Post by Kiwi Frontline on Oct 5, 2016 7:32:29 GMT 12
The Press 5/10/16
NGAI TAHU IS NOT PAYING ITS FAIR SHARE
Nowhere in the article about Ngai Tahu’s $169 million profit did it state this is income tax-exempt profit.
Nowhere in the article (Oct 4), in the interests of balanced journalism, did it state Ngai Tahu pays no income tax, other than on income earned through its Maori Authority status, which is negligible, and on Australian income.
While the Government is concerned about international companies paying their fair share, it continues to turn a blind eye to this failure of internal tax policy which allows a charitable trust to be a shareholder of a commercial operation, with those trusts claiming that, because they are exempt from income tax, therefore so is the income from the commercial operations.
The issue is that where a commercial operation is unrelated to a charity’s charitable purposes, as described in its deed of trust, the company should pay tax on funds that are not distributed for charitable purposes.
Donations can be claimed as a deductible item which reduces the company’s income tax bill, as provided for in the Income Tax Act 2007. In Ngai Tahu’s case, each company would donate to the Ngai Tahu Charitable Trust which would then distribute funds for the benefit of iwi.
The time is ripe for this absurdity to be rectified and for such companies to pay their fair share.
This is not Maori-bashing; this is about equity, as righting a wrong from the past has now created another wrong.
DR MICHAEL GOUSMETT
University of Canterbury
IWI ARE CORPORATE IDENTITIES
Just another Brash bash?
Let’s have a reasoned discussion about ‘‘Hobson’s Pledge’’ issues, including the erosion of democracy.
Appointing Maori representatives to local councils and community boards confers political and electoral privilege.
Ngai Tahu has an exploitive interest in water and actively campaigned for Environment Canterbury to remain a government commission with three commissioners appointed by them. It has acquired two.
This is against the wishes of a vast majority of Cantabrians and the Christchurch City Council demanding a return to full democracy.
Traditional Maori tribes no longer exist – iwi are corporate entities. Moreover, one can be Maori with a fraction of Maori blood. Special claims on this basis are unwarranted.
Historical injustices are dealt with by Treaty settlement processes and the courts.
Over-representation in social problem statistics must be rectified whatever the ethnicity.
NZ is a multicultural not bicultural society, a social democracy with equal rights irrespective of gender, religion or ethnicity.
We are equal ‘‘subjects’’ or citizens, not unequal partners.
We have evolved a long way from the practices of both Victorian and traditional Maori tribal societies.
J W
South New Brighton
Bay of Plenty Times 5/10/16
ONE SET OF RULES FOR ALL NZERS
Don Brash has started a lobby group to combat what he believes is rising separatism in New Zealand.
Some people have condemned this group as racist, with waffling about Maori statistics, housing shortages, high rates of Maori in prison.
Housing shortages are not race-specific and as for prison, if you do the crime, then you do the time. There are many separate agencies set up particularly for Maori — health, housing, schools, television/radio stations, sports teams, seats in local and central government, statutory boards, language funding, advisory committees and even a special Maori tax rate.
Why are we not all under the same umbrella as simply New Zealanders? Can you see where Don Brash and his team are coming from? I can. (Abridged)
R B
Tauranga
The New Zealand Herald 5/10/16 (Short & Sweet section)
ON BARBARISM
One never hears of the early Maori, their barbarism. Alan Duff’s theme, that that was the normal back then, should be in every article written on NZ history.
S B,
Glendowie.
Southland Times 5/10/16
INDIGENOUS OR NOT?
On Nation, TV3, on Sunday, October 2, Larissa Wall made comment that Maori are indigenous to New Zealand. This cannot be proven with facts. DNA testing, carbon dating, and archaeological evidence prove three or four cultures were here before Polynesian Maori arrived 700 years ago.
What happened to the patupaiairehei (ancient surveyors)? Who drove Ngati Hotu, the redheaded, blue-eyed people to the brink of extinction? These people's DNA goes back 1800 years out of Persia. Who annihilated the Turehu peoples, and then there is the innocent Waitaha and the peaceable Moriori? They all pre-dated Maori arrival in New Zealand. Maui arrived from Egypt in 231BC.
Why does a so-called free country have 110 archaeological sites embargoed? Much evidence of New Zealand's bloodthirsty history before European arrival is being systematically destroyed by persons who have an agenda to bury the truth and gain Maori sovereignty.
M J A
Tauranga
Dominion Post 5/10/16
HARDLY DEMOCRATIC
I refer to Campaign against 'Maori favouritism' (September 29) and Tracy Watkins' commentary Is there any life left in this souffle. Steven Joyce states that most New Zealanders recognise they have "... a prime minister who is actually very even-handed on this sort of stuff'.
Oh really? How can he say that, when the Government is proposing Treaty settlements that would quietly force councils to accept unelected Maori representatives with full voting rights? That is completely undemocratic, and doesn't come within miles of being "even-handed".
Watkins is wrong too if she thinks there's no life left in this debate. As long as the Government continues trying to pull stunts like this, the debate will continue.
D B
Upper Hutt
NGAI TAHU IS NOT PAYING ITS FAIR SHARE
Nowhere in the article about Ngai Tahu’s $169 million profit did it state this is income tax-exempt profit.
Nowhere in the article (Oct 4), in the interests of balanced journalism, did it state Ngai Tahu pays no income tax, other than on income earned through its Maori Authority status, which is negligible, and on Australian income.
While the Government is concerned about international companies paying their fair share, it continues to turn a blind eye to this failure of internal tax policy which allows a charitable trust to be a shareholder of a commercial operation, with those trusts claiming that, because they are exempt from income tax, therefore so is the income from the commercial operations.
The issue is that where a commercial operation is unrelated to a charity’s charitable purposes, as described in its deed of trust, the company should pay tax on funds that are not distributed for charitable purposes.
Donations can be claimed as a deductible item which reduces the company’s income tax bill, as provided for in the Income Tax Act 2007. In Ngai Tahu’s case, each company would donate to the Ngai Tahu Charitable Trust which would then distribute funds for the benefit of iwi.
The time is ripe for this absurdity to be rectified and for such companies to pay their fair share.
This is not Maori-bashing; this is about equity, as righting a wrong from the past has now created another wrong.
DR MICHAEL GOUSMETT
University of Canterbury
IWI ARE CORPORATE IDENTITIES
Just another Brash bash?
Let’s have a reasoned discussion about ‘‘Hobson’s Pledge’’ issues, including the erosion of democracy.
Appointing Maori representatives to local councils and community boards confers political and electoral privilege.
Ngai Tahu has an exploitive interest in water and actively campaigned for Environment Canterbury to remain a government commission with three commissioners appointed by them. It has acquired two.
This is against the wishes of a vast majority of Cantabrians and the Christchurch City Council demanding a return to full democracy.
Traditional Maori tribes no longer exist – iwi are corporate entities. Moreover, one can be Maori with a fraction of Maori blood. Special claims on this basis are unwarranted.
Historical injustices are dealt with by Treaty settlement processes and the courts.
Over-representation in social problem statistics must be rectified whatever the ethnicity.
NZ is a multicultural not bicultural society, a social democracy with equal rights irrespective of gender, religion or ethnicity.
We are equal ‘‘subjects’’ or citizens, not unequal partners.
We have evolved a long way from the practices of both Victorian and traditional Maori tribal societies.
J W
South New Brighton
Bay of Plenty Times 5/10/16
ONE SET OF RULES FOR ALL NZERS
Don Brash has started a lobby group to combat what he believes is rising separatism in New Zealand.
Some people have condemned this group as racist, with waffling about Maori statistics, housing shortages, high rates of Maori in prison.
Housing shortages are not race-specific and as for prison, if you do the crime, then you do the time. There are many separate agencies set up particularly for Maori — health, housing, schools, television/radio stations, sports teams, seats in local and central government, statutory boards, language funding, advisory committees and even a special Maori tax rate.
Why are we not all under the same umbrella as simply New Zealanders? Can you see where Don Brash and his team are coming from? I can. (Abridged)
R B
Tauranga
The New Zealand Herald 5/10/16 (Short & Sweet section)
ON BARBARISM
One never hears of the early Maori, their barbarism. Alan Duff’s theme, that that was the normal back then, should be in every article written on NZ history.
S B,
Glendowie.
Southland Times 5/10/16
INDIGENOUS OR NOT?
On Nation, TV3, on Sunday, October 2, Larissa Wall made comment that Maori are indigenous to New Zealand. This cannot be proven with facts. DNA testing, carbon dating, and archaeological evidence prove three or four cultures were here before Polynesian Maori arrived 700 years ago.
What happened to the patupaiairehei (ancient surveyors)? Who drove Ngati Hotu, the redheaded, blue-eyed people to the brink of extinction? These people's DNA goes back 1800 years out of Persia. Who annihilated the Turehu peoples, and then there is the innocent Waitaha and the peaceable Moriori? They all pre-dated Maori arrival in New Zealand. Maui arrived from Egypt in 231BC.
Why does a so-called free country have 110 archaeological sites embargoed? Much evidence of New Zealand's bloodthirsty history before European arrival is being systematically destroyed by persons who have an agenda to bury the truth and gain Maori sovereignty.
M J A
Tauranga
Dominion Post 5/10/16
HARDLY DEMOCRATIC
I refer to Campaign against 'Maori favouritism' (September 29) and Tracy Watkins' commentary Is there any life left in this souffle. Steven Joyce states that most New Zealanders recognise they have "... a prime minister who is actually very even-handed on this sort of stuff'.
Oh really? How can he say that, when the Government is proposing Treaty settlements that would quietly force councils to accept unelected Maori representatives with full voting rights? That is completely undemocratic, and doesn't come within miles of being "even-handed".
Watkins is wrong too if she thinks there's no life left in this debate. As long as the Government continues trying to pull stunts like this, the debate will continue.
D B
Upper Hutt