Posts by Swan
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Labour's Fiscal Plan:…, in reply to Euan Mason,
"oyce appeared to be saying that what was wrong with the proposed capital gains tax was that it didn't apply to all houses. Yet his party won't implement that solution across any houses."
The capital gains tax has been sold as a means of directing investment away from residential property. But the tax will apply to 100% of the commercial property market, 100% of industry, shares, agriculture etc, and only about a third of the residential property market. Go figure.
-
"All roads, I suspect, lead back to the housing bubble and those who've wilfully cartelised it."
Agreed. Roger Blakeley being the ring leader of course.
-
"Water falls from the sky, others collect it and charge for it. The infrastructure that reticulates is just another way of making us have to pay for our survival."
Those bastards - building dams and water mains, labs and treatment stations for ensuring the water is potable! Going around stealing the water just falling from the sky! I mean what have the Romans ever done for us!
-
Hard News: Housing: the Feudal Model, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Being barred from returning a dividend is effectively the same thing as being barred from making a profit in the long run.
Re pricing and human rights - underpricing water is regressive. Those who use more water get more of a subsidy.
-
^^ Sorry again for typos. I really should proof read these things.
-
I have a quick look through the 2012 annual report.
Assets are valued at 7.8 billion, equity is 5.5 billion
Revenue (2012) 440 million. Operating expenses. 185 million. Interest costs 73 million. Depreciation and amortisation 180 million.
Return on equity - (0.8%).
So it is a good question about hoe they fund capital investment. Based on these figures they simply can't sustainably invest in capital. Not unless infrastructure charges come to the party (the cyclical nature of this revenue source might means it may go up dramatically over the next few years as the construction industry roars into life). But that is my point, they are totally reliant on these charges to stay afloat (and they aren't at the moment).
-
No. Watercare own a huge amount of capital. My reading of their finances indicates a return n capital of perhaps 2%. And that includes charges directly on developers. If Watercare priced its water and waste services assuming a fair return on capital (say 5-10%) it would have no need for development levies, and in fact could probably return a dividend to the council. But it is barred from doing so.
-
^^ Apologies for the numerous typos. I hope you get the gist.
-
I thought the whole government grant thing was bizarre and rather unprincipled. I don't really like the idea of MUDs myself. The way I see it, the problem is: the price for infrastructure use is too low, so the council sees it as a burben to provide more. Watercare in AKL for example is not allowed, legally, to make a profit. Which must make it very difficult to price in capital costs. And I don't think they do. Hence big capital projects, rather than being funded by users, end up getting funded by ratepayer. Similarly with roads, the council isn't allowed to introduce road pricing.
This is all in contrast to, say, the supermarket chains. When I new area is developed or intensified, they don't baulk at expanding their operations. On the contrary they relish the opportunity because capital costs are built into their prices.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Stephen Judd,
Stephen, I've read Andrews comment.
I have effectively responded to point 1 in my previous comment. Point 2 I think misses the point of principle. Andrews is interpreting it to be: Well it was ok in this case but the problem is it might lead to cases that aren't ok. That is not the argument. The argument is that editorial interference from advertisers is fundamentally undesirable. That editorial independence is to be prized.