God. It's like money porn. Two parties throwing money up in the air and rolling around in it, and it all seems very familar.
But I think the big difference between standing under this money tree and standing under the Australian money tree is that here, I’m included. In fact, I’m so included that I’m thinking about writing to Cullen and just asking for a cheque for $16k upfront.
On the other hand thought, it’s a pity there wasn’t any explicit information forthcoming about the not-so-mysterious Julian Robertson. I'm still wondering why National denied it so vehemently though. Labour seemed more than happy to acknowledge their donors.
As it is, the RMA is looking like the only thing saving it is the student loans policy we’re all clapping our hands in glee about. Like I say, to me, that’s $16k in the bank. But, as it is, removing the say of local communities in the kinds of development that effect their environments is a little foolhardy.
Look, here’s a shallow and poorly researched example.
I’m all in favour of wind turbines. In a place like Makara Beach they’re a great way to produce and therefore partially guarantee supply of electricity for everybody, forever. They produce no pollution we know of, they kill the occasional obnoxious seagull, and the only people they piss off are the locals. Now, personally, I think the locals can just go take a walk and calm down, it’s only a few picturesque windmills after all. But, you have to respect their opinions, because this is a democracy.
If suggested reforms to the RMA were to take place, you could just tell the locals to get stuffed and build the damn things. Personally, sure, it might slow things down a little, but sometimes that’s exactly what we need to make sure that developers don’t get away with building complete crap that poisons the landscape, and benefits the few.
After all the one major thing that New Zealand has to offer the tourism market is our landscape. And who wants leaky buildings all over it?
And there we’re talking about nice things, like housing and windmills. What if we’re talking about prisons and coal-fired stations?
Anyhow. The money. Ah… the money.
As Damien has pointed out, the gang at DFP are going freaking ballistic about the incumbent's student loans policy, which leads me to believe that it may not be such a bad idea. But in the interest of my self appointed role as un intellectuel bogàn (thank you to French-speaking reader “Richard" for attemping to translate the concept for me), I thought I’d do a small comparison for you all using my own debt.
Now, what National has promised me is a rebate on my student loan. What this means is that I subtract the amount of interest I need to pay on my loan from my taxable income. As I understand it that is… please correct me if I’m wrong.
So, my loan is approximately $27k, a meagre amount. I'm from the original early 1990s bunch, and can be favourably compared to many of my contemporaries, who can be toting a debt of up to $50k+. The annual interest on my amount is very approximately $1800, which I can subtract from my taxable income.
The trick is that all too often people assume that the $1800 is the amount they don’t pay in tax, but that’s not the case. In fact, the actual amount I save is the tax I would have otherwise paid on the $1800. And that amount is a trifling $450. Again, that’s the catch. The $1800 isn’t money I’d save. It’s only a taxable income rebate, not a tax deduction.
And this is where my math gets a bit iffy. Mostly because I can’t work out how much faster I would be able to repay the loan under the National policy. I think maybe a couple of years.
But this doesn’t matter at all, because the handy big red Labour calculator tells me that I get to not have to repay the EIGHTEEN HUNDRED DOLLARS per annum, also pay off the total loan four years faster and save a total of SIXTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS…
Christ, as it is I already accumulated $10k of interest while I was in Aussie, and suddenly coming home to good old Godzone has paid off.