61% of early votes only
Nat supporters voted early and the majority of Labour supporters left it to today ....so Labour will win ...good theory somebody in this house just said
Printable View
If Jacinda losses I hope she is a gracious loser
No need to say sorry. Unsure if Flavell can get up, the swing to Labour will be helping Coffey and that may be the crucial factor. Time will tell. He is behind by quite a large % at this stage....
http://electionresults.govt.nz/elect...etails-71.html
Early days but National over 46% is a HUGE endorsement of Bill
Wonder what JT and EZ are up to?
So 33% voted and the gap between NAT and LAB is slowly increasing and over 10% points ...weird
If LAB going to come with a late rush it better start soon
National!!
56% counted and it's getting worse for LAB ....even South Auckland won't save them this time
Interesting as more of today's votes are counted the GRN % is falling ....hmm
Still early at 10.15pm but National at 46.3% can only be described as an outstanding success for Bill English as he tries to bring a party into a 4th term. Clearly National has the electorate mandate form a government
Wow, interesting study in being myopic...
I can't see a ringing endorsement for any party in this result.
Well now we will see if Winston believes in anything..if it is really going to be Peters demands on overseas ownership, immigration & affordability.
Thinking of all those corporate mates who have been so smug on meeting budgets as population growth of 2% makes it easy or....all the businesses that depend on bringing hordes of low skill, low wage labourers in to make their books balance need to come up with a new business plan, and any government that needs those same hordes to inflate GDP, because they've done bugger all to incentivise productive investment and increased productivity, and who depend on foreign dollars (with strings attached) to keep the economy plodding along, may well need to come up with a new plan for governance.
and the winner is .... Winston Peters :t_down:;
He will be in for the biggest and most beautiful baubles of power NZ has ever seen ...
Apparently the most likely outcome of this election (the pollsters have know it all the time) - i.e. we may start to believe in polls again.
But if there are winners, than under a populist government there must be as well losers - right? No win-win for populists.
If history is a guide - whatever party Winston is going with will lose the next election. And I think New Zealand overall lost. It is a said state of affairs that one populist party determine the government and not the voters of NZ.
But then - Winston is the only small party leader who understands how MMP works. We can't blame him for the dumbness of the rest, can we? If all party's would be ready to negotiate with everybody else, than we could get the best possible government, not the biggest baubles for Winston.
National / Green anybody? I know, it is just a dream .... we have no green party in NZ, only a bunch of left-whingers calling themselves green.
Labour / Green / NZF: Some people call that the monster coalition - and I am sure they are right. Might be funny, though to watch. Probably the most entertainment value we could get out of this election though (sort of like Trump in the US) ... just concerned that it will need generations of New Zealanders to pay the bills and recover from their spending spree. BIG SPENDER ....
National / NZF: Depends obviously on the size of the baubles ... but so far I see it as difficult to align Winston's big spending policies with any responsible government. Might be the smallest evil, though.
Pity - looks like a lost opportunity, but then ... hey Winston, it is up to you: Surprise us!
Winston lost his seat in Northland. Does that mean he is better on a megaphone than he is on the ground? Last time he won and lost Tauranga, from memory. sometimes winning and losing can be confused. I put a $2 win bet on several horses yesterday before I left the club. When I checked the tickets I found that one bet was on a wrong horse, the biggest dog at the meeting. It won and paid about $68 for a win so I got double that and I still find it hard to believe that this was nothing but chance. As to this new, probable, government, I don't think it will go the full term. I expect someone to pull the plug later next year.
The horse was Adonis in the sixth race in Hastings.
Bill English, in, what he thought was a private conversation prior to the 2008 election infamously observed that to attain power you have to swallow "dead rats". We are about to discover whether his appetite for dead rats will be satiated in coalition talks with Winston, and if so what are they.
So what will he demand and what will he eventually agree to?
1) Immigration reduction: will be pushback from employers addicted to the sugar high of cheap labour, so some face-saving compromise will be arrived at.
2) Amend Reserve Bank Act: tinkering around the periphery, face-saving, no problems
3) rail link to Northport: will be quietly abandoned
Potential problems for incoming National -NZF Coalition
1. Internal conflict around Cabinet allocation
2. Winston will demand a fair proportion of SOE board positions to NZF supporters. This was an issue in 1996-1999. He won't let it happen again.
3. Auckland Housing market
By next winter the Auckland Housing market will be in serious disarray. The newly over-mortgaged, and overextended property investors will be burnt. Mortgagee sales will significantly increase and anger directed at the government
This rail link is a good idea. When compared to the grandiosity of Nationals other transport projects it is cheap as chips.
If Winston First plans to hand over the party to indolent Whangarei NZ First candidate Shane Jones he will need to give Shane some political capital to help capture this seat to coat-tail time servers in the party next election.
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
Some potential problems for Bill English( apart from Winston /NZF)
1) David Seymours End of Life Choice Bill
Will he elect to make this a conscience vote for National MPs or will he require them to vote against it? Either way has significant problems for Bill English.
2) Auckland property market
Negative equity, mortgagee sales.(= angry National voters) That ship is about to dock.
3) Maori proprietary rights over fresh water
Negotiations,( details undisclosed to date) fronted by Bill English and Nick Smith commenced with iwi LeaderGroup in 2015. They won't wait forever, next stop the Supreme Court. If they determine in favour, then the controversy surrounding Labours irrigation tax will pale in comparison.
Good to hear you're still winning those bets, Craic. Not quite a clean win to National, and Colin James picked that.
Quote:
The "Jacinda effect" -- so far
Labour has a lot of new List MPs, the Maori Party is gone, Labour has all the Maori seats. Sure the swing wasn't as big as I hoped, and that was partly the low voter turnout and the marketing lies by National.Quote:
As the election campaign wraps up, opinion polls say the wave that swept Labour from 24% to par with National in polls -- the Jacinda effect -- has receded a bit.
Nevertheless, Ardern might be Prime Minister in a three-way deal with the Greens and New Zealand First. That was a near-unthinkable prospect on July 31 and testifies to her extraordinary public appeal.
National built part of the dam across the Ardern wave by fabricating a non-existent $11.7 billion "hole" in Labour's fiscal projections and an imaginary Labour income tax "increase".
That dirty politics sullied churchgoing Catholic Bill English and his party. But National has come out the largest party, able to do a twosome deal with New Zealand First if the polls are right. So, a 10-cent bet on English? Only with a hedge or two, as in my column's non-forecast on Tuesday, the irony in which some may have missed. Two hedges in effect amount to a bet each way, that is, no bet -- no forecast.
That is because the prime ministership can go either way if New Zealand First decides the government. Winston Peters has laid down what read like blocks to both parties, most recently on water in Labour's case and an assertion yesterday that "neither" Steven Joyce nor Simon Bridges "are fit to hold office". But Peters is a sphinx. Words can have multiple meanings.
Whichever way the sphinx leans, there has been more to the "Jacinda effect" than whether she or English is Prime Minister next term. The Labour party has been rebuilt in confidence and finance back to competitive status with National, at least for the next while. Its caucus will be stronger as a result.
And, while Ardern is not a revolutionary, she has opened the door to a path towards a different way of doing things from the prevailing ideology of the past three decades. Her pointer has resonated with large numbers of the younger cohorts who will have to live through very different conditions in the 2020s, who do want a different way of doing things and who will in future be the majority.
That these changes are now in the frame is the "Jacinda effect" in her first seven and a-half weeks as leader.
Colin James, (64)-21-438 434, PO Box 9494, Marion Square, Wellington 6141, New Zealand ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz, www.ColinJames.co.nz
I hope Winston will see that only about 30% of eligible voters chose National, the "Not National" vote was bigger than that, and also take note that his policies look a lot like Labour's policies. NZ First are running the line that Fed Farmers use, that urban areas also pollute waterways, but really it doesn't stack up. Only 2% of waterways by length have urban runoff, and of course all effluent from urban areas is treated.
If Winston is at all interested in effecting change in NZ "Had Enough?" then he'll wait for the special votes to come in, it should give the Labour/Green block more power, and a Labour/Green/NZ First coalition would be quite achievable and stable. Plus, he'll get the rail up north, and probably Auckland port moved as well. These would all add to his legacy. A legacy for fair play that's already better than John Key mustered.
Reality check eZ, 63% do not want Labour and a whole 94% do not want the Greens.. You can spin the thing anyway you want. You lost the chance to be the biggest party. And remember while Labour need the Greens they will never be wanted by the majority of voters. Unfortunately with MMP if that is what Winston decides then that is what we get.
The only problem with that is Labour has a Leader with no leadership experience trying to lead a Labour mob with a history of insurrection. Couple that with trying to manage the two leaders of Greens (not one leader since they dont believe in meritocracy) and throw in old guard Winston who is the very personification of what the Labour party biffed out of their leadership ranks. I can only see it ending in tears. Plucky little JacInda wasn't so plucky last night so imagine her after 3 years in that scenario,
But that's not a deliberate result, the aim is to treat all effluent. Many cities are also doing more with stormwater runoff, screening plastic etc.
While we're sorting out new affordable housing, we could be using some of that roading equipment building 'roads of national significance' leading towards the next traffic jam area, to redo effluent systems for a higher capacity.
In any case, Winston must have seen the mood for change. Will he join it, or will he put NZ back into the degradation pattern that has been established by National?
[QUOTE=elZorro;685829
I hope Winston will see that only about 30% of eligible voters chose National, the "Not National" vote was bigger than that, and also take note that his policies look a lot like Labour's policies. .[/QUOTE]
I hope Winston will see that only about 24% of eligible voters chose Labour, the "Not Labour" vote was huge, also take not that he loathes James Shaw and the Greens.
You can spin it anyway you like.
Not really. Under an MMP election the party with the highest no. of votes is the winner, although will usually be short of an outright majority therefore requiring a coaltion partner. That is what MMP is designed to acheive. That is not to say the winner has to be part of the coalition, but there would be an uproar if it wasn't, given the second, third and fourth parties are so far behind, and even in total just make the 50%+ mark..
EL Zorro,
Just had a look at the markets... they think you guys are toast. its $1.11 for a National Prime Minister and $10.00 for a Labour one..... :) Game over I think.
Pretty good odds, considering we know how unpredictable Winston is. Will he do a deal with the Nats, just after they leaked details on his super payments, and up until recently wouldn't have been giving him the time of day? Colin James thinks he will be weighing up the options, and since he has gathered up those votes by pointing out what's wrong with National's policies, he's perfectly entitled to help the existing Labour-Green coalition over the line, who by that time (special votes) might be only 2% behind National.
Colin James worked with Winston when he was in the National Party.
Quote:
Colin James Otago Daily Times election extra September 25 2017
English on top but facing a stronger Labour
National operates on the principle that in politics there is only first place because that is where the power is. So assume Bill English is prepared to pay what it takes to get Winston Peters on board.
Peters meanwhile has adopted his habitual sphinx-like position. It may be some time before we know for sure the government makeup. National's 46.0% election night party vote is by any measure extraordinary after three terms and in a proportional system. That means English needs only New Zealand First for a majority. Jacinda Ardern needs a three-way deal. But the win English has been celebrating is qualified. Think of Labour and the Greens as an informal coalition and National's lead drops from 10.2% to 4.3%.
And if the 384,000 specials fall as differently from the election night count as in 2014, when National lost 1.1 percentage points between election night and the final count, that lead could drop to 2%-3%. If things go wrong -- as they did for the most recent fourth term governments, after the 1946 and 1969 elections -- that slim lead could quickly evaporate. And if the government slides and New Zealand First is part of it, its party might drop below 5% next election, as after its two coalition deals in 1996 and 2005.
Moreover, how would Peters, who wants net immigration cut to one-seventh its present level, work with English, whose vaunted GDP growth slips to near zero on a per capita basis, that is with immigration taken out? That is just one problematic area. Better to go with Labour-Greens? If you had to assign New Zealand First conference delegates to National or Labour, most would go Labour. The same majority applies to its policies. But the fact that New Zealand First's support halved after Ardern was made leader might mean its residual supporters are mostly National-leaning.
Whichever way Peters goes -- and one option is to stay out of government and just abstain on confidence and supply motions -- there is a whiff of the British election in June. Labour has climbed far higher than anyone expected just two months back, as British Labour did. The National-to-Labour two-party swing was 9.8% (election night to election night). And, as Theresa May was stripped of her majority, English has been stripped of two of his compliant tiddler parties and the third, ACT, is knackered: even in leader David Seymour's Epsom seat it scored only 565 party votes, behind fifth-placed Opportunities.
Labour is now positioned strongly for the next election, with a bigger caucus and able new MPs. The Greens, the July disaster behind them, should be able to consolidate. Ardern and James Shaw are a very presentable pair. But Labour has work to do on its "base" vote. The only seats where the swing was from Labour to National on the party vote were Mangere and Manukau East and next-door Manurewa's swing to Labour was tiny. In west Auckland the swing was also light. These areas used to be solid Labour. Now Labour looks stronger in seats with concentrations of university students and social liberals, like Wellington Central, Auckland Central, Mt Albert and Dunedin North, which all had swings from National well above the average.
An aside: Labour beat National on the party vote in Nelson, pointing Nick Smith towards the door. The door also beckons for Peters, 72. But first a decision as to who governs. Which might take some time.
Colin James, (64)-21-438 434, PO Box 9494, Marion Square, Wellington 6141, New Zealand ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz, www.ColinJames.co.nz
They are pretty good odds... I have put a bit on Labour now too. At $12 (what they are now) that is just too big. Agree with you that the specials will sway Labours way. Most of the specials will be young voters (those not yet enrolled) and most will go left... But think Nats will get there with Winston, but think the odds should be 1.30, not 1.08
Not sure I would be outraged if more than 50% of the electorate stand behind whatever coalition - which (at current counting) would be the case with Labour / Green / NZF. I guess the other question would be whether they could provide a good and stable government, and this is obviously questionable looking at the involved characters and policies ... however - I would not question their political legitimacy if they try.
The other question is - what is better for NZ? To be honest - I don't know.
I think however that it would be good for Labour if Jacinda has three years in opposition to hone her parties policies and remove all the leftwing dead wood from the ranks. I think she could turn Labour into a reputable and credible opposition party. Better a good opposition leader than burning her now in a chaotic government - Labour has not really a surplus of good leaders and can't really afford to burn out a good leader at this stage.
For National it might be potentially as well better to go into opposition rather than going with the backwards looking flock from Winston First. Our world is full of selfish populistic governments not addressing the real issues (Trump, May) - we don't need more of these idiots in government.
The best option for NZ I could see would be a National Green government - but I doubt that our Greenies have the moral size and the political wisdom to grab this opportunity. They are likely to keep doing nothing for another three years instead of standing up and being counted.
But still - just imagine Bill / James announcing end of this week a coalition agreement with big wins for the environment, good for a stable and growing economy ... and the look on Winston's face would be priceless :t_up:
The big risk for the Greens is they may loose even more relevance. NZ First environmental policy key planks are ensuring there is a balance between economic progress and environmental goals as well as making rivers and lakes swimmable. If progress is made on these goals Greens may just slip under 5% and then never having been in government and with decades of wasted opportunity. Now is their one big chance to secure their legacy.
National and the Greens definitely the best option IMO, the Greens would be on a tight lead after the initial negotiations, unfortunately the Greens are too short sighted and stuck in their ways to allow this to happen.
if I were Winston I'd enter into confridence and supply with National but not Coalition. History and Countries are littered with the debris of Junior Coalition partners. Take Britain and the Liberal Deomocrats....
Besides, NZF doesn't have any MPs of Cabinet rank calibre.
All of the burden?
Last time I checked: NZ has
- a 15% GST - which is paid by everybody, not just wage / salary earners;
- a range of consumption taxes which are paid by everybody (petrol, alcohol, tobacco) which are linked to the consumption of the respective articles, not to wage / salary earning;
- a comprehensive income tax which includes speculators and traders - not just wage / salary earners;
- rates which are paid by property owners, no link to wage / salary;
And you are saying that wage/salary earners carry all of the burden? Open the other eye Sgt. Pepper, your post does not compute.
Whatever tax system is in place it ultimately must come from the wage and salary earners, either directly or indirectly. My own view is to make income taxes low and flat and raise consumption taxes. (Don't punish people for earning - clobber them a bit when they spend it) It's also the best way to raise the dollars from tourists, who currently do get off a bit light. On that point, Act's policy of sharing GST 50% with the local authority who issues building consents sounds simple and sensible.
There has been comment on the demise of the Maori party but I like Colin James comment " Act is Knackered "
National may have to drop Seymour to accomodate NZF
westerly
I agree that for tax to be fair it should be applied as thinly and as evenly as possible. One of the crazy things about Working For Families is that a family with 2 children who earn $52000 pay, in effect no tax at all. Many years ago, on a modest income with 3 young children, I had to pay my share of income tax, mind you that was way prior to WFF.
Oh my goodness... I am agreeing with Fungus!
Might gain though new support from environmentally aware centre / right voters. So far they can only muster voters who are green AND left-wing - and these voters can vote Labour as well (not a lot distinguishing these two parties anyway). Let's face it, the Greenies in their current form are redundant.
Believe it or not, but there are many centre / right voters around who would love to support an environmental party. Just look at Germany how successful the Green Party is over there ..
A green party able to work together with both major parties and with main focus on the environment (instead of on ripping off the welfare system) would have my support (and might get my vote ;)).
As a Green voter i completely agree with you that they should side with National. I vote for them based only on their enviromental policies, and wish they would make this a bigger focus.
However you post above is silly,
15% gst for a poor person is a far greater tax than 15% for someone with substantial wealth. Everyone needs the necessities and they get taxed equally on them. Poor people spend almost all their income on items which are taxed with GST. The same is not so for the wealthy who spend most of their money on investments. So a poor people have a MUCH larger % of their wealth going to GST than wealthy people.
The income tax is fine as is in my opinion but as we should all know on here you can make a lot of money without paying much income tax (Capital gains from property and shares). This untaxed 'income'/wealth accumulation is something that is only acquired by the people who already have significant capital.
Im not advocating anything, but GST in particular is not at all fair in my opinion. I would like to see it removed.
That is most unlikely. Presumably poor people do not own an unencumbered property so will either rent or service a mortgage, and that generally will be their biggest expense - as it should be.
So assuming they pay 50% in accommodation and spend the rest, that will equate to 7.5% of their income.
Silly me i forgot about rent. However my point is still valid, they pay a MUCH higher % of their wealth into GST.
Also 50% on accommodation seems high. But then i don't live in Auckland...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...207&Ref=NZH_Tw
Jacinda lost ...
...and then why Winston will go with National:
Trotter added that in the past Peters has rejected offers to form a government with three parties because he thought it was too many. Peters also has a history of backing the party who had the most votes.
But he still did not think it was enough to go against the "powerful" 46 per cent of people who voted for National.
"Look at who you would be denying if you went with Labour and the Greens assuming you are Winston. Because these just aren't any 46 per cent these are the most powerful people in the country.
"These are the people who owns things, the people who run things, the people who say things and expect people to do things and pretty damn quickly. To take 46 per cent and say sorry were going to ignore you - that's a pretty big thing to do."
Glad we agree on this point :).
It is not ... I was responding to a post saying that wage / salary earners carry all the tax burden. Now - this was a silly post - but I was too polite to call it that way. Why didn't you catch that?
I think what you want to say is that in your view the tax burden is currently not fairly distributed. I would agree with that - though we might have different views on how a fair tax distribution would look like.
Personally I think that the current NZ tax system is a good compromise - but yes, a flat income tax would be much fairer. You might prefer the "let's tax them until they leave" - philosophy". There is no right and wrong, and no silly or not ... just different views.
No need though, to call absolutely sensible posts "silly", just because you feel that some people need to pay more tax than they currently do.
Fair enough BlackPeter. You are right your post clearly argues they don't carry all the burden, my apologies. I retract the 'silly'
Perhaps i am just a sour leftie after the election :p
I don't mind our tax system as it is, but would be heavily in favour of removing GST. I am not an advocate of a flat tax. I believe the details of who gets taxed what should be less about what is 'fair' and more about what is best for the country. I believe this should be based on studies rather than on opinions of fairness, which seem to dominate when it comes to who should be taxed what.
I do agree that tourist are a consideration, and to me are the only saving grace of GST.
I think your proposal has some merit, but i would still favour removing GST. I also would not support a flat tax above $25K even with your system. The extra bit of GST is not going to make up for all the lost income tax. Also based on your proposal people who earn around the average income (~$50K) would take a decent hit if implemented. I don't think that's a good thing.
Currently tax on $50k is $8000 plus. 20% 0n income above 25k is $5000. If they spent every last cent on GST included items (hardly likely) they would be paying an extra $2500, totaling $7500. Still lower than $8000. Doesn't seem like a hit to me. You assume a loss of tax take overall. Don't be so sure about that. There would be a huge lift in the economy - and a huge swing from the black economy to the visible one; not to mention various legal tax avoidance schemes that would lose their appeal.
Noting that rental on a residential dwelling is a GST exempt supply (i.e. no GST on residential rent).
Whilst you say that GST is a regressive tax (proportionally, it taxes those who are on lower incomes as they proportionally spend more) - we also have a progressive income tax regimes that has lower rates of income tax for lower earners and arguably with those on Working For Families, even lower rates again to the extent some families with the Family Tax Credit may have very small net income tax obligations.
On the other hand, GST has merits as a tax as it is relatively cheap to collect (the taxpayer is obligated to pay and file returns) and relatively hard to evade paying as most businesses will charge the GST and remit it in accordance with the law, wealthier people tend to spend more so pay larger amounts of GST per capita, it also collects tax from tourists and other folk who don't declare assessable income but may have wealth. And apart from the aforementioned exempt supply of rental on a residential dwelling, financial services, going concerns and exported goods and services it's taxed at the same rate and has relatively few exemptions. Snapping on exemptions for food, local government rates or exempting some persons offers the opportunity for avoidance and the compliance costs are borne by taxpayers to have systems to keep track.... eg if there was an exemption for GST on basic food - if you are a baker how are you going to apportion the flour on a basic loaf as opposed to banana bread - or on the electricity on the oven baking the bread.... or keep track of the GST exempt and inclusive supplies at the farmers market?
On a tangent, the water tax doesn't pass the sniff test - I see merit in creating some sort of mechanism for polluter pays to clean up our rivers but why should say a Taranaki or Waikato Dairy Farmer who has significant nitrate runoff, does no fencing of waterways and no riparian planting but adequate rainfall not pay water tax whereas a horticulturalist with hydroponics using a semi-closed system and reusing runoff (potentially using aquaponics) be charged to clean up waterways?
I obviously should have gotten that calculator out.
I don't see how the take is not going to be less. Less tax for the lowest earners, less for average earners and obviously less for the highest earners who will benefit the most in dollar terms. Not sure where the extra tax comes from, the extra 5% from tourists wont add up. I realise you just gave an example to support your idea for a tax system and the numbers could be tweaked, but it cannot be a benefit for everyone if the total take is going to be the same.
It could. I think one thing FP is referring to is less tax avoidance. Much harder to avoid GST ... and some of the other constructs just don't provide sufficient return to bother creating them with a flat income tax rate ...
As well - people who currently live for tax reasons in foreign countries might return to a tax friendlier NZ - and start to contribute to our taxe take.
But I guess you are right - people avoiding tax now might pay a bit more - and I could live with that ;).
I don't think we disagree on any of the points you or i have mentioned.
I think most would agree that having a simple tax system is good. The system here in NZ is much simpler than many overseas countries who implement the exemption system you mentioned. If we are going to have GST i think the flat rate is much better, i believe this is what you support as well?
I voted Green and even i am not that supportive of the water tax. It is promoted as polluter pays but targets water users in general, not polluters as you have said. Crop farmers in Canterbury use a fair bit of water but certainly wont be contributing to the detriment of the waterways the same as diary. I would rather a focus on improving the water quality through enforcement of policy and regulations, i don't think this needs to be paid for exclusively by NZ farmers who irrigate and would rather they just got it done rather than looking for a specific section of the community to pay the bill.
The total tax take may well go up. If you are familiar with Laffer the economist, have a look at the Laffer curve. Its basic premise is that at 0% tax the govt gets nothing - which is exacltly what they would get if the tax rate was 100%. (Nobody would do anything or if they did they wouldn't charge for it. The whole economy would be under the table, or untraced bata) In simple terms raising taxes may lower the tax take - and as happened in NZ after Muldoon's 66% - lowering taxes increased the tax take. So it all depends where we sit on the Laffer curve.
I remember in the old days whilst working in the shearing gangs and the Shearer's tax was 50%. Quite a few back then used to use a different name and IRD number at every farm they went to as you had to fill out a new tax form for each farm. If the tax rate had have been more reasonable , they wouldn't have bothered using those measures at the time.
The Laffer curve is fairly intuitive, the problem is what is the ideal rate for maximum tax returns?
Did Laffer support a flat tax? I would be surprised if he did. I imagine the Laffer curve could look quite different depending on the earnings of the population you are considering. Tax brackets allow you to find the correct point on the Laffer curve for each earning bracket, thereby maximising your returns. Whereas a single income tax rate (flat tax) would be much less efficient at tax collecting.
I had a bit of a read and assuming a flat tax rate is in place it seems the ideal tax rate is around 70% if you subscribe to Laffers theory. Ouch! We are well off the ideal rate if we are aiming to maximise the tax collected by the government.
Perhaps i should write Bill a letter suggesting a shake-up to income tax, to be conservative i could suggest a 60% flat tax :t_up:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...rCurve.svg.png
Edit - After a bit more reading the highest point on the Laffer curve may warp the economy somewhat, hard to know as no one has pushed it quite that far. Norway however isn't far off. Income tax up to 55% and corporate tax up to 78%!
EZ and JT - that Crosby guy is great eh
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...l-the-election
Laffer Curve.... anyone, anyone...Voodoo Economics...
https://youtu.be/uhiCFdWeQfA
I haven't seen a single source that suggested anything below 45% was ideal, and i have browsed few. Where did you get this moat model from?
22% seems pretty unrealistic. Most countries are quite a bit higher than that. Surely if the ideal rate was that low governments would have cottoned on by now and lowered tax rates, not only would they gather more tax, people would like them better too.
All the sources i read through seemed to suggest most countries were safely on the low tax side of Laffers curve
Sorry - most models. Not moat. Some countries that have introduced low flat taxes have benefitted enormously. There have been many experiments showing where the black economy kicks in (around 22%). It's rife in NZ and without much difficulty you will find a serviceman or tradesman in most fields who will discount for payment in foldies. (cash without receipt) The IRD are well aware of it. The biggest problem in introducing low flat taxes is the envy that kicks in.
This book, I first read maybe 25 years ago remains one of the most interesting book on economics I have ever read. Author Jude Wanniski
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...he_World_Works
Lovely people some of those on the left.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/972...peech-graffiti
When will your edition of
" What Happened " appear ???
Greens are munted big time - completely lost their way and directionless.
In a LAB / NZF / GRN coalition they will have little if any say. Best for them long term is probably stay outside such a coalition and just agree to vote yes on confidence things. That way they won't get tainted when the inevitable wipe out occurs in 2020.
If I was in charge of the Greens I'd sell my soul. Sack Shaw now and admit to the members we've stuffed up big time and that we'll go back to green roots etc etc ......and then prostitute ourselves to National to form a government ......and not even demand too much.
Best long term plan methinks. This way come 2020 NZF will probably be a goner or at worst no stronger and so possibly be the 3rd biggest party anyway. It gives the Greens three years to consolidate and get their house in order and could be more 'demanding' in 2020.
Sometimes you need to sell your soul to survive - and the Nats would go along with this as getting Winston onside is unlikely (seeing they've stuffed it up already) or unbearable.
Win win for NAT and Greens - easy easy
(Who really runs the Green Party?)
Considering most of their support base is left leaning i think it would be suicide to join national and then just tag along without pushing hard for environmental policy. I do agree that they should focus on the environment more though, and get themselves in a position where they could be the new kingmaker. At the moment they only get in if Labour has enough votes to govern with the help of the Greens but not enough to govern alone... a pretty small window and definitely not ideal!
Pretty nasty thing to do, dont care about the road tagging but to tag someones front gate, especially with loaded words is really threatening. Taggers are generally young, and the young generally favour the left. Also young Nats 'won' so don't have a reason to tag. If Labour win in 2020 i am sure you will be unbiased and post articles showing Nats being sore losers too :p
I don't think the Greens would need to sell their soul to go together with National. Actually, I don't think they can sell their soul given that they lost it a long time ago. Wouldn't it be fraud to sell something you don't have?
However - a coalition with National could help them to find their soul again - which should be to focus on the protection of the environment instead of being just another "me too" hard left whinge party ....
Who is running the Green party? The folks who used to run the "values" party and the "Alliance" - hard line leftists who took over the Green name as a cloak to cover up their real sinister and unwanted political ideas.
Who runs the Green party..partly the membership..they have to have a certain percentage of members rather than just their MPs to agree on most arrangements including coalitions...what they didn't realise with regard that is some of those key members are not entirely green in agenda so they are a little stuffed :-) Fun to be a double agent within a party...
Your not going to sleep well thinking they are an option regardless...
Sorry folks, but WP is not going with National.
Actually have a look at the electorate party stats - the party membership might be hard left but mostly lower SES electorates simply don’t vote Green they vote Team Red.
The actual electorate Green Party Vote is strongest in places like Auckland Central, Northcote, North Shore and even Epsom - you could read that the MT backlash hurt them where their votes actually come from the hardest.
It’s a paradox where the party membership is so markedly different from their vote base. Something that a number of commentators have observed
Craic, what do you base that on? You are a betting man and pretty savvy internet wise... betfair.com says 1.20 that he goes with Nats, 6.00 for Labour to provide the next PM. So if you are really convinced... plenty of money to be made :) I managed to get some on Labour yesterday at $14.00 and $12.00 and then the market woke up.
Good points - if enough moderately thinking people would join the Greenies, than maybe we could steer the party into a direction most of their voters want to see them go. Brush the left whinging party establishment out of the door and lets turn the Green Party back towards its core values ...
BC, I might join you - sounds like fun!