clue: "savings". some also call it "offset spending".

serious question though: won't this also be revenue positive for the govt? increasing kiwisaver employer contributions is shortly to incur a 33%?

whut?

If people aren't comfortable with the kinds of KiwiSaver schemes that are currently available either because they're worried about risk or because they're that anti-capitalist, then Labour are talking about creating an alternative option where people can instead invest in government bonds instead of managed funds.

It's also worth?

What?

Because they are too incompetent to increase productivity by a tiny amount each year any other way? Good to see how little the Nats' pet muckspreader thinks of their consitituents. And how thoroughly unambitious?

What I am saying is that investment in prime realty is what the coporations do with what they?

(if not then it's a net win an Farrar is full of shit comparing a tax free income with a taxed one)

unfettered capitalism in the form of de/unregulated merchant bankers and currency speculators otoh? capital-B Bad.?

And doesn't for instance, recycle those fees into the fund to inflate the valuation, as Hujlich has been charged with. I'm amazed that Brash and Banks have avoided prosecution on that – as directors they should be liable, but I guess Key doesn't?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57WpwHE-d-Y&feature=colike

Blaming Capitalism is like being afraid of the dark.

Because its all about the toyz?

I wouldn?t want to relitigate this, preferring that people just watch history unfurl.

However, I?d just point out that the?

It also coincides with the hyper-commercialisation of products and services that used to be regarded as public goods, like housing, energy, and healthcare.

And regarding the "lower wages" lines, unfortunately Farrar and others know full well that telling people they'll get less money right now in the?

The compulsory contributions are going to increase over time (did Goff say 7%? I was distracted when?

Link.

Right, your first point there is just the same as having a 9%-of-salary minimum contribution with the optional right?

However the higher employer contribution will result in lower wages (Labour's policy acknowledges this explicitly) and fewer jobs.

His 'fear' only makes sense in a more laissez faire labour market like the Nats delight in.

The Labour package from what I've read also?

Didn't that change in the last Budget?

Due on July 1st, I recall – but it applies back to July *this year*, not "after the election" as English promised.

Jezuz. We have to get more kids to vote.

Ah! here's a list of changes:

"Compulsory employer contributions will rise from 2% to 3% from 1 April 2013"

"All employer contributions to employees' KiwiSaver accounts (and complying?

it's worse than that. the employer increases their contribution, but ALL of this contribution is now taken away?

Have you met some of the er people that manage our companies in NZ?

They live in a completely different world!

(By which I mean that people like Keri and me have a slightly different business model than most other small business people. An uneconomic business model.?

Increasing at a rate of 0.5%?

I really don't think you get to say "yeah?

ETA: I also?

On the face of it, I'd agree with you – but would be damned if I could see?

And yet, The John Key Party?

I believe they tried the "better to be paid bugger all than nothing" line – ie: that it would create more jobs. Beans.

Given the state of wage increases in recent years, lower is still better than none. I'm sure the Parliamentary Secretaries and EAs would love to get any pay increase, after generously being offered zero?

You are right on the button.

Saving is actively discouraged by ridiculous tax rates.

No wonder political parties blather on about savings, it means revenue for governments.

talking about saving, we are about to be saved from ourselves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN5DZC4MimQ&feature=youtu.be

Thank goodness – I would have never have worked it out on my own.

What I want to know is who the hell got paid for that shit. And, frankly, Labour's was a slicker production than National's bizarre effort but damn... I've really got to stop having expectations of being?

Hold that thought Craig : )

Gio also Tweeted, ?I want to?

Which I immediately followed with this tweet, as well you know.

I thought it was a remarkable broadcast, personally, ever bit as good as National's was awful (and surprisingly so). One could of course discuss the substance of how?

I think we?re going to have to agree to disagree on that, though we?re not exactly talking about a rigorous or particularly high bar. In Masterchef terms, it was?

Totally agree.

Yes, followed up shortly by "Seriously, though, the Labour party broadcast is very, very good. The complete opposite of all their advertising and dumb stunts so far."*

Sounds an awful lot like business as usual.

On retirement age it?

Yes, I was very surprised, and in a good way. It was like Labour actually listened to me personally. That feels like a first?

I think you should be able to change your electoral vote so that you?

What substance were you expecting? A list of policies? That's not what a political broadcast should be about. A political broadcast needs to give electors the why, not the what and the how. There are plenty of places?

I think National's reasoning is pretty solid there: put assets up for sale so their friends in business can buy them, and devolve the proceeds to their friends in business to build roads. It's beautiful really.

I almost expected Key to pop up a Powerpoint slideshow with policy bullets, the way he was going.

Selling off core energy network assets to pay for more roads is a straightforward assertion of priorities and it needs to be named and shamed. I agree it's?

I wanted them to. stop. walking.

I shouldn't have expected any, but I keep setting myself up for disappointment every three years.

I'm not convinced that's who their target is. People who *believe* in what the Labour campaign clip called 'fairness', yes.

And some may see that as a good business decision, however. We are talking infrastructure assets here, power and water, transport and, god help us, our national asset that is the?

Worse, they're overwhelmingly prioritisng last century's assets – roads.

I don?t see them actively selling roads to foreign owners, not that we need many more roads let alone vast stretches of eight lane tarmac through our, some would say greatest asset, our ?pristine? countryside. The problem I see is National?

Peru reopens forced sterlizations case

"more than a change of government, what is needed is a change of heart".

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/population/news/article.cfm?c_id=608&objectid=10760501

Advocates for a lift in the minimum wage should start their own?

No they don't.
Governments regularly develop and buy new assets
Governments regularly cut taxes

Whether either of those things is the right thing to do at the time is something only obvious with 20/20 hindsight and even then sometimes?

And entirely consistent with the belief that putting the money in the hands of?

That's what happens when you effectively freeze research funding in NZ. It's an easy area to cut for a government because the consequences are several election cycles away. And this is nothing to do with National, Labour had also effectively?

Of course she is – on Grammar boys that is.

Maybe yes maybe no.

Once a tax has been introduced it will never be removed and once an asset it sold they won't rebuy it unless it is run so bad it is failing and then they will bail?

Like estate taxes, you mean?

Sixty per cent of businesses said increasing the literacy, numeracy and basic skill levels of the workforce was the number one productivity issue for the Government to address.

Is illiteracy and innumeracy really that much of a burden on productivity? I don't think they're good?

Used be called 'night classes', also known as adult education (?WEA?)

Managers, yes.

If a CGT is introduced I don't think any govt would remove it.

IMHO CGT is evil.

given what has (or rather, has not )happened with the cycleway, this could longlasting POSITIVE effects throughout the motu-

He had done his 37 1/2 that week, so he was gliding off – he had gone home early.

It is not like he gets overtime for being there and he donates his pay to charity in any event.

MOST people gain sufficient skills to be both literate & numerate by the time they leave our school system: there are numerous reasons why a small proportion dont
(e.g. undiagnosed eyesight/hearing problems & unrecognised?

If you could explain how this dragged down your productivity you'd be answering my question.?

No – I am making the comment as I see it – that life is grim for those that miss out and I consider there needs to be greater provision and remediation?

Problems with touch typing actually if you are making reference to what should have been::

"It was a rate that I considered was fair at the time".

In reply to your earlier question to me and some of the thrust of your recent posts:?

What is your point?

(A serious question, BTW.
Presumably some balance point is necessary between the extremes.)

[? Though, at the same time,?

I'm trying to work out how much financial harm you suffered, and how much it justifies in terms of changes to the education system, and how much of it you could have worked out with 5 minutes questioning of the guy before hiring him. This is?

Why this is considered huge.

Youth unemployment is high and the problems faced by unemployed youth are immense -the present situation doesn't bode well for NZ.

I feel this is a bit naff – to reassure schools don't make conclusions on or choices for?

And it's not just youth unemployment that's the issue, as my 3 under-employed post-grad friends illustrate. A lot of experienced researchers, such as public health scientist Dr Boyd Swinburn and a Waikato Uni fuel?