The Bart/ Ben debate is good
No it's tedious and boring and does nothing for anyone.
Sorry guys I shouldn't have bothered. Ben argues with everything I say on this site now - leaving me feeling very much like there is little point in trying to contribute. It takes too much energy to ignore his constant trolling of me so I'll leave him to it for a while.
I don't particularly like flouncing but honestly it is too stressful to have this kind of reaction and argument every time and I need a break from it.
It takes 10 seconds to discover this by reading only the first Wikipedia paragraph on the subject, which is the barest minimum of research you’d expect someone to make when trying to comment intelligently on the issue.
Here you go Ben because the wiki page is not the clearest.
And here is the quote you need to read and understand
To carry out QE central banks create money by buying securities, such as government bonds, from banks, with electronic cash that did not exist before. The new money swells the size of bank reserves in the economy by the quantity of assets purchased—hence "quantitative" easing.
In the US they actually print dollar bills but most modern countries use electronic transaction such as the ones wiki describes.
The important thing to understand is that it is exactly the same as printing dollars.
After the central bank or reserve bank uses quantitative easing there is more money than there was before. And most importantly the value of each unit changes in direct proportion to the amount created.
So if NZ made 5% more money the value of the NZ dollar would be 5% lower. That is why it has an effect on imports and exports.
As the economist article explains QE can be useful in certain situations, particularly if the internal economy is large enough to respond to QE. But in NZ that is not true.
I strongly suggest you spend more than 10 seconds doing research next time before deciding that yet again you have to find a way to argue with me.
quantitative easing, which is a whole different thing
No you are wrong Ben, quantitative easing is in fact printing more notes and putting them into circulation. Yes it is possible to specifically hand those new notes to specific groups.
However, every dollar you print in NZ will instantly change our exchange rate by exactly that proportion. That is the reality of living in a tiny country with absolutely no economic pressure on the rest of the world. That instantly means that if you import more than you export, your country will become poorer - that currently is the situation in New Zealand - and has been for a long time.
So while we can spend many hours "discussing" what printing money might do - no government in their right mind will do it in New Zealand for very very good economic reasons. That is why I completely dismiss it as a relevant way of raising money for the government.
They have consistantly taken the position that street parking is not a right and can disapear at any moment. As it should be as it is public roads paid for by everyones rates.
There is also the aspect that roads are really designed for movement of people and goods, not for parking.
The idea that you should be able to leave your lump of iron on the (public) road is perhaps a little unreasonable.
That gets a little bit more tricky in residential streets where traffic is not intense and even more tricky in streets where houses were not designed with the expectation that every owner in the street would have a car (or three plus a boat).
There has to be a balance somewhere between "it's our street, go away" and "we're taking over your street". At least from what I've read from the Skypath folks there is a real intent to reach a compromise.
you’re arguing for a more progressive tax regime
Well yeah. I'd hardly consider more regressive taxation as reasonable. Hence my objection to user-pays which is regressive as well.
Essentially my point is that Labour needs to accept that there is a contract between the voters and the government.
The government provides services that we want and it's up to Labour to show the voters what they can provide and convince them that it's worthwhile. I'd suggest free education, quality housing, healthcare and social welfare.
But on the other hand there must be an equal acknowledgement that it will cost money and that money really should come from more progressive taxation.
I’m saying it’s not the only option, which you claimed when you said.
For any government that wishes to provide significant services to its public taxation is the vast majority of its income.
Yes there are other forms of income, but if you want to provide services you need to tax the population.
Your arguments against that statement are simply arguments for the sake of argument. You continue to argue for user-pays without ever acknowledging that it essentially replaces taxation of those who can afford it with demands for payment from those who can't.
4 Have a look at the US dollar when they started printing money furiously. What printing money does is put more cash into the internal economy, which for a large internal economy has some positive effect but for all exports and imports has no effect at all because the value of the dollar drops exactly in step with the amount printed. For New Zealand with an almost insignificant internal economy printing money would be an utter waste of time and suggesting it as an alternative to taxation is pointless, except for the sake of argument.
Quite simply none of you arguments makes convinces me that we have any option in NZ other than to increase taxation - unless of course you are happy to see the poor of NZ slip deeper and deeper into the mire.
1. More debt.
2. Incomes from existing assets
3. Incomes from services – more user pays
4. Directly tapping the money supply
To address your alternatives to taxation
1 More debt leads to more debt repayment costs and eventually defaulting on loans. What you are suggesting is just fine if and only if you have a real expectation that your income will increase to service the debt and eventually pay off the loan. None of those conditions are true.
2 What assets? We sold those income delivering assets to the private sector.
3 WTF I just pointed out that we have replaced government funding with user pays which is fine if you are rich and can pay but if you are poor you are fucked. User pays is what you get when government funding is inadequate for the purpose. That is fine in some cases but for a Labour party arguing for users pays for education health and social welfare is beyond stupid.
4 Yup you can print more money, that works for about a second.
You forgot about buying lotto ticket.
So how about you come up with a real reason why taxation is bad.
I’m unwilling to accept it because it’s not true.
Well since you said so ...
I suggest you visit Cambodia, a country with essentially no taxation. Lots of schools, paid for by foreign aid but no teachers because there is no money to pay them. No money to maintain roads. No money to provide sewerage or electricity.
But since you've said taxation isn't the answer it must be true.
Given National has gutted education, health and social welfare spending foisting ever more onto user-pays type operations that are great for the rich but suck for the poor (and even for the middle class) ... the Labour policies shouldn't be hard to write.
Fixing those core institutions after the damage done by National will cost money. The blame for the increased taxes that must come lays squarely on National - but it must be Labour and The Greens that enact those taxes.
Sadly too many people here and elsewhere are unwilling to accept that in order to have the nice things we need taxes. My guess is Labour will again shy away from a commitment to proper government including taxation. In that case one can hardly blame the voters for walking away from them in disgust.
“we should consider the concerns of residents in good faith”
And as far as I can tell the good faith concerns are being considered in good faith.
The problem is the project seems to have drawn the attention of some who are determined to oppose simply for the sake of opposition. As each genuine concern is addressed a new concern is raised, the point we appear to have reached now is the remaining concerns are ... well ... a bit odd.