Hard News: Arrest the bastards at the border
142 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
In considering whether to prosecute IRD and SFO consider the amount of money involved as part of the decision. If you add up all the DPB, WINZ and W4F fraud in NZ you'd probably get a number less than $50mil. Sounds a lot but it's trivia in the grand scheme of things. Some of it has to be chased, but at that level we're only talking about spreading the fear of being caught.
In the case of big ones like F-R, it comes down to making sure that there is at least the fear of being caught and your transaction costing you more than the benfit you received. In this case F-R are long gone, so they have no real reputational risk in NZ. They had nothing to lose. So getting $20mill was an impressive outcome.
And don't forget IRD can still go after them - you'll just never hear about it unless it goes to court (which it rarely does...) because of the very strict secrecy around tax stuff. And I reckon that's a good thing. I know people at IRD - they get very testy about their independence in operational matters (as opposed to policy!).
And the SFO? They have a morale problem at the moment due to the stuff ups over the last few years. I'm told they are one of the least respected bits of the financial regulatory area. Maybe their new Director will make a difference (but I suspect Prebble will just employ another safe public sector grey suit, so don't hold your breath... we haven't seen a public-sector-CEO star for a while have we?)
-
Does any of the above make me a nasty right-wing beneficiary basher?
As I said once before, your podcasts changed my perspective, you sound much less nasty in real life :-) I think was somewhat taken aback by your comparisons between F&R and beneficiaries.
-
. . . the maze of entitlements and regulations that is WINZ . . .
What does any of this have to do with Fay and Richwhite, anyway?It wasn't just about the 'tens of thousands' for me. Was once in a situation where I thought I could be prosecuted but it turned out both WINZ and I had made errors. The thoughts and feelings before finding it was redeemable were unforgettably gut-wrenching. You're right about the fear Slarty. I'm more sympathetic towards beneficiaries and how I view the WINZ big picture these days. Sorry, will try not to lower the tone again.
-
Sorry, will try not to lower the tone again.
Introducing the WINZ red herring wasn't your doing, paula. It's my own recollections of more than one elderly individual going without food while being too proud to inform their relatives under Shipley's 'market rentals' scam that tends to get me exercised about cynical beneficiary bashing.
-
Forgetting all the interesting stuff on the early political side, I'm sure Joe Kiwi at the time felt that Fay's knighthood was a just reward for vast time and expenditure he appeared to spend on the America's Cup for New Zealand. His luxury life overseas at the time and all the other "patriotic" expenditure would of course just been offset against potential F-R New Zealand tax as a marketing expense. We just got shilled a bit earlier, that's all.
-
I'm sure Joe Kiwi at the time felt that Fay's knighthood was a just reward
How true. There was no easily accessible 'Public Address' back then :)And the introduction of the accommodation supplement that gets paid to?
Darn I can't stop myself. Lowering the tone *ALERT* Steven do you know anyone who worked for WINZ at the time ? Its my understanding that a) the accommodation supplement level didn't cover all the rent rise and quite a number of people still had to move; and b) many were either unaware or too proud and didn't apply for it (of course they had to apply, it wasn't automatically given).
For me it was also a surprise to learn DPB stats show that the vast majority of people are on it average 2-4 years. Only a small number rely on it for a lot longer. Hardly surprising, its not that nice place to be. -
Not true Steven. The Accommodation Supplement gets paid to the Beneficiary not the Landlord. Landlords are lobbying to have the supplement paid directly to them because <wait for it> some beneficiaries don't pay their rent but claim the supplement anyway.
So the Govt forks out money to help beneficiaries pay their rent but they don't actually pay the landlord. And when the landlord goes to Tenancy Tribunal to recover the rent owed the beneficiary has no money and the landlord gets a judgement of $5/10 a week/month that invariably never gets paid.
Many Landlords believe that if the supplement is paid directly to them it will help prevent beneficiaries getting into rent arrears. Other landlords just don't bother letting to beneficiaries; despite it being illegal to discriminate. -
It's not property investors at all it's Poverty Investors.
And here the breadline has been falsely inflated in order to inflate Poverty Investors pockets.
If only they did what the claim to do & house people - rather than expose them to the elements.
Popped down to Dunness Yesty & Otago Uni Students have an adequate housing campaign - so Students aren't ripped off you’d think - Well yes - but also so they are not harmed by mold, cold and damp. At last a Uni Student Campaign I can agree with. -
Wee note
Who is the beneficiary?
If market forces were brought to bear on the rental market, surely anyone with the slightest knowledge would realise rents would fall without Govt subsidy.
Socialism For The Rich! -
gee, don't ya just hate being the last post at the bottom of the previous page? Anyway .... I see there's probably no point in discussing it when terms like slum lords and Poverty Investors are used. I guess we (people who own a rental property) are all bastard scum, one step below Fay & Richwite. (which was the original topic)
BTW: Socialism For The Rich! ??? I think Labour prefer to call it Working For Families. Even with an income of $140,000 your family might be eligible.
-
"There has been a spirited debate under David's post as to whether the arrest of Millie Elder is news. I'm afraid it is."
And why exactly does 'what the public are interested in' qualify as 'in the public interest'? Or are you saying it does not need to be in the public interest to qualify as news?
I hate that type of journalism.
-
I/O
Unsafe housing in NZ is a massive issue & the cause of premature death and disease in NZ today.
Shoddy homes are only of interest to our media if it is the middle class home owner who is put out by a leaky home - oh dear.
I note you are not taking up an economic debate on profiteering through govt subsidy. Air NZ anyone?
The short answer is YES some land lords are criminal scum. -
The short answer is YES some land lords are criminal scum.
The critical word here being some?
As are some beneficiaries, some clergy, and possibly a few lady bowlers.
As long as we're not out to score points by unfairly demonizing any particular group I guess it's an exercise in stating the bleeding obvious. -
Complex issues can't be discussed in absolutes.
One landlord used to charge only 50 weeks a year and give me fruitcake at Christmas - he's a nice guy and his business flowed smoothly.
The point being housing in NZ is contributing to death & disease today. -
Or are you saying it does not need to be in the public interest to qualify as news?
We come to this site for points of view and information, and Russell was making the point that we came in greater numbers when a celebrity drug scandal happened to be the topic of discussion. So "we" as in the readers of Public Address collectively cannot throw too many stones at that particular glass house. "We" lap it up. I'm saying "we" in spite of the fact that "I" personally coulndn't give a rat's arse, and neither can you I assume.
But public interest and news clealry don't overlap when you throw in the word "commercial". You would have noticed that entertainment/celebrity news have burrowed their way into the homepages of both Stuff and the Herald, and the articles are consistently topping the readers' picks.
Having said all this, I'm with you, the fact that a lot of people flock to it doesn't impress me as the foundation of a journalistic standard. I would very much like to be able to read my paper without the gossip mag thrown in for free. Free stuff is what kills us. And I find it supremely ironic that The Daily Show is not talking about Paris Hilton (other than suggesting a good title for the saga - The Show Skank Redemption) when every else is; this in spite of the fact that the media circus surrounding the episode is in fact the only interesting thing about it, and would ordinarily be exactly the kind of thing that the Daily Show would go for. But they've chosen instead to become a Hilton-free zone, since nobody else seems keen to fulfil that role. Call it the public's right not to know.
-
Well said, James & Giovanni.
-
Not true Steven. The Accommodation Supplement gets paid to the Beneficiary not the Landlord. Landlords are lobbying to have the supplement paid directly to them because <wait for it> some beneficiaries don't pay their rent but claim the supplement anyway.
The impact has been curbed with a return to a sensible state housing rental policy, but when National switched to market rents in the 90s and tried to load the entire social housing obligation onto the accomodation benefit, the effect was that of a subsidy to landlords.
It probably drove rental inflation and it definitely sharply increased the proportion of their income poorer households spent on rent. So they might have been paid the accomodation benefit, but they didn't benefit from it: landlords did. The research is quite clear on that.
It's basically a really ineffective and counter-productive approach to public housing policy, and the fact that National wanted to bring back market rents at the last election denies logic.
-
On the Fay Richwhite thing, why was the job of privatising Trans Rail given to a couple of Kiwi chancers rather than a big global institution with a reputation to lose?
Was this a case where buying NZ wasn't the best thing for the country?
-
Are Fay & Richwhite domicile in NZ?
I think they're hiding in Switzerland (that 'neutral' country that kept the Nazis stolen billions - so why not little old NZs as well)
I dispute either being described as Kiwi - but that blogs over. -
wot RB said...
I don't dispute that Landlords benefited with the introduction of the Accommodation Supplement, because it obviously added to the number of people who could afford private rental housing. But don't blame the landlords who are filling the void left by 'limited' State Housing stock.
Rents are determined by supply and demand. They go down when everyone can afford to buy their own home, and up when they can't. They could also drop if the number of houses were increased to the point that demand is satiated. At that point premium stock would be in demand and grotty old mouldy dungheaps wouldn't.
Once the problem of state housing supply is tackled we need to address 'cultural' issues - ie why do people think once they've got a state house they're entitled to live there forever? (But that's a whole other subject).
Speaking of Fay Richwite (and we were) lets not also forget that NZ's other greatest business success, Graeme Hart, also got his start (well, a significant boost at least) from buying the Government Printing Office for substantially less than it was worth. Altho' TBF that's all he plundered from the Govt chest. The rest of his wealth came from buying and selling private companies.
-
. . . why do people think once they've got a state house they're entitled to live there forever? (But that's a whole other subject).
Riiiight, the old culture of entitlement - assuming it's not a question of How Dare They, those folks whose abilities limit their expectations to providing such vital services as cleaning your workplace, or ministering to the bodily needs of your loved ones in their dotage, have no real prospect of buying their own home in the present economic climate.
In their golden years Fay and Richwhite are unlikely to be short of someone to change their incontinence pads. For the rest of us, an adequate supply of state housing can't be a bad thing.
-
. . . why do people think once they've got a state house they're entitled to live there forever? (But that's a whole other subject).
What makes you think more than a tiny fraction do? The turnover rate for State Houses is huge. HUGE! However, the average tenure in a state house is something like 7 years. The vast majority have cleared out, or done a runner long before that, but there are quite a number of tenants who have been in the same state house for more than 60 years.
Typically they're little old ladies whose kids left home in the 1950s, and whose husbands died years ago. HNZC would no doubt, dearly love to rehome thse people, to smaller properties, & free up the larger ones for larger families.
But "evicting" little old ladies isn't a good look - even if it is to more appropriate homes - HNZC knows that's not how it'll hit the papers. It's a lose/lose situation.
-
BTW - "Huge" = around 12-13%, about a year ago, anyway.
-
International Obsever: "Supply and Demand" is a rather simplistic heuristic for looking at the world that presumes that some people have the freedom to walk away from certain transaction.
Housing, particuarly for low income people, is a matter of fear and the potential (and often actual) exploitation of fear. Low income people can walk away from buying, say, an iPod but not purchasing housing no matter how much of their income it will take.
The lack of theoretically presupposed freedom means that the market provision model is not appropriate.
In terms of "cultural issues", it is a predominantely Anglophonic obsession that normatively housing should be privately provided - take a look at the rest of the West.
-
Rents are determined by supply and demand. They go down when everyone can afford to buy their own home, and up when they can't. They could also drop if the number of houses were increased to the point that demand is satiated. At that point premium stock would be in demand and grotty old mouldy dungheaps wouldn't.
There are other factors than textbook free marketism. From memory, the accommodation supplement was paid as a proportion of rent paid. Which is all good, except it provided an encouragement to increase rents in the bottom end of the market. A proportion would get passed onto the accommodation supplement, and the rest onto the tenants.
Personally I'd put the government that sold off thousands of state houses at bargain basement prices well higher on the scumbag list than some rich landlords who bought them and have made big rental income, or massive capital gains since.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.