Wednesday, September 24, 2008

The Right Honorable Tax Evader

John Armstrong pretty accurately sums up Labour's latest tax payer funded attempt to smear John Key. A failure. A hit, yes but a king hit, no.

They tried to say he misled the public over the number of shares he once owned in Transrail and that somehow there was a conflict of interest when he asked for information about Trainsrail.

Well, Adolf wonders when was the last time the cabinet discussed measures to dampen the out of control housing market, the most obvious measure of which is the abolition of income tax offsets via LAQCs? Can someone who has access to the records please find out?

Because, if our multi-millionaire Bilious Bitch of a PM who owns five investment properties has them set up with LAQC's, then she has a clear and present conflict of interest which far exceeds anything of which Labour accuses John Key.

Prime Minister Helen Clark. Photo / Sarah Ivey.

It is likely she is paying no tax as a result and you would hardly expect her to vote in the interests of the country for a ban on the use of this odious and cancerous form of tax evasion.


OECD rank 22 kiwi said...

Hels is both a hypocrite and CORRUPT.

She detroys the wealth of New Zealand while feathering her own nest. The country will benefit tremenously from getting shot of her on 8 November.

Soon the taxpayer taps will be turned off for Hels.

Psycho Milt said...

A failure. A hit, yes but a king hit, no.

A failure? Key was made to look completely foolish and shown up as a liar on national TV, at exactly the same time as Clark was basking in the glory of an undisputed success. That's pure campaign gold, and you know it.

OECD rank 22 kiwi said...

We'll see how much success Hels will be celebrating on 8 November.

I think she'll be sucking on lemons somehow.

Anonymous said...

PM, a hit for sure but not the gold that Labour was hoping for.I think that most of the public have had enough of this Government and have already made their minds up.

OECD rank 22 kiwi said...


Anonymous said...

Adolf, didn't you know? Taxation is for the little people!
Every rich prick knows that.

pdm said...

Is there a way for this to be raised in the house at question time?


Ian Wishart is on to it.

These questions have just been filed with Kathryn Street, the PM's chief press secretary, at 9.30am today:

Has the Prime Minister, or any other Minister in her government who owns investment property, ever excused themselves on the basis of a conflict of interest from discussing cabinet papers or legislation, or voting on legislation, that deal in any way with taxation issues on investment properties?

Has the Prime Minister, or any other Minister in her government who is any kind of beneficiary of a family trust, ever excused themselves on the basis of a conflict of interest from discussing cabinet papers or legislation, or voting on legislation, that deal in any way with taxation issues on family trusts?


Ian Wishart

TGIF Edition


Anonymous said...

The Key issue will fade into the background and the real issue,
the Labourfirst axis which will
pull the labour party down prior to
election day. Labour's support
for this grubby little man will
come back to haunt Labour.

Anonymous said...

There is no "Key issue" There is a Labour beat-up issue however, & a govt which demonstrates appalling ignorance (envy) of basic investment 101. Look at Cullen & his BNZ unit trust, does he believe in fairies?

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Perhaps the PM could release her personal tax returns.

Mark said...

Helen looks really good selling the Labour no nukes credentials for a free trade agreement.

Teehee..Labour supporters are deluded losers again.

Zarchoff said...

NEWS FLASH: People actually use the LAQC regime for activities other than property investment!!!

The overvalued property market is nothing to do with the availability of the LAQC regime and everything to do with supply and demand.

Getting rid of the LAQC regime will make no difference whatsoever because there are ways to achieve the same result without the need to be an LAQC.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Zarchoff, try telling that to BlueChip, Merlot, NZInvest and all the other get rich merchants. Te LAQC tax rort was the PRIME motivator for 90% of the sales to salary and wage earners. They don't have 'any other way' to evade tax.

Anonymous said...

You have been listening to Bernard Hickey too much. He is wrong about LAQC's effect on the housing market.
House prices are determined by five very simple things.
1. Supply and demand
2. Interest rates
3. Cost of replacement housing.
4. Household incomes.
5. Tax Rates
Almost certainly in this order.
If you don't have an LAQC and you own rentals then you can simply own them outright without a company and one is still entitled to claim the expenses etc.
Houses like most things cost what they cost and if you think that changing the rules about LAQC's will bring down house prices then try building one for yourself and learn how price relates to replacement cost.
By checking the building consents you will see that house starts have been falling for some time even while our population is growing. Does that not forwarn that house prices must rise before long. (Especially so if we get growth back into our economy and our immigration bounces up and kiwi's return from Aussie due to their very high house prices, high interest rates and a shortage of about 100,000 dwellings.)
House prices will bounce back in the next 12 months due to the shortage of dwellings, not in the beach areas but in any area where work is available so get your pennies so the wise are already gearing up to buy.

Gooner said...

Anon is right. You can write the tax off the same way if the property is owned in your own name. It's the share transfer to avoid the depreciation clawback that the LAQC is best used for.

LAQC's are just a sexy selling tool.