Of course the reason always given for lower tax is to free up money for investment. Maybe in China not NZ We buy things.
westerly
Printable View
OK, still flat out, but as this is the closest I've got to spending time on here I'll give you a quick reply.
Right what do you want to know? Is it some facts or all facts that you disagree with? I will sort out your last paragraph first you said But EZ you also said
1/8 = $10 Billion dollars, you said it now you say you didn't, what part of that are you having a problem understanding that? For once you are correct. That been sorted. As I've been and still are very busy today and did not have time to individually find all the relevant information I quoted in my post this morning, I just used my Google tool and Oh là là, it was mostly all there with in a couple of links and they were/
Public debt climbs by $27m a day
Labour cops debt blame
Looks like a was wrong about the 18 billion dollar rebuild figure, sorry about that EZ, this NZ Herald link states that is is actually $40 billion.
Christchurch earthquake bill goes up $10 billion
Now, I have back up everything I said this morning which I understand is not a good look for you considering what you said about me. Let me tell you I'm not in the habit of telling pork pies and only quote from written facts. May I suggest you start doing the same. Appoligy not needed as you will no doubt argue until the cows come home. Just look back at your 7/8th statement which 1/8 equals 10 billion dollars of debt passed on by Labour EZ. You have to be careful when being cagey because when you dodge facts you need to remember what you have said. You said it and forgot in one day.
Anyway, take your time with your next post, think back to your propaganda quotes and be more careful in the future, because I wont let you get away with it. Consider yourself caught.
When National took control of the Beehive in 2008, debt was just over $10b, but Finance Minister Bill English said it inherited an expanding public sector at a time when the economy was shrinking. That was from this link before you start saying there was no debt again.
Labour debt 10 Billion.
Here too in the NZ Herald -Interest costs $3.6 billion a year and we still borrow $75 million a week, THANKS LABOUR.
Cuzzie, here is your post that I took exception to.
By the time Labour left office in 2008, the Crown Debt was $10bill, and Crown net worth was over $100bill. Labour had spent a lot of its terms being prudent with a buoyant economy, one which they helped to grow. They had paid back a lot of core debt they'd inherited from previous governments. Like someone paying off a house quickly, they improved the country's net worth a lot.Quote:
Working on your figures alone EZ, that means at least 10 billion or 7/8 of that debt was from Labour, that's something you have previously totally denied. Thanks for finally owning up to the fact Labour left us in debt. Only last week when we debated this you called me a liar, now you confirm Labours debt. Own goal right there - again - & now we know who was indeed the liar.
So now when you see a debt of over $70bill the country has to pay back, and a lower net worth, there is no doubt that National presided over that situation. All these pretend excuses about how Labour left a lot of expensive policies in place - they became more expensive when National chose to have higher unemployment (thereby clamping wages) and to drop the higher tax rates, and company tax.
I didn't ask for that, those that finance the National Party pushed it through. Take out the earthquakes, even the GFC, and it won't explain this slow recovery, and the lower than expected tax take. National policies mean that we're still some way from a budget surplus, even though the dairy payout is at a peak.
In any case, even if Labour did rack up a bill of $10bill (which they didn't), it's still only a small fraction (not even 1/8th) of the latest debt mountain. Have you ever seen National producing graphs of this debt, or the crown net worth over a few years? No, they have it tucked away on the Treasury website.
In any case, this debt should be of concern to the average NZer. But not to the high-fliers, because the new government debt is no concern of theirs. They have plenty of cash to buy whatever they want.
EZ, they did rack up a $10 Billion bill, you know it & you have just said it earlier, I know it, Cullen knows it as does the whole world. Add the $40 Billion bill for the Christchurch Earthquake and there is 50 Billion before you even blink. The only positive is Labour was voted out and National steered us through the financial crisis. Imagine, just imagine if Labour was in power then.
Going back to the School debacle, somebody mentioned prefabs as new classrooms for the twenty plus new teachers per school. It doesn't matter if it is a flash new classroom block or cheap & nasty prefabs, there are size restrictions for inclosed space for every school and all of those restrictions would have to be lifted. My kids have gone to two different high schools and the same intermediate & primary schools and all but one of those schools could not house one extra building let alone twenty plus. New schools would need to be built and in congested areas like Auckland where land for a new School is simply a no-goer that just can't happen.
Here's where you are wrong, yet again Cuzzie. How could Labour possibly run up a $10bill debt when they repaid far more than that. Muldoon left the place in a bit of a mess, but since about 1990 better economic times and some careful work (yes, even sometimes by previous National govts) meant that the govt core debt was reducing. Here's the picture. Labour did an impressive job, just about repaying all that was left. So it is certainly factually incorrect to say that they did 'rack up a bill' in their last three terms.
You say that the earthquakes since then were expensive, but I thought a lot of that was being repaid with insurance, over time. As this article shows, you are absolutely correct that $40bill is about the total cost for the ChCh rebuild, but of that, only about $15bill is a net cost to the crown.
So you still have some way to go to figure out why the core crown debt spiralled upwards from about $10bill, to $70bill, under National's current reign. Even though they were selling off state assets whenever they could.
EZ, did you miss this in the NZ Herald link I gave you where it stated, "National took over the Treasury benches in 2008 when net debt was just $10 billion." Maybe you should contact the Herald and tell them they are wrong and you are right. You can not wipe 10 Billion dollars of Labour debt by just hitting your keyboard. With all the other factors that you aren't complaining about, National was left in very trying times by Labour and the financial crisis and due to those factors, interest alone is calculated at $27 million per day every day. Six years of that or 2190 days times 27 million equals 59 Billion in Interest alone. Take away Labours debt and the reason we are in this mess in the first place and forget about Christchurch and you see just how well National has been doing. I know what your answer will be next - the 27 mil a day in interest is wrong. Get a hold of stuff.co.nz and tell them they are wrong. Yep in your mind everyone is wrong. That would be right too if your into propaganda as much as you EZ.
Cuzzie, you meant to say "you're". FP must have missed this one. And you're still wrong. You quoted some facts and then extrapolated wildly into pub talk.Quote:
Cuzzie:That would be right too if your into propaganda as much as you EZ.
Labour Good, National Bad.