Letters To Editor: Don't stem country's cash flow

Don't stem country's cash flow
A basic principle and life blood of any business is cash flow, which represents incoming revenues of a continuous nature that are similar to one's own salary after tax. Cash flow helps keep us alive and ready to face each and every day. The principle of cash flow extends to governments looking after the well-being and economic health of a country and its citizens such as in New Zealand. But what is happening here?
The current National Government, if re-elected, has stated it is determined to sell state-owned assets (energy companies as a first go). These energy companies provide a cash flow to the country's coffers, so why deplete this? National plan to execute their asset sales under the so called mixed-ownership model used with Air New Zealand (letter from Rt Hon John Key, June 22). This model, according to John Key, has Kiwis at the front of the queue ready to invest in the shares of quality Kiwi companies.
Given our current state of economic affairs, the high level of borrowing undertaken by the current Government and general questions about economic futures, what Kiwis will be lining up to buy shares in current State-owned enterprises? Many middle and low income New Zealanders are currently finding it difficult to make ends meet, let alone tapping into little or no savings to buy shares in a scheme the Government states it will keep majority control of.
While short-term capital gains can be beneficial in some circumstances, we have no guarantee such will be the case in terms of the sale of New Zealand-owned assets proposed by the National Government.
A Thomas, Taradale
No safety barriers
I would like to congratulate the Hawke's Bay Regional Council on their new publication Our Place.
Very informative and the amount of work done around the Bay is outstanding. I wonder about the photo on front page. Here we have a walkway over water with no safety barriers, just when a toddler drowned in half a bucket of water. The walkway looks to be over 1m in height which according to the building code has to have a safety barrier of about 800mm high.
Also being over water it could be classed as a swimming pool therefore a swimming pool fence would be needed, or is the council above the law until something happens like the Cave Creek disaster.
Ernest Seadon, Greenmeadows
Even more tax
Labour's new tax policy: so the people who have worked, scrimped, saved and maybe taken on a mortgage to purchase a rental property, housed people, experienced filth and wilful damage - sometimes without being paid - to help top up their retirement, will, if Labour, gets its way, have to pay a capital gains tax if they sell it. And the ones who earn, and already pay the most tax, will be made to pay even more. Great isn't it. All this for the ones who don't contribute, work or save. Little wonder they all love it.
And I always used to vote Labour. If Labour had the intestinal fortitude and true sense of fairness surely now is the overdue time to sort out all those "sham" so-called family trusts?
No way. Not as long as near all the drones in the Beehive have got them. (abridged)
David Bosley, Napier
More democratic
Letters to the editor have expressed concerns about how MMP affects the make-up of Parliament.
There are certainly issues regarding the way list candidates become members of parliament and the way that the Government is actually formed.
However, while these details should be discussed, the appropriateness of one elected constituency member or 5 per cent of the vote triggering the election of list MPs is well worth debating.
But for me, the main reason that I support MMP is that it seems more democratic than the election process in two countries that are comparable to New Zealand but have "first past the post" electoral systems. The voter turnout in the most recent elections was Canada 61 per cent, UK 65 per cent and New Zealand 79 per cent. I can't help thinking that the high turnout in New Zealand could be related to the fact that "every vote counts" whereas in "safe seats" under the first past the post system, votes for other candidates can be seen as wasted and hence the voter turnout is lower. Under New Zealand's MMP, we can vote for our local electorate MP taking more consideration of the person rather than the party represented and still make our party opinion known through the party vote.
In the last election in Canada, a majority government was elected with 39 per cent of the votes cast representing 24 per cent of eligible voters. In the last election in the UK, a coalition government was elected with the prime minister's party receiving 36 per cent of the votes representing 23 per cent of eligible voters.
In the last election in New Zealand, the prime minister's party received 44 per cent of the party vote and 46 per cent of the constituency vote - greater than the vote for the prime minister's parties in Canada and the UK and representing 34 per cent and 36 per cent respectively of the eligible vote. In addition, the wishes of a wide variety of voters are reflected in the fact that seven parties are represented in parliament.
So, while I welcome discussion on "fine tuning" MMP, I think we should be proud of the democratic results that the system has brought and ensure our democracy is enhanced if any changes are to be made to the existing system
John Warren, Taradale