I am an Aussie who moved to live in Dunedin at age 65. I have
now been here over 4 years and would never go back to
Australia except to see family and friends. I have been so
well treated by the NZ Government and people. I am ashamed at
what those who go the other way have to put up with. I
realise I did not have to seek for work here but am disgusted
that Australia treats our NZ cousins worse than immigrants
from other countries of completely different cultures.
This will remove one of the top three litter items we pick up
on Long Beach daily. Now we just have to address plastic
drinks bottles and polystyrene - oh, and cans, bottles,
cigarette ends, bits of fishing rope, sweet wrappers...
The last thing we need is more tax. Investors are already in
the market so they will push the price up to cover the cost
of the capital.gains tax which will hurt all home
Just because everyone else has a CGT doesn't mean we should
too, especially as it failed in Oz.
New Zealand is one of the very few western countries that
don't have a capital gains tax, many tax capital gains at the
same rate as ordinary income and I can't see any reason why
unearned income should be taxed at a lower rate than income
from doing actual work, that's a quite insane situation which
if anything should be the other way around.
Creating an even taxation field will encourage investors to
move their money out of the housing market where they are
pushing housing prices up without creating any real lasting
wealth into more useful long term investments. Otherwise they
are pushing home ownership out of the reach of our kids,
they'll hop on a plane and go somewhere where they can afford
It's common overseas to provide a capital gains tax
exemption for the family home - one that follows the needs of
a normal lifetime: not charging tax on income that's
transfered from one home to another as your trade up, and a
one time exemption as you sell your home as you retire - this
pushes the burden of the capital gains tax onto those who are
speculating, pushing housing prices up while protecting home
So the IPCC has reported with 97% certainty that humans are
causing global warming, when has this warming occurred and
how much has the earths atmosphere warmed this century?
Is this the 3% margin of error? No global warming for the
last 17 years, until there is 100% proof and evidence of
actual warming NO Council resources or Ratepayers money
should be frivelled away on these hair brained scaremongering
Cr Hilary Calvert says: “…Council has decided to leave the
finance committee chair off the group looking into the
business case on the basis that finance is irrelevant to the
What sort of dufus outfit is the DCC, really? The cycle lane
issue is a multimillion-dollar controversy. Next question:
Who is to blame for this gross oversight, exactly? The answer
might be the (same) people who don't know finance, have no
sense of cause and effect, enjoy spending other people's
money, and through their iffy decision-making processes
contribute (now and historically) to harder times for local
Jill Guy's letter to the editor (ODT, 9.4.14), opens: “Cr
Richard Thomson thinks parking is not important to retail
businesses outside the CBD (ODT, 2.4.14), and that council
should just get on and create cycleways. I suppose as his own
retail outlet is comfortably tucked inside a mall with plenty
of parking and foot traffic, it's easy to advise without care
or responsibility.” (Link)
Damned if they do, damned if they don't include the council’s
chair of finance in the cycleway group?
Cr Calvert again: "It is a concern ... that we have now
returned to the mistaken idea that the 'full cost of the
proposed cycle way is $4.5 million'. This is simply wrong.
There will be significant costs as yet unknown to the
ratepayer, not the least of which will be around parking."
Cr Thomson as a fair and diligent chairman can be expected to
exercise himself on defining all development costs of
the preferred cycle lane options proposed for the one-way
system; and to communicate these to the public in a timely
way before the final decision goes to council for adoption.
Nonetheless all city councillors have a responsibility to the
city's renters and ratepayers to identify and expand on the
wider costs. Councillors must be transparent and accountable,
but to this add rational, logical, prudent, ethical and
well-researched. Are they? The jury's been out an awful long
Oh great, another record for old people: Drinking, 'naughty
girl' vocals kick-ass rocking out with a bottle of Jack
antisocial disorder. Can the can. Play Suzi Quatro instead.
The first woman with a bass, low slung.
Before spending ratepayers' money on infrastructure, such as
roads, footpaths, streetlights and sewerage, the Council
should consider the long term risks to that
infrastructure from threats such as sea level rise and more
intensive flood events. The IPCC has reported with 97%
certainty that humans are causing global warming. Deniers can
squawk all they like, but it would be madness not to take
climate change seriously. Peak oil can not be ignored either,
oil companies would not be looking for oil miles under the
sea bed off the coast of New Zealand if they weren't running
out of the easy to reach reserves.