Hard News: Yes we canny
146 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
The crap psychic auditions for the next series Sensing Bullshit are next door, and the long-distance psychoanalysis isn't working for you either. I do try to do people the courtesy of fairly and accurately engaging with what they actually say, and would appreciate it being returned.
Craig, sorry if you found it that offensive. I was trying to provoke a response, because you never do justify why you think it's OK for National to be six months out from an election and still have told us nothing about their policies except that, in very broad brush strokes they won't sell the railways back, they'll put $1.5b into an FTTH network, and they'll give us tax cuts that amount to more than $10.2b over four years.
Pardon me for being desperate to understand how you think that's acceptable in a democratic system that should hold its elections based on policy not popularity.
-
There's a good view on the Budget from Denis Welch over at his Opposable Thumb blog. The kind of thing he used to do nicely at the Listener.
-
Honestly, Craig, sometimes I wished you stopped sugarcoating your opinions and started telling us how you really feel.
How about Georgina Beyer deserves an honorary life membership in National for sparing us from the prospect of Paul Henry, MP? Perhaps you've got to accept that a true House of Representatives is going to throw up a fair number of oxygen thieves, but you've got to have some standards no matter how low and elastic.
-
I've been baffled by Campbell Live's recent dip into dumbed down articles as well. Campbell himself looks uncomfortable presenting them; he puts on a facial expression that suggests he knows it's a crap story, but that it's been foisted on him and he knows it's crap, but has to just trudge on stoically.
I dunno. Given that its his name on the show, that the EP is his good friend Carol, and the amount of money he makes (highest paid person on NZ TV ?) I would have thought that he has a LOT of say in what goes to air.
-
The pre-school my kids go to part time refuses to partake of the 20 free hours because it won't cover their costs
I would question that, Glenn. Even before the 20 hours free scheme, early childhood centres all recieved bulk funding. The 20 hours free is on top of that. I'm a public kindergarten teacher, my employer is the AKA, and we are all on the 20 hours free funding. We charge our families $5.50 a week - and their kids are there 11 hours a week. In a daycare centre, obviously there are higher costs to some extent. But don't buy that "we can't cover our costs" argument blindly.
-
As others have commented, Labour wasn't taking care of the needy in our society - Labour generally ignores the truly needy because they don't vote much and if they did they're hardly likely to support National."
WFF was needed and still is needed, income splitting would be good to.
The heath and care of our youngest citizens is imperative to better
future governance .Help them leave the slog we're in.Our youngest citizens are very needy. More money for the health of the child brain.
-
Pardon me for being desperate to understand how you think that's acceptable in a democratic system that should hold its elections based on policy not popularity.
Wait. I thought we were talking about New Zealand elections. Where's this happening?
-
Jeremy Eade; As I have said, the whole framing of the debate over who gets what in this country is now the hostage of powerful class interests. I know a lot of people say Labour have failed the beneficaries, and I agree. But lets be honest. Given the hostility from the top 20% - the bourgeoise middle class - to programmes like WFF, what chance would any program of genuine wealth re-distribution for the "undeserving poor" enjoy in the new Chile that is New Zealand? My guess is zero.
Labour has done what it can in the environment framed by Rogernomics. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen have achieved miracles in the face of an implacable neo-liberal paradigm, and we are starting to bump up against the stoppers of their intellectual and political framework. The question is, are we ready or willing for for a counter-revolution? Is there really any stomach for our version of a Bolivarian revolt against new right orthodoxy in New Zealand?
-
"The question is, are we ready or willing for for a counter-revolution? Is there really any stomach for our version of a Bolivarian revolt against new right orthodoxy in New Zealand."
We would be if more people were afforded the decency of time and education to actually weigh the truth versus the bullshit. But WFF
is a nice reintroduction to the not so revolutionary idea that kids are needy. WFF is no luxury entitlement, it's just a better life for your kids until the day our wage market starts operating properly.Beneficaries .....we'll all be a beneficary if we live long enough and our tired bodies will be greatful of all benefits. Totally agree it's tragically invisible. Our politics are in a slow slog.
-
Given the hostility from the top 20% - the bourgeoise middle class - to programmes like WFF, what chance would any program of genuine wealth re-distribution for the "undeserving poor" enjoy in the new Chile that is New Zealand? My guess is zero . . . The question is, are we ready or willing for for a counter-revolution? Is there really any stomach for our version of a Bolivarian revolt against new right orthodoxy in New Zealand?
Okay, so here's where the whole prospect of a counter-revolution that finally sticks it to those greedy bastards in the top 20% falls down: they can simply leave.
The top 20% of taxpayers account for approximately 60% of income tax revenue and the reality is that New Zealand is competing with other countries - especially Australia - for those workers. If the counter-revolution involves additional wealth distribution - and I've no doubt it does - then instead of getting more money from the evil rich the states revenues will likely decline as high income earners leave the country.
This doesn't just have an effect on government revenue; people on high-incomes tend to provide desirable or crucial services and if the bulk of them leave your quality of life will decline pretty dramatically - as anyone who's tried to get an appointment to see their GP recently will testify.
-
"Okay, so here's where the whole prospect of a counter-revolution that finally sticks it to those greedy bastards in the top 20% falls down: they can simply leave."
..to countries that are facing similar social inequalities that will be timebombs if not addressed. It's a matter of engaging the top 20% in matters of nation building as oppossed to entrenching market inefficiencies that serve them better than the poorly salaried majority who use their services and workplaces .It's a conversation that is well overdue and probably welcomed by some of them, at least the ones who back their markets as progressive and sustainable.
-
..to countries that are facing similar social inequalities that will be timebombs if not addressed.
Based on what woolly-arsed theory? Capitalism isn't looking like falling over in the next couple of decades.
-
A S,
Given the hostility from the top 20% - the bourgeoise middle class - to programmes like WFF, what chance would any program of genuine wealth re-distribution for the "undeserving poor" enjoy in the new Chile that is New Zealand? My guess is zero.
Crikey! As half of a duo who have finally made it to a point where me might be considered middle class (with the mortgage and student loans to prove it), I never realised I'd one day be lucky enough to wear the bourgoise tag too...
Does this mean I have to call the rest of my family proletariat scum, and set the dogs on them, or is there some wriggle room on this?
-
Labour's had nine years to redress the Richardson Bludge a Beneficiary Budget - it chose not to. Blind to the lobbying from Child Poverty Action Group and many others about the consequences of poverty (and I define poverty as the inability to partake meaningfully in society becoz you simply can't afford to), Labour have abandoned the bottom tiers of society. I prefer to think of them as the foundation. We all know what happens to buildings with shaky foundations.
The Maori Party are the only ones who've addressed what the Budget failed to deliver to the Real Strugglers and the only ones talking sense about life in the suburbs everyone prefers to ignore. I wonder how many disillusioned voters, like me, vote for Maori Party candidates if they run in general seats?
As for the pinko-lesbo taunts flung at HC & co - I always laugh, with an edge of despair. The wimmin have presided over a regime that has seen working class women loaded down with ever more paid & unpaid work and responsibility. Their reward is a lifestyle no better than my mother enjoyed, in mid 20thC in a state house as a stay at home mum. At least she had some time to call her own.
-
The wimmin have presided over a regime that has seen working class women loaded down with ever more paid & unpaid work and responsibility. Their reward is a lifestyle no better than my mother enjoyed, in mid 20thC in a state house as a stay at home mum.
So you're in favour of a return to the times when Mum stayed home, looked after the kids, and had tea and slippers ready for when Dad came home from a hard days yakka?
These days if women want to work and have kids they can at least look forward to a higher minimum wage, WFF, and paid parental leave. Your points re redressing the balance for the poor and beneficiaries are valid, however I think the Clarke-steered Labour Govt has chosen to sail a course (in the past 9 years) that ensures they don't get chucked out at the next election. By aiming to please the lower to middle classes I think they've been able to acheive more for everyone than they would have if they'd painted themselves into a corner by being the Dole Party.
Call me a contrairian but I'm begining to wonder if Cullen's Budget has stymied National and when they finally 'reveal all' they will be seen to be under-dressed. Not quite naked, but enough for Labour to just squeak back in (in an 'Italian coalition' ie NZ First, Maori, and Greens).
-
Danyl,
I'm open to being corrected if I'm wrong here (memory poor as ever) but WFF is hardly socialism, nor is it taking your money and giving it to someone else. It's a form of earned income tax credit, in which people's own money is returned to them depending on the number of children they have and the income they earn.
To my mind it:
(a) Offers recognition of the cost of raising kids.
and
(b) Displays concern for child welfare.I don't have kids so I don't benefit from it directly but its objectives seem perfectly laudable. It's just a pity that it does very little for the most vulnerable children.
-
The top 20% of taxpayers account for approximately 60% of income tax revenue and the reality is that New Zealand is competing with other countries - especially Australia - for those workers. If the counter-revolution involves additional wealth distribution - and I've no doubt it does - then instead of getting more money from the evil rich the states revenues will likely decline as high income earners leave the country.
The challenges caused by the globalisation of health labour markets that you refer to later in your post are real enough but I think it unlikely that a modest raise in the top marginal tax rate is likely to lead to the problems you describe. After all, Australia's top tax rate is (or was until recently?) considerably higher than ours and you don't see Australians flocking in this direction do you. Similarly, brain drain is no larger problem for Sweden than it is for the UK.
-
I think it unlikely that a modest raise in the top marginal tax rate is likely to lead to the problems you describe.
Since we're already experiencing the problems I describe this flies in the face of simple common sense. Surely another 'modest raise' is going to make the currently existing problem modestly worse?
I also think you run into the danger of tipping points when playing around with these ideas. If my wife and I move to Australia then our after-tax incomes increase by roughly 80% overnight, due to wage and tax disparities. This is enough to have us (and almost everyone we know) talking about leaving. You never know when yet another 'modest' imposition on the rather small demographic that pays almost all the bills is going to turn the current flood into a deluge.
Australia's top tax rate is (or was until recently?) considerably higher than ours and you don't see Australians flocking in this direction do you.
Sophistry - as you know their top tax rate is at $150,000 and their wages are WAY higher than ours. Anyone coming this way might pay less tax but would also suffer a massive pay cut.
brain drain is no larger problem for Sweden than it is for the UK.
Brain drain is a huge problem for Sweden but in our case it is conspicuously bad because we have a much larger, much warmer country right next door that speaks the same language, has no barriers to entry and pays workers a lot more while taxing them less. The situation is arguably unique.
-
If my wife and I move to Australia then our after-tax incomes increase by roughly 80% overnight, due to wage and tax disparities.
a) People don't stay or leave countries based solely on monetary concerns.
b) You're bitching about taxes/WFF, but the real problem is that our wages suck.Not being an economist, I have no idea how to fix our wages. But this 'we pay all the bills for you poor people, so if you don't let us keep more money we'll abandon you plebs and fuck off to Australia' argument of yours? It's probably not the best way to win friends and influence people. I'm just saying.
-
Not being an economist, I have no idea how to fix our wages. But this 'we pay all the bills for you poor people, so if you don't let us keep more money we'll abandon you plebs and fuck off to Australia' argument of yours? It's probably not the best way to win friends and influence people. I'm just saying.
Hear, hear. I'm afraid that when people talk about going to Australia, my first, very immature and unspoken, thought is - well, go on then. I'm where I am because I want to be here. If you don't want to be here, fair do's, and there are plenty of planes leaving every day to go to other places where your skills would be better remunerated. There was an interesting piece in the Herald looking at the reality of how much better off people would actually be, in Australia. The only people who seem to be financially better off going would be the childless couples, or those who earn shitloads anyway. People have different reasons for shifting countries - a friend of mine is coming back from the States after being back there only 3 years. Why? Mainly because he misses our dog/people pack, and because it feels like home for him here. So if people leave these shores because of monetary reasons, it's entirely logical. Just don't expect those of us who want to stay to care.
-
Since we're already experiencing the problems I describe this flies in the face of simple common sense.
With the exception of health, where the issue is real, our problems with brain drain aren't that huge. What's more they are no bigger than they were in the late 80s and early 90s when our tax system was less progressive than it is now and considerably less progressive than Australia's at the time.
...that pays almost all the bills...
Last I looked people in the top tax bracket only paid about 1/3 of total tax, but - even if they all left - their jobs would remain. People would fill them and tax the tax take would remain constant. It's for this reason that Sweden can suffer emigration and yet still have a very nice social democratic economy.
If my wife and I move to Australia then our after-tax incomes increase by roughly 80% overnight, due to wage and tax disparities. [Emphasis mine]
Also, further to what Daniele and Jackie point out, people choose to live where they do for a variety of reasons, a big one being that they like to live in a safe, clean, supportive society with a social safety net. If you want this you need to pay for it, which you can either do through progressive taxation or by slugging those who can't afford it. Despite our current - small and sensible, in terms of fiscal policy, surpluses - in coming years, as our population ages, and medical costs rise for a variety of reasons, we're going to need to spend more to preserve whats left of this system. Who do you suggest pays for it?
-
much warmer country right next door
Speaking as someone who's just spent the last week in Melbourne and Canberra, my advice on this one is - if you do leave - don't believe the hype. And do pack some woolens. It was freezing, colder than Wellington even...
-
...
- tax deductible private health insurance
...
- income splittingGood points!
income splitting is under consultation at the moment: personally I think children should come with a tax allowance that can be allocated to one or both parents as long as they live with them. We could wind back a chunk of WFF if we had it.
health insurance I was recently a recipient of a blend of public and private care, and most impressive it was. But when I was laying on a table about to go in to 6 hours of private surgery, I was very concious that if it went horribly wrong it would be the State that covered the cost. And that means I should still contribute through tax. And I'm better off because of it: I probably wouldn't be able to afford premiums that covered emergency care...
Oh, and I have British and Australian passports. The reason I live here is that I find it relatively cheap to have a damn fine lifestyle... and we have a few nice social things I like.. the right to silence, I don't have to carry an ID card, the same assault law applies to adults as children...
Wouldn't it be nice if we could deport some of the whiners on sabbatical to, say, Birmingham for a month so they could experience real crime, real racial tension, serious taxes, awful restaurant food, dreadful coffee and wildly overpriced, um, avocados.... because you have to remember most Australians don't live on the Gold Coast, and most pommes don't live in Chelsea.
-
I'm afraid that when people talk about going to Australia, my first, very immature and unspoken, thought is - well, go on then.
That's all very well until you need radiation therapy - or even a dentist or plumber - and find out those services are either prohibitively expensive or require very long wait times because the majority of people who provide them have left the country.
Last I looked people in the top tax bracket only paid about 1/3 of total tax
Look again, its now about 2/3rds of total income tax take.
-
most Australians don't live on the Gold Coast, and most pommes don't live in Chelsea.
I did in fact live in Chelsea and left my job in a merchant bank to come be a scientist back in New Zealand so I'm aware that not all life-decisions made are financial ones. All I can do is point out the statistics:
Permanent/long term departures are up 12% over last year.
44,000 people left for Australia.
The total number of permanent departures - 80,000 - is the highest since records began.
10% of all kiwis are considering moving to Australia in the next 12 months.Anecdotally I know that the difference in taxes and wages made a difference to the people I know who've left and if I go it'll be a factor there too. Wishing this wasn't the case won't make it so.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.