Gubbins – bits and pieces; odds and ends; miscellaneous items; an object of little or no value; paraphernalia; a gadget; fish parings or refuse.
India has exported well over 500,000 tonnes of buffalo to Vietnam in 10 months of the latest July to June year. This figure easily exceeds the total of New Zealand’s beef exports to all countries.
Over the same period India’s total bovine (buffalo) exports were 1.45 million tonnes at an average value of US$3041 (NZ$3475), while the average price to Vietnam was US$3489 (NZ$3987), an increase of 40% since 2012. Other main markets in order of importance are Malaysia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and United Arab Emirates.
In comparison New Zealand’s beef exports command an FOB price of between $5000 to the USA, Canada, Korea and China and up to $9000 to French Polynesia, the highest paying market, with other main markets such as Japan, Taiwan and Europe at various points in between. . . .
Food Safety Minister Nikki Kaye today announced the opening of consultation on measures that aim to ensure the robustness of the government’s assurance system for infant formula exports.
“In June last year I announced a work plan to further protect and strengthen confidence in New Zealand’s food assurance systems, to match rapid growth in infant formula exports,” Ms Kaye says.
“Export assurances are particularly important for infant formula exports where consumers have strong concerns about food safety, quality and product integrity.” . . .
It’s not our wool, we borrow it from nature to where we can return it.
Why politicians shouldn’t be on the field of play – Andrew Hoggard:
In case you were expecting Willy Leferink this week, there has been a bit of a change at Federated Farmers. My name is Andrew Hoggard and I am the new Dairy Industry Group chair. That’s not the only change. Being a North Islander you may get a slightly different perspective on things as I farm with my wife and two children near Fielding in Manawatu. That’s of course the region which gave us that planning beast called “One Plan.”
At Federated Farmers National Conference last week, we heard from political leaders from across the spectrum.
One common theme that annoyed me and the farmers around me was this notion that New Zealand is doing the wrong thing in the marketing of its agricultural products. That we are not adding value and are just doing cheap and nasty commodity products thanks to industrial farming practices. Oh and the primary industries are like putting all our economic eggs in one basket. Now where have I heard that before? . . .
Federated Farmers commends Environment Southland for listening to the concerns of Hill and High Country farmers, and delaying notification of the proposed Hill and High Country Development Plan Change today.
“The council’s decision, having engaged and taken on board farmers concerns, will result in better outcomes for farmers and the environment,” says Allan Baird Federated Farmers Southland acting provincial president.
“Taking time to fully consider the issues, potential impacts, inclusive of the whole community and their values, is a fundamental part of the National Policy Statement for Fresh Water Management, and needs to be central in all decision making. . .
The judges have deliberated and the finalists have been selected for this year’s annual Farmax Consultant of the Year Awards.
Today Farmax announced the finalists for the DairyNZ Dairy Consultant of the Year, Beef + Lamb NZ Sheep and Beef Consultant of the Year, and NZIPIM Emerging Rural Professional of the Year.
Farmax general manager, Gavin McEwen, said it was great to see such a high standard of talent and skills amongst the nominations. . . .
1. Who said: Laughter is the sun that drives winter from the human face.?
2. To whom does this refer: Now is the winter of our discontent. Made glorious summer by this son of York.?
3. It’s gel in French, gelo in Italian, helada in Spanish and haupapa in Maori, what is it in English?
4. Who wrote The Snow Goose and what historical event does it depict?
5. What’s your favourite hot soup for cold days?
At the end of extra time Argentina and the Netherlands are locked 0 – 0.
This, the second World Cup semi final, will now be decided by a penalty shoot-out.
I know almost nothing about football but I’m on the edge of my seat.
On TV1’s Q&A programme, David Cunliffe boasted that his proposed new capital gains tax would collect an extra $5 billion a year. That is the biggest tax hike in the history of New Zealand. Which is saying something.
This isn’t replacing other taxes, it’s in addition to them.
It is a dreadful boast. Taxes are always paid by people, whatever the taxes are levied on. Income taxes, corporate taxes, property taxes, GST: they are all the same in this respect. They are all paid by people.
Nor are the people who bear the cost necessarily the people who write the cheques to the government. For example, if a capital gains tax means that landlords get a lower return on the capital appreciation of their properties, it will increase the rents they charge their tenants. Or landlords may sell their properties to owner-occupants. The supply of rental properties will then fall and, again, tenants will end up paying more.
Actions have consequences. If the cost of property rises or the return on investment falls, landlords will put up rents or sell and invest elsewhere.
This won’t just affect domestic rentals, it will affect commercial properties too which will add to the costs of businesses.
Where the cost of a capital gains tax will fall is a complex matter and extraordinarily difficult to predict. All Cunliffe knows is that the $5 billion will somehow be extracted from the people of New Zealand so that it can be spent in ways that he figures will buy him the most votes.
At least, that is what Cunliffe thinks he knows. In fact, he has almost certainly over-estimated the amount he will be able to squeeze out of tenants, consumers and entrepreneurs because taxes can be avoided.
Our observation of CGT in Argentina is that it prompts people to hold on to property, especially farms, rather than selling them.
This has led to a lot of absentee ownership, boosted the price of land and made it harder for people to get into farming.
When it comes to income tax, people can divert their activities from highly taxed activities, such as working in productive jobs, to low taxed activities, such as playing golf. When it comes to a capital gains tax, they can divert their investments from rental properties to bigger homes for themselves (which will not incur capital gains tax at sale). They can invest overseas rather than in New Zealand. They can delay selling assets to avoid realising a gain and paying the tax. And they can spend money on accountants and tax lawyers to devise all sorts of other ingenious schemes
Such avoidance activities will reduce the loot Cunliffe can get his hands on. That’s good. But they will also reduce the growth of the New Zealand economy. Resources will not flow to their most valuable uses. They will instead flow to the uses that are farthest from Cunliffe’s grasp.
A capital gains tax is a very bad idea.
I’m not opposed to a CGT per se.
There could be merit in it if it was comprehensive and replaced other taxes so it was cost-neutral.
Labour’s is neither of those and is, as Whyte says a very bad idea.
Quote of the day:
Employment for existing sole parents, and deterrence for prospective, particularly young parents, is the most effective approach to reducing child poverty. Lindsay Mitchell
This is a very small part of a post which deserves to be read in full.
It shows that being in a benefit-dependent family is the greatest predictor of child poverty.
That isn’t an argument for more generous benefits.
It’s an argument in favour of current government policies which aim to help people from welfare to work, for their own sake and the sake of their children.
The post is an opinion piece in this week’s Listener which also published two letters:
Your support of Professor Jonathan Boston’s definition of child poverty in New Zealand (Editorial, July 5) simply perpetuates the debate over how much money to throw at the problem. But money is just a glib answer to so many of society’s ills and, in this case, skirts around the elephant that’s filling the room.
A child without access to a flat-screen TV and missing out on birthday parties might constitute deprivation from an academic perspective, but the most pervasive manifestation of poverty, and the most distressing to witness, is that of three- and four-year-olds who have never known or been shown love and affection from their parents; children who are emotional vacuums.
Boston argues that children from poor homes are less likely to succeed educationally. He’s just missed that elephant. Although emotionally deprived children are almost exclusively from low-income households, a household having a low income is not the cause of such child neglect. In fact, if a child from a low-income home is loved and emotionally secure, the scholastic disparity with children from more affluent backgrounds is almost non-existent.
Any early childhood teacher will testify that before a child can start to learn, he or she must be emotionally engaged. Teaching and engaging a child from an emotionally deprived background is almost impossible and certainly beyond the resources of most early-childhood educational centres. And without early intervention, these emotionally deprived children will later help to fill our mental and correctional facilities.
Unfortunately, there are no easy fixes to the problems of bad parents – parents who probably shouldn’t be parents – and social agencies that are poorly resourced and pursue the least challenging options. Nonetheless, a good start would be recognition and debate on New Zealand’s real child poverty issue: the love-starved little ones.
Poverty isn’t just financial it’s emotional too.
The second letter builds on this point
Your editorial appears very “ambulance at the foot of the cliff” stuff.
Everyone would agree it is not in society’s best interests to have malnourished children suffering various degrees of brain damage as a result of poor nutrition. Although there will be exceptions to this generalisation, it is reasonable to assume that a high percentage of parents of such children are just incompetent in a variety of ways – quite possibly as a result of ignorance and deprived upbringings of their own.
The priority needs to be to identify the poor carers and the common causes of their inabilities to cope. Then introduce policies that direct resources at those people while forcing them to address their shortcomings.
The majority of carers on low incomes are managing to bring up children who are adequately loved, fed, clothed and housed. For the deprived children, the issue in a great many cases is more that of carer competency than available cash. More money is not necessarily going to solve anything in such situations if the underlying competency issues are not addressed.
This is why National’s policy is to work with teen parents to educate them and help them help themselves and their children.
Lack of money can be part of the problem but lack of knowledge, skills and love are often contributing factors to child poverty too.
That can happen in families at any income level.
That stance isn’t confined to these accusations which not only smear the government but are an attack on the integrity of police too.
Labour is standing firm on several policies although the facts don’t support their stand.
* The belief that increasing tax rates will increase the tax take.
* The assertion that a capital gains tax will restrain property prices rises even though family homes are exempt and a CGT has not restrained property prices in other countries.
* The contention that adding fewer than one teacher per school will be better for children than improving the quality of teachers.
* The belief that what’s good for unions is good for workers.
* The belief that increasing the minimum wage will not have a negative impact on employment and business.
* The belief that adding costs and complexity to employing people won’t harm jobs.
* The claim that inequality is worsening.
* The belief that changing KiwiSaver contribution rates would be a viable tool for reducing inflation.
* The assertions that National’s policies aimed at helping people from welfare to work are beneficiary bashing.
* The belief that governments are good at running businesses.
These are just a few of Labour’s policies and beliefs which aren’t supported by facts.
But the most erroneous belief is that they, a party riven by internal divisions, could lead a stable government with the support of the Green, NZ First and Internet Mana parties.