Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, October 14th, 2025 - 97 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
https://aecnz.substack.com/p/when-phonics-isnt-reading-why-todays?utm_medium=ios&fbclid=IwY2xjawNaKa1leHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFvTDA0ODZORWZXUUxRVEpKAR62IgpXNuXjUkDKno2wVh3Ur7cWKI_OcAfOJAjpq6UqqJuGzQxWjykqQM7veQ_aem_YdeaeCuAFDpXznp5G0aHqw
A good article about the crap announced re reading
Thanks. When you see dramatic change like this over a short period of time, the suspicion must be that the two snapshots are measuring different things.
Unless the causality of the phenomenon you are measuring is really well understood. e.g. if we removed the brake pedals from all cars, there would be a huge spike in road accidents. Teachers' understanding of how children learn to read isn't anything like as complete and accurate as that.
There is a lengthy comment that offers some criticism to the post.
The last paragraph of the comment seems to touch on an important part of the issues. A hint of protecting an ideology.
Quite.
From what I understand, they measured one group of children in term 1 and a second bigger group of children in term 3, saw an improvement in the mean and said "it works".
However, when they looked at the kids who were measured twice, they stayed at about the same level.
Whether it actually means anything at all depends on whether the kids who were measured twice are representative of kids in the general population. If they are then we can say that the new instruction doesn't really change much. If they aren't then we are in just as much ignorance as we were before.
The problem with any new form on instruction is that it shows improvements in the year of instruction – people learn to teach to the test – but the improvements apparently washout in the following years (mainly because they were illusionary). And the time teaching the new form of instruction means other things are bumped from the curriculum.
It takes a lot more scientific rigour to see if new methods of instruction work – much more than what was going on here.
Why are you calling this “crap”, surely it is a good thing that young children are learning to read, by whatever method suits the individual child. Having neurodivergent children in my family, I’ve seen myself how well this style of teaching a child to read works, and can improve the reading ability very dramatically. Fortunately my family have had access to the resources to ensure our children are fully educated. Go to any private school and children will be taught to read by this method, or whatever method suits the individual.
Did you read the article the stats etc?
Sure some kid will do ok BUT are there other options in Stanfords way?
Yeah I have read the article, and as previously mentioned, due to family and myself being neurodivergent. Children who are neurodivergent, especially those with dyslexia, can and do benefit from this method of teaching. Teachers should all have the skills to identify which method will best suit an individual child. Unfortunately with our state school system, we use the one size fits all approach. Unless the parents can effectively advocate for their children, those who have difficulty initially learning will be left behind.
Here is a reasonably positive story about unions, the law and pushing back against foreign companies and their neo liberal ways.
Coastal shipping under threat, will Ministers Bishop and Stanford do the right thing or the correct thing?
https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/360852580/seafarers-fight-retain-jobs-timaru-based-cement-carrier
I doubt if this will have a good ending.
National has been opposed to NZ seafarers and coastal shipping, since the 1990's "open coast" policy.
Funding and after politics directorships from trucking companies has a lot to do with it.
Even at my most optimistic I agree with you.
It will be a $#!@fight.
MUNZ is not a union you want to provoke. The members too don't mind a little hardship for long term gains.
A CGT looks most likely in the Labour Party's tax policy kete.
Here's hoping there is also a restructuring of the tax scales. ISTM that there is a case for easing the burden on the bottom quartile, and increasing it for the upper. The concept of fairness for all is a myth. What it has done is to make the rich, obscenely so, and the poor even poorer.
We have to pay for the tax cuts Willis borrowed $14 billion for Stephen. A a CGT might rake it $3 billion a year, not huge money. My preference would be that money tagged for health, housing, education and Climate change
Interest is an expense that is personal to the landlord, as owner of the property, and should therefor not be factored into rent. Insurance, R&M, and depreciation, if applicable, would be appropriate expenses to pass on to the tenant, as occupier, but the the tenant should not have to pay for the landlord's house, or its acquisition costs (interest).
I suspect many landlords do try to recover interest costs by passing them on to the tenants, and this may be one of the reasons for high rents.
Interest being a personal cost to the landlord is also a reason why interest should not be deductible.
[TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
However, in the real world……
Interest is currently being passed on to renters – since it’s a business cost.
And, absent a very significant law change, is going to continue to be, in the foreseeable future.
If, interest is a "business cost" then capital gains on the sale, are business income.
It is no more "business income" than the interest I receive on a term deposit. Though of course one may term both “unearned income”.
The IRD has it wrong.
Perhaps you should tell them 🙂
My business tax savings account, where I keep money to pay taxes and ACC, is taxed, as business income.
Not according to the accounting rules in NZ.
If you want to propose something different – then go ahead. But the current *reality* is that interest is a deductible business expense. And capital gains are not income.
The reverse was pretty much the socialist position (along with only government being able to own anything).
Accounting rules for IRD purposes. Are not the same as reality.
Unfortunately.
Too much "income" gains in wealth, are not taxed in NZ.
Which is one of the causes of our growing dysfunctional inequality and investment directed to non-productive speculation.
"Socialist"?
Better tell that to Singapore. The country right wingers tell us to emulate.
Most of their land is Government owned and leased out. Not to mention the giant SOE that runs the place. Which is how they can have the low taxes!
Not according to the accounting rules in NZ.
Which accounting rule, or rules, are you talking about. Please be more specific. In particular, are you familiar with the accounting convention known as the entity convention, which holds that a business and its owner/proprietor are separate entities: ie expenses incurred by the owner/proprietor, and benefit him, do not apply to the business.
When a proprietor borrows he benefits personally inasmuch as he acquires the capital necessary to make an investment. Whether or not he pays interest on he money he invests makes no difference to the business.
The IRD rules on interest deductibility
https://www.anz.co.nz/personal/home-loans-mortgages/investment-property/tax-changes/
From the IRD site:
https://www.ird.govt.nz/property/renting-out-residential-property/residential-rental-income-and-paying-tax-on-it/rental-expense-deductions
It is very difficult to argue that a business which is set up for the purpose of the provision of private rentals does not have interest costs of a mortgage as a legitimate business expense. Whereas, the owner's holiday to Bali is probably only of benefit to him, and unlikely to be a legitimate business deduction (as covered by the entity convention)
But, again, I'm sure that the IRD will be just fascinated at your insights into this topic.
If I purchase a house to reside in and later I decide to rent it out, e.g. if I had to move to another town for vocational reasons, the IRD says that I cannot claim a deduction for the interest I am paying on that house because I did not purchase the house "for the purpose of renting it out".
If, on the other hand, I purchase a property "for the purpose of renting it out" I can claim a deduction for any interest I may be paying.
That seems pretty weird to me. I think the criterion for deductibility should be the contribution that the expense makes to the acquisition of taxable income. It is pretty obvious that neither holidays in Bali nor the payment of interest contribute to the earning of taxable income. In the latter case the revenue will be the same whether or not interest paid on the investment.
It is disingenuous to say that one has borrowed for the purpose of earning taxable income if an expense incurred for that purpose does not actually contribute to the receipt of revenue.
The true purpose of borrowing is the acquisition of capital.
Click to Edit –
Nonsense. If you borrow in order to purchase an asset that you then use to generate income, of course the interest on the loan is a deductible expense. If you didn't have the mortgage, you wouldn't own the asset, and you would have no taxable income.
Your business may (or may not) generate a capital gain if/when you choose to sell it.
The fact that capital gains over-and-above inflation have been common on property over the last 20 years – isn't actually a fundamental law (as anyone who bought property in 2021 would be prepared to attest).
But, if you want to argue that capital gains should be taxed that's an entirely different discussion.
An asset such as a machine contributes to production by wearing itself out in the service of the business, giving rise to a series of deductions for depreciation. The money that is used to purchase the machine doesn't really feature in the productive process. And nor does any interest which is paid on that money.
But, if you want to argue that capital gains should be taxed that's an entirely different discussion.
I have never argued that capital gains should be taxed, quite the opposite in fact.
If you didn't have the mortgage, you wouldn't own the asset, and you would have no taxable income.
Then the issue we have been discussing would not arise.
So the logical reverse applies.
Because you have a mortgage in order to purchase a property from which you gain taxable income, the interest you are required to pay is a legitimate business expense.
For any level of investment there will, we assume, be some return; but whatever the return, interest does not contribute to it. Borrowing merely provides the borrower with money to invest – a personal benefit which has nothing to do with the operation of the business itself.
Nonsense. If you borrow in order to purchase an asset that you then use to generate income, of course the interest on the loan is a deductible expense
I don't think that that is the IRD's view, if the property is purchased to reside in, and then he decides to rent it out later.
I'm quite sure that the IRD is simply taking this position to prevent tax evasion.
It's very difficult to argue 'intention'.
Much easier to simply rule out the situation from the start.
If a business runs at a loss there will be many expenses – apart from interest – which will still be deductible despite the fact that they have not led to the production of "taxable income". What makes them deductible is that they were were incurred for the purpose of producing taxable income even if that income did not in fact eventuate. I could be wrong of course but I have long since thought that this was the reason this notion of purpose, rather than contribution, was introduced to cover the issue of the deductibility of expenses. Extending it that notion to cover interest whatever the P&L situation, it seems to me, is a step too far.
The basic idea behind interest deductibility is that if you own a rental property with a mortgage, you can deduct the interest you pay on that mortgage from the income you receive as rent when determining your taxable income.
This is an example of an arbitrary rule laid down by the IRD. The department provides no logical argument in support of it.
And neither do you.
I have indeed provided a logical argument. Interest on a mortgage is a legitimate business expense.
The fact that you don't agree, is beside the point.
Literally no point in continuing – we're coming from entirely different perspectives, and there appears to be no common ground.
But, again, I'm sure that the IRD will be just fascinated at your insights into this topic.
I'm pretty sure the IRD would be well aware of sorts of ideas that I have been presenting. However they have to enforce laws passed by parliament, and parliaments are much more prone to influence from vested interest groups such as business, farming, and, most importantly, banking.
Can you point to any country which is using your interpretation of tax deductibility in relation to interest for rental properties?
No. But so what.
So no one else has ever adopted this….. Makes you wonder why.
Is it remotely possible that it's simply unworkable in a capitalist economy. And, of course, it's irrelevant in a socialist one – since no private ownership applies.
So no one else has ever adopted this….. Makes you wonder why.
Undue political influence by vested interests probably: in particular, the finance sectors.
We grizzle about the "obscene" profits that the banks make, and yet the IRD allows deductibility of interest, which of course encourages borrowing by the business community. The banks are "laughing all the way to the bank (or should I say to the RBNZ)" at our silliness.
Farmers may want a word with you.
https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/series/registered-banks/banks-assets-agriculture-loans-by-product
Sounds to me as though your beef is with 'capitalism'
Capitalism in its original form was probably OK, but not the financialized capitalism that seems to prevail today.
By definition Capitalism is financial (a system whereby private individuals and/or corporations control the means of production and operate them to make a profit).
I don't see how this is materially worse in the 21st century, compared to the 19th. (Actually, capitalism, is much more constrained today than in the freewheeling years of the robber barons)
Perhaps you could explain the features of the 'original' Capitalism which made it OK, as contrasted to the current form.
There is "industrial capitalism" in which profit is made on main street by making and selling products, helped by the financial system. Then there is "financialized capitalism" in which financial profit becomes an end in itself for a financial system which is calling the shots. An economy in which 80% of lending is made on pre-existing properties rather than on productive enterprise would be an example of such an economy.
A capital gains tax would not be much help in such an economy because it doesn't affect the banks. By the time a property is sold the banks will have no financial interest in it: the mortgage will usually have been fully paid or, if not, the remainder will be paid from the proceeds of the sale. What the banks fear is the imposition of land tax, or property taxes similar to rates, which would reduce the surplus income out of which interest might be paid.
OK. Sorry, but will the various responses be going too.
So, if I borrow $500k to purchase earth moving machinery, and rent out that machinery to people, producing taxable income to me, the interest is a tax deductible expense?
But if I borrow $500k to purchase a property, and rent it out to people, producing taxable income to me, the interest is not a tax deductible expense?
Why?
To get people investing in productive assets instead of over heating the housing market pushing houses out of reach of people
That would be the general idea.
When it comes to operating a business it is the machines that do the"heavy lifting" (no pun intended) rather than the money used to purchase the machinery; but since that money doesn't participate the cost of that money should not be deductible.
That would mean literally thousands of businesses going out of business, if they are unable to claim interest as a deductible expense. The machines are only purchased by debt to produce taxable income. It's probably a good job you are not the Inland Revenue commissioner!
Yes, that's right. I wouldn't make interest non deductible in the case of normal productive businesses, at least not initially; the disruption would probably be too great. However, if it were to happen, interest rates would be likely to fall, so the disruption might possibly not be as bad as one would expect. Also, if such a change were heralded well in advance firms would have a chance to take adaptive measures.
In the housing market there would probably be many highly leveraged landlords wanting to get out, which could lead to a drop in housing prices.
Structure it as a business and you get normal business deductions and you also pay tax on any profits, which also includes capital gains.
Structure it as a private ownership, then you can't claim deductions, but also aren't liable for tax on any capital gains, subject to any bright line test.
Now, since most 'property investors' structure things privately that kinda shows where the money is in property. There's also the intent provisions in tax regulations, which a few people have come a gutsa on.
We do not need a new tax – just do away with at least some of the exemptions from income tax that have been given.
We need to tax capital gain one way or another.
Maybe too late to fix this joint after the coalition wrecking crew are done with us but needs to be done
A CGT by itself will only make a small dent in the wealth disparity. A lot more needs to be done.
Since most capital gain is on land a land tax automatically taxes capital gain on the land as its value increases.
As far as "wealth disparity" is concerned the damage has already been done. It would have been better to prevent that disparity from arising in the first place. For example, an awful lot of wealth has been built up from the sale of the government's electricity assets; some sort of windfall tax, I think, should have been levied, but that would hurt investors who have bought the shares more recently, but without getting at those who purchased at the IPO stage and who have first sold. (Better still, Key should not have sold them in the first place.)
Highly progressive rates of income tax seed to have worked well in the fifties and sixties. I think wealthiest britishers were paying 19/6 in the pound at one stage, while the top rate in the USA was 90c/$. We have had rates of around 60c/$ in the past.
A wealth tax would be OK if we could agree on what constitutes taxable wealth.
The 10 year bright line test did the job, that's why National got rid of it asap
And there is the rub. The machines are purchased and used up in making taxable income.
The houses are purchased with the intention of selling them for, currently, non taxed income
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360853652/one-seven-kiwis-believe-violence-may-be-needed-get-country-back-track-survey-finds
Scary stats, I'd say we are along way from needing revolution, but I'm Joe average white man .
first thing I'll note is that they didn't define violence. There's a big difference between breaking something in a protest and armed revolution.
Pity they didn't show the breakdown between women and men.
Hidden between 2 adds
Na violence is against people, btw
That proves my point. You would answer based on your belief that violence is against people. Others would answer based on their belief that violence is also against property.
Maybe one in seven is reassuringly low? Or maybe Jordan Williams being 'alarmed' by the number just makes me suspicious?
That's rich coming from a man and an organisation which has done much to sow division in this country.
That poll designed for the sole purpose of ramping up anger and division over the next year.
He’s dog whistling.
The premise is flawed and misleading.
The accompanying photo of the 2022 protest shows extreme bias and manipulation to push a narrative.
This is not ‘research’ but RW propaganda – thank you so much Stuff.
It's from Curia – do you trust their results?
Trust Curia? .sure can! to paraphrase? Rolf Harris
Given the crazies hang at both ends of the political spectrum it kinda fits really.
Apparently, you trust them only if you like the results of that particular survey 🙂
The view is strongest among the younger voter.
Support for the Green party is strongest from the younger voter.
Support for violence is lowest among Green party voters (8%).
Highest among TPM 26% (Maori a younger demographic). Then ACT Party 20% (not a younger demographic – thus this the major result of the survey
The lock the Maori up party is the one to keep a watch on.
The major violence threat here is the ACT agenda (cultivating a white race identity brand aka Ferengi Atlas Network New Zealand Independence from the Treaty) politics and TPM resistance.
Not seeing the logic here. The belief that violence may be required (or immanent, or necessary, or just inevitable) – seems to be greatest in the TPM and ACT party voters.
Not seeing what age has to do with it.
As you also point out the GP are also a 'young' people party (although they also do well in the upper class, middle-age voter bracket) – and they *don't* have the correlation with violence.
Much more likely that extremist parties (on both ends of the political spectrum) attract extremists.
The slow way then
Poll result
The polls show in general support for the use of violence is highest among the young.
Subplot – the Green Party supporters, despite being of that demographic, have the least support for the use of violence.
Conclusion.
They are not part of the central (primal) conflict in our society.
TPM and ACT appear to be where that it is.
Conclusion
The major violence threat here is the ACT agenda (cultivating a white race identity brand aka Ferengi Atlas Network New Zealand Independence from the Treaty) politics and TPM resistance.
Slow way then.
Poll shows that violence is most strongly correlated with political party (not age).
We see this, since GP followers, despite being youthful, are lowest in the belief that violence is required.
Conclusion:
The major violence threat here is supporters of *both* politically extremist parties, TPM and ACT.
How is they (Greens) are not part of the central (primal) conflict in our society different to your "politically extremist parties, TPM and ACT"?
As for extremes.
Pro capitalist (not even a CGT) and pro socialist (wealth tax) is the usual categorisation.
But as I explained this is not the issue (as per violence) between ACT and TPM.
It is the Treaty Principles Bill, a primal conflict as to identity.
ACT is adopting the UKIP policy, as per the Treaty.
ACT is seeking to adopt the Farage tactic of white race (settler) nationalism to mobilise youth to its Atlas Network foreign investment capital servant cause.
The oldies of ACT think this is a clever way to remove the Treaty constraint.
Dismissing regard for other (and the environment itself), here the indigenous people, is part of the concept of settler conquest before investment capital is able to move in and take up ownership.
A bit like the Nationalist Party of Germany and wealthy of the UK today (well to do conservatives in each case) thought using a populist mob would see off the left wing threat (EU union rules).
PS
As for categorisation where there are multiple factors in play.
Is the National ACT and Labour Green difference based on sex, or age or something that connects both?
One is older and male (including younger males), the other is younger and female (including older females).
What is the primal issue.
For one it is to have, so as to control. The privilege of old, birthright of men of the patriarchy. Now seen in a trend in younger males to ape podcaster narrative from the American Gilead right.
The other wants emancipation into a society where people are provided for. The idealism of democracy out of the old order (where only those with property could vote).
Each of your categorizations of reasons for ACT voters to potentially embrace violent change is equally as applicable to TPM voters. Especially since TPM voters score the highest on this violent change element.
Perhaps the GP is less radical and extremist than they appeared 30 years ago? (IDK if that's a good or a bad thing).
But the *only* correlation that has emerged is political party support (not age, or sex)
I like the Ferengi reference – Citizen Theil for Grand Nagus?
And a nod to TPM resistance at 2:15, but the whole 3 minutes is spot on imho.
https://youtu.be/h-yjkAXxnMA
So you're prepared to ignore that the party supporters of TPM are the ones with the highest acceptance rating for violent change…..
Is that what I’m prepared to do? Ah B, you know me so well
https://thestandard.nz/new-zealands-latest-tourism-promo-just-dropped/
It might be interesting to find out why there is this alarmingly high (and increasing?) % support for violence among Kiwis, and TPM/ACT supporters in particular, to get Aotearoa NZ back on track.
Latest Verian poll not so good for the Left:
Lab 32 Gre 11 TPM 3 =46
Nat 34 NZF 9 ACT 8 =51
Having said that, Verian had very similar numbers for the parties in its last poll where overall it was 47-51.The trend remains good for the Left.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/575813/voters-approval-for-leaders-of-national-and-labour-dropping-significantly-poll
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_New_Zealand_general_election
Let's play assumptions.
Assume TPM win all 7 Maori seats.
That leaves Labour and The Greens to get 45% between them. Not far away at all. There will be an uptick for Labour once policy starts being announced.
That's a big assumption. The party is in a civil war.
The decision by Toitū Te Tiriti to sever ties with the party amid allegations of bullying and dictatorship have exposed two competing factions. On one side is the Waititi and Ngarewa-Packer. Opposing them is a growing activist faction, made up of disaffected members, rangatahi voices, and former allies like Eru Kapa-Kingi, who argue for more internal democracy, transparency, and movement led decision making. With tensions now spilling into public view and ideological differences hardening, the party is at a crossroads.
Unless the division is resolved, Te Pāti Māori may soon fracture into two distinct political forces one parliamentary and centralised, the other movement-based and confrontational.
That could easily split their vote and see Labour come through to take the Maori seats.
It's more complicated.
Tamihere is TPM President, his daughter is the power behind Toitū Te Tiriti – the MP's son was her choice to run it.
The old way is the parliamentary vehicle, the Maori mana motuhake movement is wider than parliamentary politics.
Is this the 'do you know who my mum is' – son?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360854246/parliaments-security-allege-te-pati-maori-mps-son-threatened-knock-them-out-during-late-night
Which is exactly why a disciplined on message Labour Maori caucus can win their seats back next year.
How? The other, broader than parliament movement, would not be contesting the Maori seats.
But they will be voting….
Not for (Labour) something more moderate than TPM.
It is one of those things we probably won't know until after the specials are counted. Polling of the Maori seats are very difficult and the races are often very close
Really? You think that Kapa-Kingi is going to go gently into that good night?
Tamihere has not left such MP's much of a work around.
Cluxon says there are jobs all over the country for young workers. I assume he was meaning Aussie, where a lot of them are heading
New Zealand is in a scary place economically. But anyone that thinks Australia is the place to be may be in for a surprise when they arrive.
The Banana Republic
The general mood and media reporting out of Australia is very similar to here.