Jump to content

Seafaring nation?


Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

They want to come to NZ not because their son died, not because of weather problems, but because their broker says the yacht will sell more easily here.

They left and buried their son in the uk, then returned to the yacht.  Get that - they CHOSE to return to the yacht, recently.  They have a range of options avaialble to them before that. 

They could have stayed in the UK in August when they already should have known the position of the NZ govt on cruising yachts entering NZ.

Having chosen to return to the yacht, they could stay where they are and sell there, or appoint an agent to care for the yacht while they sort their sh*t out.

Its pretty clear they are making financial decisions here, not humanitarian ones.

Thousands of people daily have relatives die in-situ.  They don't all suddenly claim that they have to get out of Dodge, and sell their assets in the best market available globally so they can "move on".

The article is an emotive and manipulative piece of trash journalism.  Even the headline is deceiving and a distortion of the facts.

Fair call.. I hadn't read any of their  back story. 

In saying that it is still a pretty sh*t position to be in espiecially if that is their main asset.

How does it negatively effect us if they turn up in NZ already quarantined and leave their boat with a broker to fly back to the UK?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 232
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't see how they would be 'stuck' in Tahiti? With a Carte de Seyjour, they could easily sail to Nuka Hiva or sail to the eastern Tuamotu for hurricane season, or even Hawaii to the north. The

Well yes there sort of is rational and sort of a sh*t load of it. As noted they did ask to come and were told No so what did they do, they thought f*ck you new Zealand, f*ck your laws, f*ck the r

They want to come to NZ not because their son died, not because of weather problems, but because their broker says the yacht will sell more easily here. They left and buried their son in the uk,

Posted Images

It would net improve the economy because a NZ buyer would transfer $1m from their NZ bank account into a floating asset that requires ongoing spending and maintenance - even at just 5% of value that would equates to $50k pa average service fees pumped into the NZ economy forever. Unlike the $50k threshold for superyachts which would be a one-off spend this year only.

Clearly Covid has not changed any of NZ’s thinking horizons - they are as short-term as ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sabre said:

In saying that it is still a pretty sh*t position to be in espiecially if that is their main asset.

Agreed.  But life can be sh*t for anyone anytime anywhere.  Its not the greratest single reason for an immigration policy waiver in a time of global pandemic

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fogg said:

It would net improve the economy because a NZ buyer would transfer $1m from their NZ bank account into a floating asset that requires ongoing spending and maintenance - even at just 5% of value that would equates to $50k pa average service fees pumped into the NZ economy forever. Unlike the $50k threshold for superyachts which would be a one-off spend this year only.

Clearly Covid has not changed any of NZ’s thinking horizons - they are as short-term as ever.

Anyone who regards their pleasure craft as an asset has not considered the full ramifications of ownership.

Another argument could easily be made that $1m will probably be taken out of a productive asset (a business) and transferred to a non-productive asset (a yacht) thereby reducing the earning potential of the country.

Your thinking is classic NZ business - the sole goal is the three Bs.  Today, the boat.  Next week, the bach and perhaps the beemer.  Its a part of why NZ small businesses stend to stay small.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

Agreed.  But life can be sh*t for anyone anytime anywhere.  Its not the greratest single reason for an immigration policy waiver in a time of global pandemic

Common sense shouldn't go out the window just because of a virus.

Do you think an immigration policy should be based on rational sound thinking or nonsensical hysterical paranoia?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sabre said:

Common sense shouldn't go out the window just because of a virus.

Do you think an immigration policy should be based on rational sound thinking or nonsensical hysterical paranoia?

The former, which ours currently is.

I'm pretty confident the balance is right because there is a small but vocal minority saying the boarder should be opened wider, while an equally sized minority say it should be closed tighter.

The vast majority of people are so unconcerned they are saying nothing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aardvarkash10 said:

Anyone who regards their pleasure craft as an asset has not considered the full ramifications of ownership.

Another argument could easily be made that $1m will probably be taken out of a productive asset (a business) and transferred to a non-productive asset (a yacht) thereby reducing the earning potential of the country.

Your thinking is classic NZ business - the sole goal is the three Bs.  Today, the boat.  Next week, the bach and perhaps the beemer.  Its a part of why NZ small businesses stend to stay small.

If you knew what I did for a living you would realise you are way off the mark with pretending to understand how I think and believing it’s “classic NZ business”. 😊

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the most likely source of $1m spent on a toy like a boat would be from property equity release or other low cost borrowing rather than working capital from a business struggling to scale. If you seriously think that the only thing that stops a business successfully scaling is that the owner makes a bad decision to take excess drawings to buy a boat.... then you probably don’t understand how business globally scale.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fogg said:

It would net improve loss to the economy because a NZ buyer would transfer $1m from their NZ bank account into a foreign bank account and end up with a floating asset liability (or depreciating assset) that requires ongoing spending and maintenance. Or to be real fussy it could be net zero as you are changing $ for goods

Not that that is necessarily wrong, you can't sail, or do much at all, with a bank balance until you spend it, but it should be stated correctly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fogg said:

It would net improve the economy because a NZ buyer would transfer $1m from their NZ bank account into a floating asset that requires ongoing spending and maintenance - even at just 5% of value that would equates to $50k pa average service fees pumped into the NZ economy forever. Unlike the $50k threshold for superyachts which would be a one-off spend this year only.

Clearly Covid has not changed any of NZ’s thinking horizons - they are as short-term as ever.

Frog, I'm trying to understand... If it is a foreign boat and a New Zealander puts 1M into it, That liquid capital leaves the country and is probably gone forever. New Zealand now has a 1M asset that is deprecating at some rate (high if a new boat and lower if old) Money spent of the boat is already in the NZ economy and is going into the maintanance of a deprecating asset (i.e. lost capital) instead of into say into a home or business, that usually increases in value.  How does this actually build capital or help the NZ economy. I don't mean to disagree, I am looking to understand this better?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:

They want to come to NZ not because their son died, not because of weather problems, but because their broker says the yacht will sell more easily here.

They left and buried their son in the uk, then returned to the yacht.  Get that - they CHOSE to return to the yacht, recently.  They have a range of options avaialble to them before that. 

They could have stayed in the UK in August when they already should have known the position of the NZ govt on cruising yachts entering NZ.

Having chosen to return to the yacht, they could stay where they are and sell there, or appoint an agent to care for the yacht while they sort their sh*t out.

Its pretty clear they are making financial decisions here, not humanitarian ones.

Thousands of people daily have relatives die in-situ.  They don't all suddenly claim that they have to get out of Dodge, and sell their assets in the best market available globally so they can "move on".

The article is an emotive and manipulative piece of trash journalism.  Even the headline is deceiving and a distortion of the facts.

This (for me) is a truly tough one and it may be that the herald got some of the facts muddled? It might  help to know that I had an exchange with the mother and she said that they had to leave FP with no time to spare to accomplish the burial of their son. Then apparently  had to return  to attend a judicial investigation hearing in September in Tahiti over this tragic death. It may be that they could not have stayed in the UK ?  There is allot to this we don't know and many possibilities.  In the end... I feel very very sad for this family.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...