John Key - so much promise but so little substance so far

Since corporate governance issues seem to bore you, let us have a break and talk about politics and tax.

John Key and I met personally before he became leader in response to my paper on Vision, Leadership and Governance. He was the only politician other than Michael Cullen to respond to it.  At the time I found him to be a man driven with purpose and promise.

More than 12 months on from his election we have so little to show for it. It does look like this National government will follow in the footsteps of the past custodians of the realm, presiding while Rome burns from within. This said they still look better than Phil Goff's lot who still have a good measure of Helen Clark blood running through their caucus.

But John, it is time for you to harden up and be true to your inner self that was so evident 4 years ago and is so well buried today. Stop playing toady to the Maori, Act and Green parties and other populist nonsense and be a man and make some hard decisions.

Some time ago I got an email from an old Social Credit contact of mine. Long left politics, he has made himself a fortune. My mate suggests he might sue Key personally over what he views as Key's potential breach of promise for the promised tax cuts that may not eventuated.

He says...

"Before the 2008 election a card arrived in my letterbox, signed by John Key saying he would personally guarantee a number of things including tax cuts on 1 April 2010, should National be elected to government. I took this to be a contract."

He goes on to say that in April 2010 if Key has not delivered the cuts he intends to sue John personally based on this contract, and would encourage all other New Zealanders of a like mind to do so as well. He observes Key's rich list status might well be in jeopardy for all the claims that might come his way.

Now this guy is rich enough, principled enough, and possibly silly enough to do just what he says. If he did so and won, it would go a  long way to defining the role of politicians and government and their interface with the electing public.

If you are reading this blog mate, it would be a worthwhile exercise in defining the constitutional relationship between the people and government. And as we are one of the few countries in the world with no written constitution, the courts are a good place to start.

Now I also have a copy of this "contract" and John, I reckon you and the National Party are already in breach. So mate, when you do issue your proceedings you must also join as a party the National Party as this is the capacity in which John signed this document.

It reads....

"If National is elected to lead the next government, I PERSONALLY  GAURANTEE that WE will:

Strengthen the economy, increase after tax income and ensure that Kiwis' can get ahead under their own steam by reducing personal taxes on 1 April 2009, 1 April 2010 and 1 April 2011."

(Emphasis added).

Number 8 on the card is interesting, - no increase in the eligibility age for NZ super... good luck with that John.

Now John I am no lawyer but the words are clear. It is personal and it is a guarantee, it also binds "we" the National Party.

Also John a personal tax cut paid for with an increase in GST and the introduction of new tax on property, or for that matter anything else, might get you of the hook but is somewhat disingenuous. The promise is to increase after tax income. If incomes are flat and you take more out of taxpayers' pockets in property taxes and GST, you may still be in breach.

So to sue, what do you have to do New Zealanders? You have to declare that you voted National. You will have to requisition your ballot paper to prove it if the National Party disputes this. You will have to show that you did so because of this promise.

John, I voted National. I publicly said I would because Labour in my view was so toxic they needed to be shot. But I can't truthfully say I did so on your promise. I voted for you because I believed in you, the man, and I voted Labour out. So you are safe from proceedings from me.

Now to the proposals on tax reform and property. There are two further blogs I will do on this before I revert to directors and how to fix the rot we have got through individual action.

The first will be an eye opener for all property owners to the fact that we already have a property gains tax if the IRD choose to enforce it and a further eye opener that they now have a file on every New Zealanders property dealings for the last decade.

And the second will be on the proposal for a land tax and other taxes and a review of the past taxes we have had in this area - nothing proposed by this current bunch of idiots in new or will fix the imbalances in our economy -  and what happened as a result of those taxes.

Because we have in my life time, and I am not that old, had land tax, property speculation tax and loss offset limitations and various other forms of capital gains taxes. John, you are not old enough to have been through all of these. None of them worked in fixing the property market. None raised much tax either and each cost the government.

So what is being proposed is at best trying to fix an economic wrong by means that the last 40 years of New Zealand history prove will fail. John, go back and read the Vision, Leadership and Governance paper again. You started out with so much promise.