OnPoint by Keith Ng

Read Post

OnPoint: Easy as 1, 2, 22.8 billion

208 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 9 Newer→ Last

  • DexterX, in reply to Sacha,

    Yes - the best answer to the raft of problems is to concentrate on economic growth (export lead).

    As an example - Fonterra, their biggest export is still "Milk Powder". In our "traditional industries" there is a massive room (further potential) for growth through innovation and added value - finding out what other "stuff" the markets would likely want from us and bringing it to them is the thing.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1188 posts Report Reply

  • Keith Ng, in reply to Sean Maitland,

    Deborah, you are correct that beneficiary income is net – but Labour have said they will be increasing beneficiary payments by $10 to match the increase in workers net pay after the tax cut takes effect.

    Keith conveniently missed this.

    As I said on Kiwiblog (and as Gareth pointed out), I used the wrong word, but the right numbers. Labour's costing is based on IRD figures which includes pensioners and beneficiaries. It includes 3,438,370 people.

    It doesn't miss much (except, of course, for how much capital gains these people make).

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 530 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    They’ve got large pension funds amassed overseas.

    Aha. Now, lets say they've also got large funds located here, something that could easily be legislated for - say no more than a fixed percentage can be overseas.

    Note that Australia has over 1.28 trillion Australian dollars in such funds. If we managed to get near that proportionally, that would be around 250 billion dollars invested into retirements, powering the stockmarket, and other investments. Is it any surprise they laughed off the GFC?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 8451 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    It’d be nice if industrial policy worked

    I'm thinking mainly of ensuring supporting infrastructure - including research, training, connectivity, business development and global market expertise - for sustainable high-value industries . I'm not sure that's what you mean by 'industrial policy' is it?

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16614 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to BenWilson,

    because we OWE them

    You're missing my point. It isn't because we owe them. Nor is it because we are morally compassionate, although I'm happy to have people help the old for that reason too.

    It is because it is their money . They entered into a contract with their government. They voted pretty explicitly for a government that established and then reestablished superannuation. It is not their fault that some governments in between forgot that and spent the money on other things "it's OK we'll pay it back later".

    You can argue that we pay for them. But in reality they expected some of their taxes to be set aside for them. And by the way as it stands today we currently expect that some of our taxes will be set aside for us. That makes it doubly galling that in order to give tax cuts and buy votes the money that I trusted a government to keep safe for me is now being threatened.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3325 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    Closing the $7.5b hole in Labour's numbers is easy. Terminate PV Joyce’s Roads of Dubious Significance.
    Bang, that’s the thick end of $10b saved over the next decade, job done.

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3904 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Sean Maitland,

    when people become unemployed, they get a new job

    Yes, clearly. That's why we've had all these people who've lost their jobs but our dole queue is non-existent. Right?
    No, wait, it's loaded with hundreds-of-thousands of "bludgers" (I'm fairly sure, by your tone, that that's how you view them) who just need to apply themselves to finding a new job. Them and the hundreds-of-thousands of others.

    News flash, Sean: Right now, there's a very serious shortage of jobs. You don't get hundreds of people queuing for jobs in a new supermarket when the economy is doing well.

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3904 posts Report Reply

  • DeepRed, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    Closing the $7.5b hole in Labour's numbers is easy. Terminate PV Joyce’s Roads of Dubious Significance.
    Bang, that’s the thick end of $10b saved over the next decade, job done.

    This. Are the usual outlets too blinded by images of Route 66 to fisk it? Or does Big Trucking know how to polish turds?

    News flash, Sean: Right now, there's a very serious shortage of jobs. You don't get hundreds of people queuing for jobs in a new supermarket when the economy is doing well.

    Precisely. Alluding to my previous post, it's unrealistic to expect meatworkers to become Java coders in a few weeks.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 4238 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    governments in between forgot that and spent the money on other things “it’s OK we’ll pay it back later”.

    And we will. As you say "it is their money" and "We" said we would pay it back and we will, whether "We" like it or not.
    Waddaya gonna do? push the oldies off on an iceflow? not heard of Global warming? We have no choice, unless "we" are totally selfish and only interested in our own short term gain. Oh, I forgot. Most of us are, "we" voted for National.

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4800 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    If you add the size of the workforce, plus beneficiaries including super annuitants you get about 3 million – unless you can’t count?

    Keith, did you leave the door open to kiwiblog again?

    Since Nov 2006 • 6165 posts Report Reply

  • Keith Ng,

    Also, Sean, I want to come back to your comment on Kiwiblog:

    Ok, so I just went and read Keith Ng’s analysis and its freakin’ terrible – a 4th Form economics student could’ve picked it full of holes.

    What a douche bag…..

    Now that I've answered your question seriously and directly, if you still stand by your comments, I'd prefer it if you'd say it to me directly.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 530 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    They entered into a contract with their government.

    See, I keep sticking on that point. Can you show me a copy of this contract? Can you provide evidence that the parties involved understood and agreed with it? Are there any signatories? Was there offer, acceptance and consideration? Was there some undertaking to show how and where the money would come from in perpetuity?

    I've never liked the idea of the social contract metaphor. It's not like a contract at all. There's no court to enforce it. There's no legislative framework it fits into.

    I especially don't like it because it doesn't work. If you want to contract with the government, it pays to get the damned thing on paper. My super fund is like that. They can't rip that off without the courts getting involved.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 8451 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to BenWilson,

    I've never liked the idea of the social contract metaphor. It's not like a contract at all. There's no court to enforce it. There's no legislative framework it fits into.

    That's because in the time the term was used, agreements were supposed to be based on decency and trust. Before the ascendancy of selfish neolibs rendered useless much of our longstanding business and political frameworks built on that basic assumption of humanity. Great for lawyers and snakeoil merchants, but.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16614 posts Report Reply

  • Islander, in reply to Sacha,

    Definitely - I grew to adulthood with the idea of the contract of social welfare.
    It was known, talked about, but entirely unwritten. You paid your dues in taxes: you knew that there would be free State education(to end of secondary level), hospital care, and assisted housing, and benefits for
    for the ill, unable, & elderly.
    It started turning to custard in the late 1970s.

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX,

    A wee refresher - NZ Superannuation - what is know as National Super - has always been paid out of the current tax take.

    In late 2001, Labour created the Cullen Fund - which is actually the NZ superannuation Fund - which is NZ's sovereign wealth fund - it was created for the purpose of investing current surplus to provide for future cost of NZ Superannuation.

    In 2009 the Nats suspended payments to the fund on the basis of not wanting to borrow to invest in the Cullen Fund - it should be noted that they did not mind borrowing to provide for tax cuts.

    If the economy is managed to provide for growth the surpluses that result can provide for further contribution to the Cullen fund and meet the cost of Nat Super.

    I’m saying this again as is my custom:

    Presently 10% of the top income earners pay 70% of personal taxes. and if Labour get in this will go up,
    We have 90% of all families in NZ paying no income tax when you take into account WFF.

    If you had the fabulous middle class less addicted to welfare (WFF) things would be a bit better in the long run – so addressing the over reach of WFF needs to be addressed.

    The stupid thing about the CGT debate is that it is the wrong question and the wrong answer.

    The financial services industry in NZ has been “gunning” for the opportunity to get the “funds’ that it sees are in residential ppty into invested products – so a lot of the cheer leaders on the sideline have a vested interest in CGT as they see themselves doing a lot better.

    Seeing how the glut of savings from baby boomers drove the GFC and that is largely lost – I not so inclined to think letting “the financial services industry” get these “funds” under control is a good idea.

    The best answer to the raft of problems is to concentrate on economic growth (export lead). When Fonterra’s biggest export is still Milk Powder – you realise that there is a lot of room for improvement.

    The CGT and all the arguments in support are rearranging the deck chairs while the ship sinks.

    I see a bright star on the Horizon – Oops sorry that was Labour burning up on re entry.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1188 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX, in reply to Sacha,

    the ascendancy of selfish neolibs rendered useless much of our longstanding business and political frameworks built on that basic assumption of humanity.

    Um - you're talking about the 84 & 87 Labour Govts.

    A month back, as I was going about my day, I saw one of these geezers, a former cabinet minister no less, coming out of the dentist at St Lukes. It was obvious the price of gold had made it worthwhile for him to finally get his stash of tax payer funded fillings taken out and cashed in - he no doubt wanted a latest model BMW.

    I did think about running him over - however - I instead raised the middle finger and continued on my way - thinking how like him that behaviour was.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1188 posts Report Reply

  • DeepRed, in reply to Steve Barnes,

    Waddaya gonna do? push the oldies off on an iceflow? not heard of Global warming?

    And to add, dropping Tabun canisters on Otahuhu, Te Atatu and Cannons Creek? Oh wait...

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 4238 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to DexterX,

    Um - you're talking about the 84 & 87 Labour Govts

    Don't forget Treasury and their fellow LSE-influenced muppets in the late 70s/early 80s.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16614 posts Report Reply

  • Islander, in reply to DexterX,

    Nah mate, we're talking nastier earlier Nat governments here. We're talking Muldoonism & all the later pigshit.

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

  • Christopher Nimmo, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    It is because it is their money . They entered into a contract with their government. They voted pretty explicitly for a government that established and then reestablished superannuation. It is not their fault that some governments in between forgot that and spent the money on other things “it’s OK we’ll pay it back later”.

    Pardon? When exactly did we temporarily lapse into a dictatorship? They voted in all those other governments as well.

    Wellington • Since May 2009 • 97 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX, in reply to DeepRed,

    That links not relevant to much.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1188 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    Why do people describe WFF as "welfare"? It's a tax credit based in circumstances (number of children to support). If it was netted against tax rather than paid as a cheque, would it be welfare then?

    Is someone who sells a house (sorry, famileee home) at a $300k profit receiving a $100k welfare cheque?

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 4444 posts Report Reply

  • Tim Hannah,

    I’m saying this again as is my custom:

    Presently 10% of the top income earners pay 70% of personal taxes. and if Labour get in this will go up,
    We have 90% of all families in NZ paying no income tax when you take into account WFF.

    You can say it as often as you like, it's still not true. Even the statement you've paraphrased is only true in a numpty way. Did you know that according to that statement the top 10% of income earners pay nothing, nothing, towards benefits or WFF? Personally I think they could put a little bit towards maybe superannuation or something, seems selfish not to.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 224 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    Why do people describe WFF as "welfare"? It's a tax credit based in circumstances (number of children to support).

    Hence it is welfare. It just happens to disproportionately advantage wage and salary earners.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7357 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX, in reply to Tim Hannah,

    the top 10% of income earners pay nothing, nothing, towards benefits or WFF

    How do you figure that out?

    Are you sayng the top 10% of income earners pay no tax?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1188 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 9 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.