seem to spell political suicide. However the number of people subsidizing the investment policies of those few is enormous, let alone the impact that asset inflation has had on reducing productive investment, job creation and increased national debt and one of the lowest levels of housing affordability in the western world.

We have a situation where the entire economy is being brought to its knees with the passive asset inflation (encouraged by tax law) with Treasury, Dr Bollard, NZMEA, PEC, and many others saying we need CGT (Capital Gains Tax) as part of the solution and yet it gets no traction. John Key describes CGT as punitive.

What is punitive is an innocent hard working tax payer, being asked to subsidise another citizens investment decision (via a higher tax burden) as the property investor write off the operating losses of their rental against their PAYE. When the property is sold it has no Capital Gains Tax so some property speculator effectively tax money out of the pockets of those that don't speculate on property.

Now let me quote what Bill English said "Many MPs had rented out properties for years, with many choosing to use them as part of their superannuation scheme"

I think you have to judge for yourself if this is an acceptable state of affairs but as the director of many companies this sort of governance conflict would not be allowed at board level. Now that I know I am talking a bunch of property speculators in the house the calls for PRODUCTIVITY sound very hollow.

Want a a free truck load of manure, just drive through any NZ town with a sign up reading "Your MPs are working for you"

Bernard, you'd have the kind of data Selwyn is looking for perhaps?

If we held he revenue the same as now and had one rate of tax across paye, company, trust and cgt, what would it be? Can you help with that too?

This is really beginning to sink in now.

What we have is a clear conflict of interest. These parliamentarians will never adopt monetary and fiscal policy that would benefit all NZ, because in both cases asset prices would of necessity drop and that'd be the end of their Ponzi-propped individual super schemes.

Let's get real, whether rich prick, red prick, yellow prick or blue prick, they ain't gonna make the required policy changes to rebalance the economy. They been troughing it for too long.

Increased productivity for these b*stards means the same people who are subsidising them now, must suck up and work harder to keep doing the same - subsidise their super schemes.

Because of them, we are f@&^ed, plain and simple.

How can it be stopped?

New Zealand, listen, behaviour begets behaviour, let this pass and be in no doubt p*ss poor standards = p*ss poor performance, we will ALL get screwed, plain and simple.

I'm looking forward to TA's commentary out tomorrow given the fall in house prices announced this week, given his recent views that prices will "edge higher"
no doubt he will spout on about this being a seasonal anomaly blah blah blah

@Matt in Auck, "affordability", the red pricks were no better, and now you know why.

I know let's do a fhb grant, that'll help ....... yep, the pricks lift the floor price of their property assets a tad more.

Who can you trust? (Ha, ha - sure Helen, c'mon luv...)

Clearly, none of the b*st*rds.

Bernard, doesn't look like we are getting that Heatley interview?
I guess he's too busy defending himself at the moment.....
Or scouting open homes for some more investment properties whilst interest rates are still lowish

You may have noticed that the Privacy Commissioner has ruled that regional councils don't have to disclose if residential property has been developed over toxic waste dump sites. This I believe has been done at the potential harm to citizens to protect property prices.
Why would such worrying measures be taken to protect house prices at the possible expense of the health of the common folks?
Because, it has to be remembered that any mortgage written into existence as debt book entries, as they are, then becomes part of the debt based banking systems tier 1 capital reserve, which is then expanded even further by the credit multiplication ratio.
Thus as property numbers have increased, they have become part of the base of the whole debt based house of cards. Increased property numbers, increased money supply, increased inflation, higher house prices. The damage has now been done, our economy, due to this and other forms of banking credit creation, now sits as a house of cards. If a correction to was forced to once again make equal-opportunity to all to have any chance of ever being freehold, as decency says it should, technically it would bring our house of cards crashing down. Because as the property prices reduced and were revalued, the amount they represent as banking reserves would be reduced, thus the loans of created credit they back would have to be called in, massively reducing the money supply, causing further recession, as occurred in the US/UK.
Just as if the NZ dollar goes up or down doesn't matter, because either way the nation-state of NZ will be economically damaged, this is known as a Strangle or a Straddle, no matter which way you run its going to hurt, to do the decent thing for the NZ nation-state in the housing market will at the same time destroy it in a Strangle of a Straddle.
Thus when Bernard suggests we encourage the rating agencies to downgrade our dollar, he is encouraging springing the private bankers trap. It may favour the exporters and manufacturers that we have left, but it would make our existing foreign denomination debts once again already unservicable even more unservicable, and once again as in 1961 and 1984 we would face liquidation at the hands of the private central bankers and be forced to sell our nation-state public infrastructure to their multinational corporate subsidiaries at firesale prices.
Bernard, in the poll at present, which by the way only ever ask about old world solutions, asks whether we should print our own money by buying govt bonds as everyone else is doing. Everyone else is not buying their own govt bonds, they are selling them to the private primary bond dealers that operate as private independent agencies within their govts under the international private central banking network.
We should be printing our own money, but not by issuing more IOUs to the private monetary pimps and middlemen, but by spending it into circulation with no interest attached for the building of our own public infrastructure utilising our own natural resources i.e. for the building of sustainable energy projects, thus our own interest free monetary base becomes backed by the free energy available from our own resources into the never, never. Instead of at present foreign corporation, based on debt, building all our sustainable energy plants, then charging our own natural resources back to us, our own wind, with debt repayment factored into pricing. Once again the privately controlled international central banking system, the primary bond dealers and underwriters extract their tribute for the use of our own resources.
Wake up Sheoples.
Have a great day. I off to get back on that hamster wheel to scrape together some more tribute for the borderless banking empire and their favourite son Johny Key.

LOU I think you meant to say Bill English but perhaps John Key was also in your frame at the time.

Iain, Social Credit died as it sounded way out there and no one understood its motives or how the banks actually work to understand why it made some sense.

If I have a piece of advice for you its "tone down the message a little" and work out how you make some of the messages more main stream so it attracts a bigger audience.

For me now, the idea of going into national debt to borrow someone else's printed money with no real backing makes less sense than printing "a little" of our own as I have said in past posts.

To print another say 5% into the money supply, give it to Kiwi Bank and limit it to loans "only" for the productive economy then it will

a) not inflate house prices or contribute to internal inflation
b) put's our gouging foreign banks on notice
c) lowers our exchange rate and further helps our recovery
d) if the increased money supply increases the size of the economy by the same amount we have zero inflation but increased jobs, GDP and foreign currency income.

What it would mean is telling the world (international banks) that our printed money is as valuable as their printed money and with the size of chip we have on our shoulders im not sure we have that ability.

Iain I will be content to get CGT and monetary policy changed as I don't think Kiwis are ready to understand why this would or could work.

I just checked the Herald Blog to see if my blog got posted last night? Surprise suprise all the comments re Politicians being land lords where positive as follows. Blogs that filter should be avoided as they are just political instruments.

Comments
Dean Jackson
Germany

8:21AM Friday
7 August 2009Should MPs give up being landlords.? Gee, I know people hate MPs telling them what to do, so why should we tell them how to invest personally. Most things I've read from this guy seem to reveal a deep loathing for property investment. If property has such great tax breaks, why doesn't he just buy some property - or heal the anger?
(make sure it's in a trust so no p**** takes it off ya)
Man in a Hat
Titirangi

8:21AM Friday
7 August 2009The government uses the tax breaks on property to ensure that there is a large stock of rental properties for people who cannot afford houses. Otherwise they would have to increase the amount of state owned housing - which is the last thing this country needs. I would hope that every MP is a landlord and remains that way, especially if they are fiddling with the tax laws.
aredwood
Sunnynook

8:21AM Friday
7 August 2009This just proves what we have known all along: That property investment is the best geared investment available. All other geared investments have far more risk than investing in property. Also how many other investments can you easily improve the value of (legally that is) apart from just investing more money or taking on more risk? If I buy shares in, say Telecom about the only thing I can do to improve their value is to make more toll calls. I will start buying investment property's myself as soon as the next boom gets underway. I would buy now if I had enough income and equity. The National party voting to remove those tax breaks would be as likely as Turkeys voting for an early Christmas. I am only 24 and already own my own home so the current slump doesn't worry me at all.
Sion Hepple
Auckland Central

8:20AM Friday
7 August 2009I have money in the bank earning interest, would that also give me bias in my decision making for changing tax on income?
Fritz
Auckland

8:20AM Friday
7 August 2009I think parliamentarians' salaries should be determined by public referendum every three years on the election papers. Pick who you want in power, and then pick what you want to pay them - and at the same time, pick what you want your tax dollars to be spent on. Yay, a step towards democracy! (though the fatcats probably wouldn't want that anyway)

Nutshell in a:-

people generating wealth via land/property inflation don't want the increasing dynamics weakened or reduced - it's a no brainer.

a significant proportion of our parliamentarians and their supporters are in the group that generate wealth this way - see the facts.

can they be trusted to support policy change that would benefit the majority of Kiwis, but reduce inflation and it's dynamics and drivers?

Get real - NO! Look at the outcomes.

Let's think about that again,

can they really be trusted to support policy change that would benefit the majority of Kiwis, but reduce inflation and it's dynamics and drivers?

Let's think about that again,

Get f*^&in real - NOT a f%^&in chance - NO!

So how is that going to change?

Just had this hit my inbox:

"Some interesting figures from Brian Gaynor today"¦

Because of our focus on investing in housing:

1. The value of the NZX portfolio had dropped by 15% from $51b to $43b in the last 10 years. At the same time the ASX portfolio has risen by 93% from $709b to $1370b

2. NZX as a measure of our industrial wealth is 24% of GDP compared to Australia's ASX at 92%

3. In NZ the value of housing compared to the value of the NZX has risen 300% in the last 10 years from 4x NXZ to now 13x the NZX. Housing is worth 13x our industrial value!!! In Australia meanwhile the value of housing compared to the ASX has risen 23% to 3x ASX in the same period.

Basically NZ's productive economy has been screwed by Australian banks pouring in cheap housing loans and throwing our great grandchildren into penury."

A concise demonstration of an economy out of balance driven by warped policy settings supported by vested interests.

John and Wally - so true, nothing will change with those vested interests.
there will only be belated change once it is too late...

Matt, the trouble is we don't know who all the property speculators are. Labour were so amazingly stupid in supporting the bubble thinking the short term jobs created in the splurge would be permanent along with their position in power. They failed utterly to recognise the wealth and influence they were handing to the banks. Not so the National rump which waded into the speculation with gusto and so today we have a different pack of idiots in the Beehive, only these ones are hell bent on protecting their property investments. That explains the policy to protect bank profits and avoid doing anything to deflate the bubble. The banks are set to hand over a fortune in donations to guess which political party? This amounts to a party tax on everyday families because it comes straight from the mortgage payments. Well done Helen.
There will be no change period. The 'strategy' is pure BS for public consumption. Brash will produce a report, then bend the knee and off he will go to a perk appointment overseas and the report will be lost in the Beehive basement. This is Noddyland. The young need to heed Bernard's warning and bugger off.

I like it - 'Double Dipton' English, ha.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10...

"Maybe he thought no one would discover that Ministerial Services had willingly adapted the rules to fit his family circumstances. Maybe it was the intoxication of power which made him feel bulletproof."

Note to Office of the Auditor-General - don't just stop with English.

Plus have you guys got and kind of method that can detect parliament biasing their decision making when policy making that protects their self-interests in property investment?

@Wally, yes perplexing indeed. The Press carried a letter this morning praising the paper for pressuring CCC to reveal the price paid for the recent flower show, shame they and other, so called, main stream media don't spend more time looking at this kind of issue/rort/bentness.

I wonder why?

More power to your elbow Interest .co.nz.

It bugs me how the average Kiwi thinks that to invest in shares then it has to be the likes of Telecom, Pumpkin Patch, Air NZ, The Warehouse, Sky City etc. I'm not saying this to comment on the quality of these particular companies (that's up to the individual to decide), but it's a fact that the NZ share market is tiny and so it's largely the same shares being bought and sold over and over again to get turnover and results. I'm not an expert on the equity market by any stretch, but I like the flexibility it provides. For example, I recently opened an account with RaboPlus, purely to set up Managed Fund accounts. Minimum investment is $250 per fund and there are 40 odd managed funds to choose from ranging from ultra conservative to highly aggressive. I've started out with Australian Equities and a couple of other offshore offerings - just for a bit of fun. No entry or exit fees, you can buy and sell 24/7 online. Sure, there's the standard Fund Manager fee of between 1 and 1.5%, but it's a great way to start learning about these things and I have no problem with paying that. Perhaps this (and things like it) isn't for everyone, but it's good to think outside the "property" box. It doesn't require a lot of time or investment of my capital (unless I want it to), for now I'm enjoying reading about all the different options, starting out small and having a punt. It's got to be more productive than sinking all my capital into a house where the only winner is the bank.

Theft from the TAXPAYER by a politician by any means should be grounds for instant dismissal.

If they had used a GUN to steal, maybe they would have been removed.

But it appears to be that THEFT in POLITICS is the same as THEFT in Banking circles, by the BONUS system, just part of the RORT.

That there is even a system of this type of allowance is reprehensible, considering the amount that these ineffectual people earn to help BANKRUPT a small country such as NZ.

LIKEWISE the BANKS are also part of the RORT, stealing from the TAXPAYER via a different method.

As I keep re-iterating KEY and English et-al are all part of the greater problem, not the solution.

Whilst any of their ilk have their snouts in the trough, we the taxpayers are sure to end up with the BILL...and I do not mean ENGLISH, though it appears we are STUCK with him too.

There needs to be a ground swell of discontent to remove all these FINE fellows, (and FINE them as well)..... then change the RULES to ensure these RORTS are permanently removed from the OPTIONS available.

These FINE fellows LEARNT to set up these TRICKS so well from their PEERS in USA, UK, etc...

ANIMAL FARM is here and NOW. Snouts in the TROUGH and all. George had a very fine mind. He knew what our illustrious leaders were capable of, way back then.

That was months ago, Wally. Out of sight... etc. This was the last I saw of anything. I'm a Press reader now, not an ODT.

"Sydney based George Kerr, the original Jack's Point co-developer, is the little-known partner of Queenstown developer John Darby in the company behind the $2b township."

How many accommodation supplements at $40 a week does Bill English get?

How many MPs are renting their houses or flatss from their family trusts?

Wot more rorting...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/national/2950497/Seven-MPs-use-ele...

"MPs are building up their property portfolios on the taxpayer by dipping into the public purse for rent on electorate offices they own.

In a fresh twist on the accommodation allowances issue, an investigation by Fairfax shows seven MPs have bought properties they use as their out-of-Wellington offices, billing the taxpayer for the rent.

Some are owned in the MP's own name, while others are held through superannuation funds or companies.

The loophole allows them to walk away with substantial capital gains."

"....substantial capital gains" eh.....

No wonder they think CGT is such a bad idea.

"The MPs involved include Housing Minister Phil Heatley, who charges Parliamentary Service $15,000 rent on his electorate office in Deveron St, Whangarei, owned through a company he owns."(stuff.co) ....what a dirty little secret you have been keeping from us Phil.....what say you John Key, is this what you call integrity?

Why the heck doesn't the State provide out-of-town Parliamentarians with State Houses in the Wellington area? Wouldn't it be sensible for Phil Heatley and his family to be accomodated say, in Newlands or Waitangirua? You know, become a user of his own products/services. Someone should ask him why he might have a problem with that?

And if he thinks he's somehow 'better' than what the State can afford to provide it's other tenants living on the taxpayer purse - then let him rent from a private landlord at his own expense!

Geez, it's not like he does the job of being a Parliamentarian free-of-charge! And given his last full time paid employment was as an Agricultural Engineer for an NZ Dairy Board subsidiary - he is no doubt earning MORE as a Minister now than he ever earned working as an engineer on wages!

As I said earlier - I'm pegging that 80-90% of all Parliamentarians are presently earning a better salary in Pariament than they ever earned as productive members of the private sector workforce. They don't need more money, they need less of these ridiculous perks to the taxpayers account.