OnPoint: Everything has changed until 2014
138 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Keith Ng, in reply to
And if we're looking for large amounts of state spending to shift, how about the massive subsidies to ETS polluters, continued propping up of property speculators and top-skewed personal tax cuts that have produced totally predictable results..
Absolutely. I think that's a productive way of engaging. I'd be quite happy if Labour started pushing for this stuff.
-
Keith Ng, in reply to
Why? We're 7th lowest in the OECD for government debt. We're in a recession. In a recession, the government should borrow to get out of it (and in a boom, it should pay down those borrowings, exactly as the last Labour government did).
Yes, the need to reduce our debt is not pressing now. But if we don't reduce our deficit now, we'll have no room to respond to the aging population. Yes, it'd be best to have done this in 2005, but we didn't. Because when we're rich, we think we're going to be rich forever and nobody wants to save.
This is why the opportunity now seems like the best opportunity we're ever going to get.
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
I think that’s a productive way of engaging. I’d be quite happy if Labour started pushing for this stuff.
considering they're on a hiding to nothing at the next election, *now* is the time to air this stuff.
i don't know what their internal polling is telling them, but the Che's Anecdotameter says they're going to screw the pooch.
let's not forget that the Anecdotameter called a Nat-Maori-ACT coalition on the night of the last election. #notbragging #istrue.
-
Keith Ng, in reply to
But pardon me for being simplistic here, but couldn't you - like - increase government revenue?
Yes. But what if half the voting population never accepts spending cuts and the other half never accepts tax hikes? Then we get exactly what we got for the past five years.
All I'm saying is that we moderate our opposition, and be prepared to concede *something*. Because the solution that we disagree with is better than no solution at all.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Because the solution that we disagree with is better than no solution at all.
So, we've completely given up asking for a capital gains tax, a Tobin tax, the reintroduction of progressive taxation, because the middle class won't stand for it and so screw the poor?
How about we make what's left of our welfare state a line in the sand, instead of the protection of the propertied classes?
-
And grow a pair, opposition parties
I'm surprised noone's shared this yet - David Cunliffe laying the smack down.
(Starts ~4 min in. Hat-tip Ben McNicoll; but I think he got it from The Standard)
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
But what if half the voting population never accepts spending cuts and the other half never accepts tax hikes?
oops sorry long post but kinda disturbed by this stuff given I have to figure out who to vote for this year.
Um but I can't see any party proposing increasing taxation to pay for the things we want. My beef with Labour for the last few cycles is that they've given up on the idea that taxation and government spending can actually do good. Even now they are proposing tax cuts. I expect that from the Nats but from Labour?
And how do we know half the population won't accept taxation? Has anyone actually asked? And I don't mean NZHerald "do you want less money in your wallet surveys" I mean really asked the public if having the government pay for education and infrastructure is a good thing at all then how about we get together and contribute money towards those things ie pay taxes.
I agree we need to change the balance or we're screwed. What scares the hell out of me is that this "doing something" is going to cause more harm than good. You might well change the deficit but so compromise our future by stuffing up education (and yes R&D) etc that we have no future anyway.
To me this seems to come down to a fundamental difference in philosophy. On the National Party side you say free market fixes everything and less government is better hence less taxes and less government spending. The market will fix any problems. Having lived in the USA I'm not convinced.
The other philosophy is that by taxing everyone according to their ability to contribute you can use that money to proved benefits to society that are worthwhile. Stuff we kind of expect from our government, education, health care, infrastructure etc. If you want more things from the government you all stump up and pay more taxes. Much like what you see in most of the countries at the top of the OECD.
For obvious reasons I find the correlation between government spending on R&D and OECD performance particularly compelling, but similar correlations exist for education and health care.
The problem is that Labour doesn't seem to represent that latter philosophy, one starts to wonder what Labour does represent. The bugger for me is that there doesn't seem to be any group of representatives willing to stand for such a philosophy. That suggests to me we're screwed no matter what the current deficit looks like.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
The problem is that Labour doesn't seem to represent that latter philosophy, one starts to wonder what Labour does represent.
Bingo.
Seriously, I think that basically they stand for bingo.
-
if we don't reduce our deficit now, we'll have no room to respond to the aging population
I don't quite buy that. The basic problem is that if our population ages, we will produce less and consume the same (or more). I assume the theory is that if we've salted money away overseas (or at least not borrowed much), then we can repatriate the funds and buy imported goods to make up the difference.
That all seems to be based on an assumption that everything else in the world carries on just the same, leaving NZ's aging population of the future in a position to smugly collect its rents and relax in the beach house.
I don't see that that's going to happen: we've got climate change, peak oil, the demands of the majority world population for freedom from repression and poverty, not to mention little curveballs like nuclear proliferation to worry about.
My view is that we should live for today and seek to equalise production with demand through real-world measures like increased migration, not target an artificial number that may have no bearing on the future.
-
Sacha, in reply to
David Cunliffe laying the smack down.
About bloody time. More of that all round, thanks.
-
Bart I seem to remember a year or so a survey did ask about the need for tax cuts, and the response was largely that if more tax gave better Health and Education Services then let the tax be more. A very successful drive by NAct seems to have convinced that tax cuts are good cuts.
-
And also about a year ago after the last Budget I think, some pundits were saying that the success of the 2010 budget was totally dependent on an improving economy and that that was a huge political risk. So now it seems that that the plan was a failure, but the clever Ministers are using the failure to justify the further cuts. There must be an economist person here who can explain how this works?
-
Carol Stewart, in reply to
He's very impressive. Thanks Heather.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
The other philosophy is that by taxing everyone according to their ability to contribute you can use that money to proved benefits to society that are worthwhile.
Sorry, a short post to respond to just one element of your very thoughtful long post. Have you seen this cartoon variation on the classic Marx?
-
so, can someone please wheel out Goff and install Cunliffe as Labour leader? please? please!!!!
-
Sacha, in reply to
Won't help unless all of them lift their level of commitment like that. Broader than Labour too. Time to decide what you stand for and who you're with, pollies.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
David Cunliffe laying the smack down.
And what a smack it is! Cunliffe for PM!
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Time to decide what you stand for and who you're with, pollies.
Which is one of Goff's biggest problems. He doesn't know. He's closer-aligned to National than to traditional Labour, and isn't capable of truly changing his spots.
-
The present government is getting ready to shake the country down, in a minor Key.
There are alternatives to what they will do but they won’t be considered because there is an agenda they want to pursue regardless.
The govt as Keith has stated are taking the Christchurch Quake to justify spending and other cuts and this is likely the small end of the wedge – There will be a lot of reviews happening now and in the next few months. They will wait until they are re-elected and then they will go hell for leather to make a raft of changes in the name of necessity.
Having regard to what IMF has been reported to say I would like to see:
1) The massive over reach of WFF corrected and a review of the tax rates and bands,
2) No KiwiSaver subsidies – IMHO it is a scheme that will benefit the Managed Fund/Financial Services Industry more than it will ever benefit NZ
3) A rise in the minimum adult wage to say $16.00,
4) Student loans being interest-free until say one is earning over say $65,000 – with principle repaid once one earns say $20,000.For Christchurch to my mind it makes sense to:
1) Levy for the Christchurch rebuild,
2) Issue a targeted Govt Stock issue for the Chch rebuild that has perhaps a lesser tax rate on the interest..
3) Have the “shit” that people are protesting about get sorted out now.I wouldn’t like to see further “privatisation” of Health, Education and any privatisation of Welfare/Social services – but I do think that is where they will go.
The economy will recover and it will be based on better and more sensible infrastructure and Tourism, Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – these are the areas where the investment in technological innovation needs to be developed and it needs to extend to all aspects of the chain that gets those products to markets.
The opposition are a non-event they are stuffed.
-
John to Bill. "It's getting rather hot around here. Got anything stashed away to cool it down?"
Bill to John: "Why yes Prime Minister"
Nothing like a little media deviation.
-
Being part of a family that has been staunch - but not unwitting- Labour supporters/voters since Labour began here - I find the Goff - useless. Cunliffe - and a re-energised younger wing (just where ARE they?) a possibility. Whatever happened to Nanaia? Turei of the Greens a goodie - but the rest of that sagging party - meh.
I dont wholly subscribe to the Che Anecdotameter because - there will be 2 surprises coming from the South-
cheers!
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Whatever happened to Nanaia? Turei of the Greens a goodie - but the rest of that sagging party - meh.
Metiria Turei is the co-leader of the Greens (you may be confusing her with Nanaia Mahuta of Labour) and, yes, I rate her highly too. Of the rest of the in-House Greens, Gareth Hughes impresses me, from the two times I have met him, and I have a little time for Keith Locke as well, but your meh is well-made - they're not collectively starting any fires.
-
Islander, in reply to
No, I'm not confusing Nanaia Mahuta of Labour (she bears an illustrious Maori name and great things -were/are? hoped of her-)
Turei is bloody good - Keith Locke? Shitodear, his mother is - no, let's not go there-
all I can say is -hope
and the South may prevail-
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Bart I seem to remember a year or so a survey did ask about the need for tax cuts, and the response was largely that if more tax gave better Health and Education Services then let the tax be more.
Yes, but anyone think there’s a fiscal Bradley Effect in play there? I’d almost be tempted to vote Labour if it became party policy tomorrow that the tax code would be changed so the virtuous among us can choose to pay a higher tax rate for the common good. :)
Nothing like a little media deviation.
Oh, go away Ross – I don’t think that allegation needs any further comment here, but your insinuation would be funny if it wasn’t also highly offensive.
-
Which is one of Goff's biggest problems. He doesn't know. He's closer-aligned to National than to traditional Labour, and isn't capable of truly changing his spots.
Like Moore in 1993?
Nothing like a little media deviation.
To be fair, Hughes has all his cards on the table - lots of pollies facing criminal allegations stereotypically don't, to their own detriment.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.