National borrowing money ?
grumpyoldhori
the yanks in borrowing a lot of money.
Like the yanks they argue that tax cuts are needed, so will
these tax cuts end up costing what the yanks will be paying
for years of no regulations ?
What other policies will the Nats be borrowing from the regulations
are bad crowd ?
Hmmm, can we tie the Nats to the Republicans, looks like we can
look at Nat voters, The EB, destiny, and other god botherering
types.
National, the NZ Republican party ?
--
grumpy
peterwn
> Hmm, I wonder which merchant bank the Nats will use to copy
> the yanks in borrowing a lot of money.
1. The Government will borrow the money from the cheapest source, and
with a AA or so credit rating can borrow pretty cheaply.
2. National's proposed borrowing levels are extremely modest compared
with (say) the average house mortgage, and Helen would be quite
comfortable borrowing at such a modest level if it suited her
political agenda, and has in effect said tyhat.
3. The issue is really one of why the government does not borrow a
portion of the cost of capital works (ie those that last for years)
since it is really unfair that the long suffering taxpayer is hit with
the total cost of projects immediately they are built.
4. Note that the top notch property companies on the Stoch Exchange
borrow 25% (or higher for short periods) of the value of their
properties and theshareholders are quite comfortable with this (their
shares are down slightly at the moment but no one is too fussed aboiu
this). National's proposed borrowing would be less than this.
Me
hellicopter
> Tax cuts are "needed" in order to give more profits to the very rich.
The path to riches is to make the richest richer. Need, no. Necessity.
hellicopter
> peterwn wrote:
>> On Sep 21, 11:35 am, grumpyoldhori <grumpyoldh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hmm, I wonder which merchant bank the Nats will use to copy
>>> the yanks in borrowing a lot of money.
>>
>> 1. The Government will borrow the money from the cheapest source, and
>> with a AA or so credit rating can borrow pretty cheaply.
Yeah, that's what got so many in trouble, no money down mortgages.
>>
>> 2. National's proposed borrowing levels are extremely modest compared
>> with (say) the average house mortgage, and Helen would be quite
>> comfortable borrowing at such a modest level if it suited her
>> political agenda, and has in effect said tyhat.
So compared with bad personal financial management, and the
helpful nudge, Clark would, that makes it ok.
>> 3. The issue is really one of why the government does not borrow a
>> portion of the cost of capital works (ie those that last for years)
>> since it is really unfair that the long suffering taxpayer is hit with
>> the total cost of projects immediately they are built.
>>
>> 4. Note that the top notch property companies on the Stoch Exchange
>> borrow 25% (or higher for short periods) of the value of their
>> properties and theshareholders are quite comfortable with this (their
>> shares are down slightly at the moment but no one is too fussed aboiu
>> this). National's proposed borrowing would be less than this.
>>
>>
> 5. Don Brash thinks that it's a nutty idea.
It's pretty simple really. There is a liquidity crisis so
Key will exasperate the crisis!
Rich80105
<pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>On Sep 21, 11:35 am, grumpyoldhori <grumpyoldh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hmm, I wonder which merchant bank the Nats will use to copy
>> the yanks in borrowing a lot of money.
>
>1. The Government will borrow the money from the cheapest source, and
>with a AA or so credit rating can borrow pretty cheaply.
So why are National promoting public / private partnerships using
private sector capital?
>2. National's proposed borrowing levels are extremely modest compared
>with (say) the average house mortgage, and Helen would be quite
>comfortable borrowing at such a modest level if it suited her
>political agenda, and has in effect said tyhat.
Just what are those proposed borrowing levels peterwn - I must have
missed that policy anouncement.
>3. The issue is really one of why the government does not borrow a
>portion of the cost of capital works (ie those that last for years)
>since it is really unfair that the long suffering taxpayer is hit with
>the total cost of projects immediately they are built.
That has long been policiy for all governments and most local
authorities peterwn. Can you confirm that funding projects using
private borrowing would be more expensive?
>4. Note that the top notch property companies on the Stoch Exchange
>borrow 25% (or higher for short periods) of the value of their
>properties and theshareholders are quite comfortable with this (their
>shares are down slightly at the moment but no one is too fussed aboiu
>this). National's proposed borrowing would be less than this.
>
Less than 25% of the value of all government holdings, includng
National Parks and fishing rights around the coast peterwn? Or less
than 25% of all the assets that could conceivably be sold by a New
Zealand government? A ratio relevant to a household may not be
relevant to a government. I haven't heard National talking about a
25% limit - can you give a cite?
Pooh
<Rich80105> wrote in message
news:054cd4tfjoagr6ttq...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:08:38 -0700 (PDT), peterwn
> <pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 21, 11:35 am, grumpyoldhori <grumpyoldh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hmm, I wonder which merchant bank the Nats will use to copy
>>> the yanks in borrowing a lot of money.
>>
>>1. The Government will borrow the money from the cheapest source, and
>>with a AA or so credit rating can borrow pretty cheaply.
>
> So why are National promoting public / private partnerships using
> private sector capital?
>
>
Because it may be a good idea?
>>2. National's proposed borrowing levels are extremely modest compared
>>with (say) the average house mortgage, and Helen would be quite
>>comfortable borrowing at such a modest level if it suited her
>>political agenda, and has in effect said tyhat.
>
> Just what are those proposed borrowing levels peterwn - I must have
> missed that policy anouncement.
>
Are you disagreeing with your glorious misleader Rich? Naughty! The Ministry
of Truth will not be happy with you..
>>3. The issue is really one of why the government does not borrow a
>>portion of the cost of capital works (ie those that last for years)
>>since it is really unfair that the long suffering taxpayer is hit with
>>the total cost of projects immediately they are built.
>
> That has long been policiy for all governments and most local
> authorities peterwn. Can you confirm that funding projects using
> private borrowing would be more expensive?
>
Where is your proof government is always cheaper Rich? You never came up
with a satisfactory supporting argument for your pedantic claim in an
earlier thread.
>>4. Note that the top notch property companies on the Stoch Exchange
>>borrow 25% (or higher for short periods) of the value of their
>>properties and theshareholders are quite comfortable with this (their
>>shares are down slightly at the moment but no one is too fussed aboiu
>>this). National's proposed borrowing would be less than this.
>>
>
> Less than 25% of the value of all government holdings, includng
> National Parks and fishing rights around the coast peterwn? Or less
> than 25% of all the assets that could conceivably be sold by a New
> Zealand government? A ratio relevant to a household may not be
> relevant to a government. I haven't heard National talking about a
> 25% limit - can you give a cite?
Why should a good ratio for a household not be good for govt Rich?
Pooh
Rich80105
wrote:
>
><Rich80105> wrote in message
>news:054cd4tfjoagr6ttq...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:08:38 -0700 (PDT), peterwn
>> <pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 21, 11:35 am, grumpyoldhori <grumpyoldh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hmm, I wonder which merchant bank the Nats will use to copy
>>>> the yanks in borrowing a lot of money.
>>>
>>>1. The Government will borrow the money from the cheapest source, and
>>>with a AA or so credit rating can borrow pretty cheaply.
>>
>> So why are National promoting public / private partnerships using
>> private sector capital?
>>
>>
>
>Because it may be a good idea?
>
>>>2. National's proposed borrowing levels are extremely modest compared
>>>with (say) the average house mortgage, and Helen would be quite
>>>comfortable borrowing at such a modest level if it suited her
>>>political agenda, and has in effect said tyhat.
>>
>> Just what are those proposed borrowing levels peterwn - I must have
>> missed that policy anouncement.
>>
>Are you disagreeing with your glorious misleader Rich? Naughty! The Ministry
>of Truth will not be happy with you..
What do you think I am disagreeing with? I take it you don't know what
the proposed borrowing levels either Pooh.
>>>3. The issue is really one of why the government does not borrow a
>>>portion of the cost of capital works (ie those that last for years)
>>>since it is really unfair that the long suffering taxpayer is hit with
>>>the total cost of projects immediately they are built.
>>
>> That has long been policiy for all governments and most local
>> authorities peterwn. Can you confirm that funding projects using
>> private borrowing would be more expensive?
>>
>
>Where is your proof government is always cheaper Rich? You never came up
>with a satisfactory supporting argument for your pedantic claim in an
>earlier thread.
As Peterwn said above:
The Government will borrow the money from the cheapest source, and
with a AA or so credit rating can borrow pretty cheaply.
Can you name a private New Zealand company that can borrow at as low a
rate as the New Zealand Government?
>
>>>4. Note that the top notch property companies on the Stoch Exchange
>>>borrow 25% (or higher for short periods) of the value of their
>>>properties and theshareholders are quite comfortable with this (their
>>>shares are down slightly at the moment but no one is too fussed aboiu
>>>this). National's proposed borrowing would be less than this.
>>>
>>
>> Less than 25% of the value of all government holdings, includng
>> National Parks and fishing rights around the coast peterwn? Or less
>> than 25% of all the assets that could conceivably be sold by a New
>> Zealand government? A ratio relevant to a household may not be
>> relevant to a government. I haven't heard National talking about a
>> 25% limit - can you give a cite?
>
>Why should a good ratio for a household not be good for govt Rich?
>
>Pooh
Households vary significantly Pooh - but the government is able to
take a longer term view than any of them.
I Love It!
>> Why should a good ratio for a household not be good for govt
>> Rich?
>>
>> Pooh
>
> Households vary significantly Pooh - but the government is able
> to
> take a longer term view than any of them.
There will be plenty. As you well know.
Allistar
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:35:49 +1200, grumpyoldhori wrote:
>
> Tax cuts are "needed" in order to give more profits to the very rich.
Tax cuts are "needed" to give everyone back some of the freedoms that are
removed from them.
--
A.
Brian Dooley
Do you mean 'exonerate'?
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Allistar
> Quit flogging that dead horse.
You mean the dead horse of liberty? I think the abusing of liberty needs to
stop.
--
A.
Allistar
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:04:03 +1200, Allistar wrote:
>
>> You mean the dead horse of liberty?
>
> No. The dead horse that is your inane and false argumentation about
> taxation.
My argument is about freedom, and part of that argument pertains to property
rights. Taxation is the dilution of our freedom of property right.
--
A.