Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Only what we would expect a…, in reply to Kumara Republic,
what chance of a 1981 Part II happening over the wealth gap?
Not sure. I think things would have to get a lot worse before they get to that point. Maybe if National wins in November and the economy is still in dire straits at the start of 2012, triggering more attacking of benefit levels and "expendable" civil servants, we might get to the point of violence. Right now, though, not really seeing it.
Of course, if National make it to a third term and Pull-ya Benefit is still in charge of slagging of DPB mums and the unemployed all bets are off.
-
Hard News: Only what we would expect a…, in reply to Paul Williams,
I can’t help but think NZ is still paying for the idiocy of Muldoon and his decision to scrap the 3rd Labour Government’s compulsory pension savings’ scheme.
Piggy scrapped that scheme. English stopped payments to the Cullen Fund in order to pay for tax cuts, and reduced the level of mandated employer contribution to KiwiSaver. And they call Labour poor managers of the economy?!
-
This article in the SST is interesting, if depressing. Did the maths on welfare cost over here, and the numbers are pretty minimal overall. True levels of benefit misuse (in the "bludging" sense) are probably less than the foregone income from the last round of tax cuts.
-
Hard News: Only what we would expect a…, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
So, any party got a policy that they'll scale back the dividend demands from state-owned generation companies? Or is gouging consumers to plump your own bottom line only bad when dirty dirty foreigners and rich pricks do it?
Pretty sure the Greens want dividend payments stopped, or at least cut way back, but the problem with that is that power prices probably won't display a corresponding drop.
At least if it's the state doing the gouging the money remains in the country. Flogging off part of your income-generating assets in a manner that invites foreigners to buy them means you lose that income. -
Hard News: Only what we would expect a…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
These strategic assets are part sold for 10 billion dollars (optimistically)
Brian Fallow thinks that $7.8b would be in line with the valuations of the assets that’re potentially up for sale, maintaining 51% state ownership:
"Given the pledge that the Crown would retain majority stakes and assuming (unsafely) that the market would concur in those valuations, that suggests that, at most, $7.8 billion could be raised by a selldown." -
Hard News: Only what we would expect a…, in reply to BenWilson,
The outraged tone of many of the comments on the article just reinforces my belief that he's on the right track. If it upsets rank-and-file readers of Granny, it's probably a worthwhile policy
Not so sure about that. Granny readers do NOT sound impressed about asset sales.
The barometer is more useful for policy proposals through OpEd or editorials than for policy proposed by pollies proper, but I do see your point.
I've said consistently that "No asset sales in our first term" was just code for "We'll strip-mine the asset ledger in the second term", and Key has proved that I was correct.
Contrary to Granny's editorial position, it seems, Kiwis have not forgotten that we got the wrong end of a splintery broomstick the last time state assets were sold. Whether they'll attach that painful memory to Key is another matter entirely, but it's definitely unfortunate that Goff was a member of the Douglas Cabinet and is a barely-reformed adherent to the "scorch state-asset earth" school of economic management. -
Hard News: Only what we would expect a…, in reply to Sam F,
Obviously after the last couple of years of scrimping and paying down debt, New Zealand families are now suddenly awash in cash, and will jump at the chance to buy chunks of power companies that they actually already own.
Totally. Instead of, say, buying new cars, or TVs, they will instead get the "economic sanity" gospel and start behaving in a rational, long-term manner, investing and saving rather than indulging their consumerist urges.
-
Hard News: Only what we would expect a…, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Nah, if anything Goff and Cunliffe should be profoundly grateful that Idiot Savant’s fact-based, intellectually honest fisking of how Labour’s intends to pay for its tax policy is exceedingly unlikely to be repeated in the mainstream media.
Now if Labour were to follow up the return of a 39% rate with a CGT, they might get somewhere. When Craig Elliffe, Professor of Taxation Studies at UoA's business school and a man for whom I have enormous respect as a tax practitioner, puts his name to articles saying that a CGT is necessary, possible, practical, and probably quite lucrative, I'm prepared to think that it's worth considering.
A CGT and a higher top bracket would probably pay for Goff's threshold, even without further crackdowns on avoidance, and a CGT would have the added benefit of encouraging some degree of rebalancing of the economy away from property.The outraged tone of many of the comments on the article just reinforces my belief that he's on the right track. If it upsets rank-and-file readers of Granny, it's probably a worthwhile policy.
-
Legal Beagle: Coalition of Losers, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
As is customary, at this stage in the parliamentary cycle the Standing Orders Committee is currently reviewing the Standing Orders in order to make recommendations to be adopted for the next term. I am confident that urgency will be a matter of particular importance to them in this round.
Is membership of the SOC based around number of MPs a party has or the party's presence in Parliament? If it's an MP per party then something might actually happen, but if it's based on the number of MPs per party then National and Act will overrule anything that might impede their ability to ignore the proletariat in the coming term. They think abuse of urgency is just gravy.
-
Legal Beagle: Coalition of Losers, in reply to BenWilson,
We've had an upper house before, however. And urgency is not actually a statutory concept, just a procedural one. Parliament doesn't like telling itself how to behave in legislation.