Sir John did a deal with the maori party despite not needing them.
lots of taxpayer money funnelled into second-tier whanau ora schemes and charter schools.
Printable View
Sir John did a deal with the maori party despite not needing them.
lots of taxpayer money funnelled into second-tier whanau ora schemes and charter schools.
I don't always agree with Balance. However, in a democracy, the government should continuously be held to account for its actions and for its delivery of its platform promises.
For example, will it kick the can down the street again in relation to housing as it has already on a capital gains tax? To make itself electable it has basically become a National Party Lite
You are making a lot of assumptions there. Anyway, it always makes me chuckle when a poster makes a post suggesting that other posters should be doing something else!Quote:
It is a glorious day - go take the dog for a walk, dig your veggie garden, water some flowers. Or maybe even surprise Mrs Balance with an afternoon bonk.
You will feel better, whichever option you choose. I promise.
I watched Sunday on TV One last night. One of the items covered was the $11miilion to the Green School. During the interview with the owners they were asked if they had met directly with Minister Shaw. Not directly, they disclosed, but via a Zoom video . I have issues with this. It is not, in my opinion, right ( or wise )that such direct lobbying occur which results in taxpayers money being dispersed.
He should not be a minister
I agree with you Sgt Pepper. I was quite shocked to hear about that on Sunday. In fact I think the whole thing is a fiasco and no Government money should be put forward for something that is simply an idea from wealthy greenies that have zero experience in running an education facility. Meanwhile the primary schools in the wider area have unsuitable buildings to work in.
Very smart move in my opinion for both Labour and the Greens. You can get a lot more done to advance your policies if you are a Minister rather than being in opposition. It would be a shame to waste James Shaw’s knowledge and experience. Politics is about negotiation and compromise. Seems to me that labelling it hypocrisy is based on who the parties are not on actually doing a deal. Your bias is showing.
Probably a few more people will start thinking like this person who made this comment about the above article:
… I’ve changed my mind, we need a capital gains tax. Urgently. It makes no sense that us income earners will pay high tax so the government can buy houses for those who can’t afford them while the so called investors, with many houses, who are largely causing the problem, don’t pay any tax on their profits.
Momentum starting to build in getting CGT back on the agenda.
Somebody has got to people like Dominic Steven's from Westpac whose back touting it - even though the Bank prob not on favour.
Even the PM seems to be changing her minds
I wouldn't panic this guy may have a point.
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world...?ocid=msedgntp
Yapping on about diversity and liberalism while doing nothing of any real substance is most likely.
I reckon labour won because they went one further than National. No capital gains tax, won't touch your nz super AND we will protect the oldies from co-vid (which National were a bit vague on)
I reckon a Jacinda govt will be very similar to a John Key govt very popular because they won't rock any boats.
Labour and National are only distinguishable under a magnifying glass.
There will come a time - in ten or fifteen years perhaps at current rate - when a point of inflection will be reached. When 50% of voters will have been priced out of home ownership or even the prospect of it. When electoral self-interest will mean that a general CGT will have to be introduced to broaden the tax base. Perhaps one that includes the family home in some deferred way too. The Coronavirus response by the RBNZ may have hastened the onset of that point of inflection. If you include those who have been priced out of upsizing/upgrading their exisiting homes, 50% of voters may have been priced out of the current market already.
Twenty years of inaction has led to a 'toxic' NZ housing market
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opi...housing-market
Contributory issues, but Labour won so convincingly because of the Jacinda/covid effect.Quote:
I reckon labour won because they went one further than National. No capital gains tax, won't touch your nz super AND we will protect the oldies from co-vid (which National were a bit vague on)
Switched post to the Labour Government 2020-23 thread.
We might be in the minority Tim but there’s no disputing that the current government really do need to deliver in this term. There’s no escaping that they know they have failed to deliver in the first term. The pressure is on all fronts to deliver on the promises. There’s no certainty that they will, governments come and go, while the administration does its best. Which sadly is rarely enough, as the promises are too large to be implemented in a term of government.
And baabaas failed to deliver is a trumpism; wrong ,ignorant and gormless, false, dumb. What perfect planet is he living on, Uranus?
NZ super fund alone returned $11b over this and last term of govt plus $25b over National. All of that was really due to Labour too since Nats contributed $0.
But they sold assets worth billions leaving our kids with power companies in the ownership of Blackrock Funds Management.
Plus overseas ownership of land through the roof under sir john key. Let's never go back to an unproven and wishful set of policies for NZ.
50% result in FPP for Jacinda. Everyones a labourite now :)
Here's the proof I would say.
https://imgur.com/a/FqFEbzM
Yep strong economy and no debt (NZ super fund net worth and the silver that has not been sold off yet means no net debt). Soon we'll have more assets than debt.
Michael Cullen was the best finance minister we have ever had and grant roberston will continue his legacy. :)
Got a better idea? It was National who dropped tax to 33% then embarked on a borrowing spree to pay for stuff "oh, whoops, we'll balance the books next year, promise". Naive to think National wouldn't have borrowed as a response to covid either initially or eventually. As I recall their main plan was simply to open the borders. Smart.
The sweden approach was purshed for if I recall -- we should have gone for the herd immunity experience.
We should have subsidies for businesses with one employee or more regardless of need.
While Jacinda said let's not to both ideas and we're all better off for it.
What planet are you on ? NZ as a country is on track to increase debt by around 28% this year, all of it household and Government with minuscule amounts for corporates.
NZ Superfund is there for future liabilities, not for current out of control expenditure.
No debt ! Another Tui please
Bond holders are paying NZ in real terms because it's so safe. 0.5% months ago v 3% under National.
The increase value of the power companies and increased super fund gains are massive on the other hand. The balance sheet position may be better post-corona than pre-corona.
Remarkable achievement, thanks labour.
Seems some people here don't want to hear that we are doing relatively well compared to other, comparable, countries.
It doesn't fit the narrative that Labour will destroy the country.
OMG. Here is Treaury's forecast for you but don't let their facts stand in your way:
Attachment 12150
Yes, basically constrain the spending as much as possible. Two ideas that immediately spring to mind:
1. Better design of the wage subsidy. This has turned into a fiasco, with calls for it to be repaid voluntarily, so it obviously wasn't designed well in the first place.
2. Don't increase the minimum wage during a lockdown, especially when the tax payer is footing 90% of the wage bill for a huge proportion of the population.
That's many more ways.
I'm trying to understand the relevance of this statement. Are you saying that if the top tax rate had been kept at 39% we wouldn't have had to borrow?
Yes, it would be. I haven't seen any arguments on this forum stating that the government shouldn't have borrowed.
Your recall is inaccurate.
We need to spend more given debt costs are so low. hundred year lows.
I think pretty much every country has been more generous than us. Australia doubled their welfare across the board for six months as well as provided a more generous wage subsidy. So we have recieved great value for money.
Find me a country which has done better, you can't.
Why is this thread still running - there is no Labour/NZ First Govt anymore
No, we need to kick start the economy, but be careful of amounting vast sums of debt that successive generations will need to repay. Just because interest rates are currently low, does not mean that we should borrow asd much as possible. That would be irresponsible for any government.
That's not a logical argument though. Even if the premise is true (I haven't checked), it does not mean that we received great value for money, and it still does not invalidate argument around the wider issue of inefficient spending and burgeoning debt. Treasury has indicated a combination of higher taxes and lower public services will be required to balance the budget as best we can. The massive spending and borrowing has created a significant long-term problem, as would be expected.
Why? Debt can be both inflated away and grown out of in real terms. If you have inflation at 2% and real gdp at 3% then the impact of debt goes down by 5%. It's how Cullen halved debt during his time without any spending cuts but spending increases (which increase growth).
Austerity cuts reduce economic growth and inflation which increases NZ's debt to gdp.
Wow, I was under the impression Panda-NZ was a caring left leaning type. Proposing the use inflation to take care of government debt is pretty heartless as we know it is the most vulnerable worst affected by inflation. To quote David Carey in a 1989 paper for the NZ reserve bank. Interesting that in 1990 they introduced targeted inflation. Tax/theft but not too much.
The inflation and tax system interaction also produces some arbitrary and unlegislated redistributions of wealth. Even when inflation is fully anticipated, groups in society which need to hold financial assets rather than real assets are disadvantaged; the elderly and first-home buyers fall into this category. When a previously unanticipated inflation is acknowledged and is thereafter expected to persist, real asset prices change and produce windfall gains for those whose portfolios happen to be more suitable in the new environment. Because the poor and unsophisticated members of society tend to be slower to appreciate the significance of the changes taking place, the emergence of a previously unanticipated but sustained inflation, such as New Zealand experienced in the 1970s and 1980s, is likely to interact with the tax system to make the distribution of wealth more unequal.
Fiscal drag and the non-indexation of some government benefit payments also causes unlegislated redistributions of wealth.
There are two main ways in which the economic distortions and wealth redistributions which result from the interaction and the nominal income tax system can be avoided. First, the income tax system could be converted to a real base, or secondly, government could ensure that there is no inflation. There may, however, be considerable administrative difficulties associated with converting the income tax system to a real base. If these difficulties are insurmountable, the main option left for avoiding the economic distortions and wealth redistributions caused by inflation is not to have inflation. This course is the one which has been pursued by Government
For the full paper as I have just got the bit that suits my argument.
https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/-/media/Res...7-1fe24e890678
Also FYI
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1...ation-and-tax/
Inflation is preferable because those that can buy a house can protect themselves to some degree from this tax while the poor and vulnerable pay the biggest price. It is the NZ way very much like not taxing capital gains. Lucky we have a Labour government looking out for the poor and vulnerable. (That last line is sarcasm.)
I would suggest if the ECB and JCB are printing billions in currency to buy them, to keep yields low then, yes.
I think the JCB is also buying corporate bonds and ETFs (to support the stock market). I think the JCB owns 8% of the Nikkei.
Do you think current interest rates reflect a good return for the risk being taken on?
Admittedly a country that prints its own currency can never go broke but the currency your bonds are printed in can devalue (or get inflated away). Why would central banks be buying government bonds? or another way why aren't investors buying government bonds instead. Perhaps the price of the bonds are not right set.
People are getting pushed out the risk curve to get yield but people in cash are losing badly when compared to the housing market and the stock market. Leverage will be amplifying those gains. The inflation deflation argument. Currently inflation is winning hands down. Ray Dalio goes so far as to say cash is dangerous and it has been for 2020 except for that brief moment in March when the stockmarket dropped and economists were predicting a 10% drop in house prices due to lockdowns.
I have no leverage and some cash so have missed the boat in 2020. It is possible that there will be a crash or deflation but this seems unlikely as in the housing market at least we have rampant inflation, if it is a frenzy then it may just be getting started and it will be well supported by monetary policy that now requires inflation to manage debt levels. Frustrating as I am still fighting the central banks and getting upset when I should just go with the flow and borrow what ever I can to buy another house.
I might be heading off track, so to bring it back, anything Labour say about their concerns for first home buyers is empty rhetoric unless they intend to address targeted inflation and monetary policy but from what I read we are too far down the rabbit hole to change now so I would suggest investing in whatever will do well in an inflationary environment.
disclaimer: following my advice can be dangerous to your financial health.
You need to be reasonably wealthy and well-paid to even get the deposit and leverage necessary to enter the real estate market. So many people are excluded from sharing in all those leveraged capital gains. Labour's core support used to be from those who were not so wealthy. However I agree that the current after tax yield curve, has meant that those who are able to invest in assets, whose returns are mostly in the form of capital gains, are the beneficiaries of current policy and the system.
The article at the below link is worth a glance - The benefits of rising wages and lower interest rates on mortgage payments for first home buyers have been more than wiped out by rising house prices.
Can't argue with that, but check out the tables in the article. They set out deposit required at 10% or 20% for typical first home buyers and prices in the lower quartile. Including years needed to save the deposit, and repayments as % of after tax pay.
The years to save are not zero, obviously, but are surprisingly realistic except perhaps for Queenstown and Auckland. Even then those locations are under 5 years to save 10% deposit, not that onerous if these households are determined and focused.
https://www.interest.co.nz/property/...st-home-buyers
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/124...of-mine-tunnel
Andy (The Scruff's) pet project - wasn't it ? ;)
Peters liked the idea too ..