The billion dollar a month surplus
January 27th, 2006 at 1:41 pm by David FarrarGood God. We are so over taxed that the current Government surplus is now greater than $1 billion a month. So far we have chalked up $6 billion in just five months.
On a per family basis, this level of over-taxation is getting close to $1,000 a month. Think what a difference even half of that would make to the average family. It would be a massive boost to living standards.
Cullen is going to have to work very hard to blow all of the surplus by 2008.
No tag for this post.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Come on Cully, YOU CAN DO IT!
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Come on Cully, YOU CAN DO IT!
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
I’m sure middle income families with children will enjoy their WFF tax cut….
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
WFF benefit, it is a transfer payment not a tax cut, stop being so deceitful johnie
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Ah, you mean it’s an affordable, targetted tax cut, rather than a bribe for the well off?
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
No, it is a transfer payment. It is a benefit. Why dont you refer to it as a bribe to the poor? (Or at least, a bribe to the new-poor.)
If you sue ACC and get a court ordered pay out, does that count as a tax cut too in your book?
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Kimble, don’t worry about it. Foreign aid payments to Hamas and Mugabe become ‘defense expenditure.’ Welfare is ‘tax relief.’ Pork barrelling is ‘targeted’ expenditure. And of course, not one penny of Gummint expenditure is inflationary, until Labour gets into opposition. The only good thing about this lamentable lot is that it doesn’t include Galloway, or does it? He might turn up on a plane here with no papers and claim refugee status. He could make a much better case than our Algerian friend. Isn’t there an arrest warrant out for him in the US for perjuring himself to a Senate Committee of Enquiry? He might well want to get out of the UK before the SFO gets him. Do you think the Zaouiphiles will die in the ditch for the Dork from Dundee?
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Johnie, could you define well off please? Not sure that giving the money back to those who actually earnt it could be considered a bribe. No a bribe is something like no interest on student loans.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
“not one penny of Gummint expenditure is inflationary, until Labour gets into opposition”
tsk tsk adolf, when Labour regains the opposition seats, spending CUTS will be lamented as inflationary.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Go on guys….READ the article….go on I dare you. And come back and tell me where the extra $1.4b surplus has come from. Here is a clue:
One off sale from Meridian…$600m.
Higher than predicted Super Fund returns….$400m
Delayed govt expenditure…..$200m
And higher than predicited tax income….????
Go on. You can do it. Tell us what it actually is.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Overtaxed? You do realise that government taxation revenue is 0.8% of GDP lower than it was under National?
Compare the 1999 BEFU and 2005 December HYEFU figures if you don’t believe me.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Keep the Surplus Dr Cullen, We don’t know when we may need it.
Vote:It’s only pure greed that is driving most her to want tax cuts.
We are getting the help for families package, Student Loan Package, and other services.
keep up the good work
January 27th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Yeah – greed. I repayed my student loan. I can’t have any children. Is it really wrong for me to long for the $40,000.00 each year that is taken from me to be either spent for the benefit of everyone, or returned to me?
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
A mess of his own making, that is a ridiculous surplus.
.
.
Vote:It should have been drip fed back into the economy in the form of tax cuts each year for the last 3.
IMHO the surplus should be around 3-4 Billion Per Annum, enough to cover any issues, but not enough to encourage wasteful spending.
I think it’s time for an experiment, drop taxes across the board 5% ( excluding GST ) and prove that it won’t increase inflation, though I fear it would push the dollar even higher as more money is spend on imports
I think this is ample proof that you are better to let the market / people decide what to do with their money, the theories on it’ll push house prices up, exchange rate up etc, whilst probable, are manageable in small doses and all it’s done now is distort the heck out of things & tempt Labout into more Micro mgmt of the economy with directed this & that
January 27th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
So Cadmus, how little money each year can I earn without some pretentious tosser on supposed higher moral ground calling me greedy?
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
I don’t have the figures in front of me, but I remember reading something recently on an OECD ranking in terms of Tax take as a % of GDP, and NZ was surprisingly low. Not US level low, but lower than Aus, UK, Canada etc etc.
Doesn’t that contradict this?
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Logix – you missed one category:
tax income higher than it needs to be: 4.2 billion
That wasnt a 1.4 billion surplus, it was a 1.4 billion MORE THAN EXPECTED surplus.
As you said RTFA
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
David, it’s not about how much you earn, it’s about how much you care for your fellow man. You could earn a dollar and you would still be greedy, and that’s because you have an ugly soul.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Sorry Mark – I believe the study you were referring to was centered on INCOME TAX, not tax.
The studies on total tax take show us to be way up there because of the effects of GST and all the levies / surcharges we pay.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
OK seeing as how none of you can spit it out I’ll do it for you:
Tax revenue was $100m higher-than-forecast,
With the $NZ overvalued and likely to fall, with interest rates and housing fuelled inflation delicately balanced, the employment market likely to soften, oil prices continuing to rise, there are many factors pushing the economy into a flat spot. Maybe even a recesssion.
If you knew that you were about to get hit with a layoff, or an accident or illness that will hit your family income, would you not be working very hard to ensure your debt was minimised while you could, and you had a tidy surplus of income over expenditure?
Treasury is currently forecasting the operating balance will peak in April at $6.1 billion, before falling to a surplus of $5.6 billion in June.
Actually you righties just make non-stop fools of yourselves. One moment you slag Cullen for spending too much, the next you slag him for saving too much and thereby having a surplus.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Hmmm – Cadmus, unfortunatly it is not the greed of money that is driving me to want positive behaviour reinforcers like tax cuts, but at least partially a desire to see people encouraged to do the right thing.
Your beloved student loans “benefit” is exactly the case in point. With the student loan being the first real loan in most peoples lives what are we doing:
Showing someone that not only is debt is something that you should delay paying for as long as possible; but that it actually makes economic sense to borrow as much as possible AND try to repay as little possible. This for a country that already has an atrotious history of negative savings.
This is the main problem with virtually all of Labours over-taxing redistributions, and even the Cullen fund. They do 2 ultimately destructive things:
Modify peoples BEHAVIOUR towards dependency
And involuntarily increase peoples dependency
Analyse their policies to this end and you will see the issues we have. If you cant analyse the policies this deeply realise that although everybody should have the RIGHT to vote, not everybody SHOULD.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
iiggy,
Here are the relevant Treasury documents re Govt expenditure:
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/pubs/bmb/budgets/1999/befu2.pdf
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/forecasts/hyefu/2005/hyefu05-2.pdf
How about you have a read of them and get back to us with some analysis on how your “study” lines up these source documents.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
I think Cullen can blow off the surplus by 2008, quite easily.
Vote:1- He’ll stuff up the economy- it is tanking already- and unemployment is set to increase by a third by 2010, according to the reports in today’s Herald.
2- Government spending will spiral ever upwards. There will always be new bribes, I mean areas of targeted assistance.
3- He’ll do it just to spite National!
January 27th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Logix – Interesting that you actually need an explicit response on the number, and cant read from the number you missed that some of us worked it out.
And again – you’re still not listening, we’ve always been complaining that he is TAKING TOO MUCH in the first place. The fact that he is spending too much is then a corrolary to the first point.
Yes you are right – he should be reducing debt…
Vote:However your analogy has one other problem – if I knew of impending layoff / accident the last thing I would be doing is selling every asset I own and tucking the money under the bed.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
Greed is good! It makes me better off and puts Cadmus’s nose out of joint….what other defence does it need?
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Idiot, who ever said that the Governments tax take should be a certain proportion of GDP?
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Darren, I see you’re bringing your powerful journalistic intellect to the debate, guess we better all watch out now. Why don’t you go work for Don Brash, he could do with another bright-young-thing… actually whatever happened to Brian Sinclair?
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
In fact, Idiot, because government SPENDING is part of the GDP calculations the increase in tax revenue (and only a true idiot would try and argue that THAT has decreased) is largely offset.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
“You could earn a dollar and you would still be greedy, and that’s because you have an ugly soul.”
What the hell is this crap? This is leftist polictical dicussion is it?
Jesus David your open door for assholes policy is really paying off isn’t it.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Sorry Logix was your point with the treasury docs to show that:
1997 Taxation revenue 32,982
2006 Taxation revenue 49,556
Or was there another point?
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
kimble,
Idiot, who ever said that the Governments tax take should be a certain proportion of GDP?
Why shouldn’t it be? Is there ANY other meaningful benchmark that you can propose?
Arguing that it should remain constant in real dollars would be defeated by the simple fact that as GDP grows, demands for govt services and associated costs (esp wages) tend to increase.
If you really want govt to significantly change it’s spending then the onus is on you to detail exactly WHAT changes you have in mind. The three big areas are:
1. Health.
2. Education
3. Social Welfare (incl Super)
If you want to make any meaningful change, you have to do it to these three items. Anything else is fiddling at the margins. So be a brave boy and tell us where you think Cullen has been wasting billions of dollars on THESE items, and what you would CUT to restore your wallet’s sense of outrage.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
iggy
Yeah and in 1875 it was probably about five pounds….what was your point again?
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Bad, bad dog Murray!
Vote:Play the ball not the man – only the left normally resorts to that kind of BS cos they know they dont have an actual argument over the issue…
January 27th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
“What the hell is this crap? This is leftist polictical dicussion is it?”
No, it should all be right wing political discussion.
And what’s the big problem with running a surplus? Speaking personally, I wouldn’t mind if the government ran a surplus for a bit and paid off some of the government debt.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Cullen’s aim must be to bankrupt the middle class. There seems no other plausible explanation. Him and keep-raising-the-interest-rates Bollard, are doing a great job of it so far.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
The problem Mark is running a surplus and NOT paying off govt debt;
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
iggy,
Simple calculation.
Inflation averaging 2.7% over the last 7 years compounds to about 20%.
$33b *1.2 = $40b
ie at least 50% of the increase in total tax take is accounted for by simple inflation.
Now the argument comes down to:
1. The merits of having maintained govt spending constant at a fixed base level in 199 dollars.
2. Or the merits of having maintained govt spending constant as a proportion of GDP.
That is an argument that revolves around specific expenditure items. It is not good enough to make sweeping generalisations. If you want the govt to spend less, you have to identify the specific items you want to cut and justify the case.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
The point Logix is that we havent been running at 4.2% inflation for the past 10 years – so why do we need to keep increasing taxation at this rate?
More to the point it was you who posted the trasury articles – I was trying to find out why or if it was just to try and do the same as earlier –> point to the article saying it proves my point while completely misinterpreting it?
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Using your earlier list of items:
1. Health.
2. Education
3. Social Welfare (incl Super)
I would cut:
1. Health.
2. Education
3. Social Welfare (incl Super)
Health could be provided both cheaper and more effectively through private systems / channels.
OK – Im cheating on education cos its the student loan bribes etc that Im cutting
DPB is gone – this is a liability on the father. If the mother is unable / unwilling to name the father then that is not the communities RESPONSIBILITY to fund. Note that this doesnt mean that its not the communities responsibility to look after the childs interests but in this instance that is rarely going to be leaving with a solo dependent mother…
Unemployment benefit is dependent on compulsory community service. Those communities in most need of assistance suddenly, magically get it from within. Unemployable people are moved to a training benefit – what people can use a benefit to train themselves on is only optional for 36mths. Then it is the state that decides cos they’re choosing the wrong things.
Super is decreased for future generations (not an immediate cut), but matched with tax cuts for retirement savings (these are only taxed on liquidation of the savings)
That will be the start…
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
We then remove the accomodation supplement and state housing.
Either we are paying people enough to live off or we are not, state housing is a poor excuse for ghetto creation and the subsidization of bad habits.
It is wrong to reward those that are systematically dependant with cheap housing while those who are genuinally trying to escape the system will never get it.
It is also wrong for most New Zealanders to (EG) subsidize 50 households to live around paratai drive when we cannot afford to live there ourselves.
(Sorry seperate rant – should save this one and ensuing discussion for another day?)
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
All you did was quote two numbers, one in 1999 dollars and one in 2006 dollars. As you well know comparing two dollar numbers over a period of years is meaningless unless you specify the basis for comparison.
As I said before there are two possible valid methods we could use.
One is to notionally fix for all time that the govt expenditure was perfect and that for all years into the future the future govts shall target that number . In this case your benchmark is some fixed date in history adjusted for inflation.
OR
The other is to argue that govt is a very complex and significant part of the economy and that it is reasonable to argue that as the economy grows that the govts role will likewise expand. For example: more GDP= more cars=more roads.
In this case you would benchmark govt expenditure as a proportion of GDP. Over long periods of time, or if making comparisons between countries it is the only rational method to use.
In fact Cullen has run slightly below this benchmark.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
david, iig374, Ian, I comes down to being able to keep a surplus which is sound financial logic. You see National/Act never want a surplus they like to run a deficit.
It comes down to 2 schools of thought,
Money for a rainy day – Labour
Borrow & Hope – National/ACT.
Greed comes down to what a couple of Muppets like Brash/Hide think they can bribe you with.
They can offer you tax cuts at a price, then say we will borrow money if things go wrong.
I believe as soon as they offer a tax cut other charges/Taxes will come into effect that will wipe out most of your tax cut.
Your Greed will be wanting to grab the $$$ and believe the figures Brash/Hide talk, yer all talk. Then you will wonder where all these new charges have come from. Greed like being invited to a Brash/Hide poker game but you feeding the pot hoping you will get that lucky hand, the big pot of the nite. Then you find your out of your league someone else collects the big wind fall, not the small to medium player, but the big guy
takes the pot, the high roller, the one with experience and knowledge, not the mug who feeds the pot each hand.
Your money is better spent on services for all the community, including yourself & family.
I agree Dr Cullen should start putting some of the surplus back into our public services once we get up around 10 B. If a down turn should come we have the extra money.
If you can afford to sit around here and comment your not short of a $$$$ or 2, don’t be greedy. Let Dr Cullen keep working his magic and you will benefit in a shorter rather than longer term.
Vote:Dr Cullen knows what he is doing stick with him!
I for one don’t want a tax cut. I’m happy enough with what I have.
January 27th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
loqix
You righties make non stop fools of yourselves, one moment you slag Cullin for spending to much, next you slag him for saving too much thereby having a surplus. Your Comment
Slagging Cullin for spending too much “NO”
Slagging Cullin for saving too much “NO”
“CULLIN IS JUST TAKING TOO MUCH”, THATS THE PROBLEM!
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Cadmus believes that anyone who posts during daylight hours is rich.
Cadmus almost always post during daylight hours.
Cadmus is happy with what he’s got.
Basically Cadmus must be a very rich man who now wishes for the rest of us to pay taxes through the gazoo whilst he reclines posting(during daylight hours) here.
Are you really Winny Cadmus?
Allah protect us
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Muppets like Brash/Hide think they can bribe you with.
I distinctly remember billions of dollars in promises being made by the Right Dishonourable Winston Peters before the election. Sure, he couldn’t carry them out because not enough greyheads and hicks made it to the polls but if Winnie was all for saving, why would he promise spending?
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Cadmus,
You are kind of right in it does come down to 2 schools of thought:
Socialist: Equality
Libertarian: Equity
Socialist: Centralisation and REdistribution
Libertarian: DEcentralisation and and self distribution
Socialist: Control and State knows best
Vote:Libertarian: Monitor and People know best
January 27th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Theprophet. Don’t worry about me.
Vote:It’s the less well off families that will be greatful, with a few more $$$ in their pocket to help them out, you see that is one of the reasons NZ1 went with Labour- Need Not Greed!
I take it your not behind a checkout or grafting as a labourer, on on a production line.
No your here. posting not working, others are doing their best for there families, give them a break.
January 27th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
Also Cadmus – given that the taxathon has resulted in over 200 new taxes over the past 3 years I hardly see right doing worse with new hidden charges.
And in fact you’re also forgetting that it is explicit ACT policy to remove hidden charges – levies etc are on the direct chopping block for visible flat taxes.
But quoting falsehoods as fact has worked for Dr Cullen and Clark so why not you?
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
iig374 said,
“And in fact you’re also forgetting that it is explicit ACT policy to remove hidden charges – levies etc are on the direct chopping block for visible flat taxes.”
Hide and his side kick Roy can promise you the earth.
Vote:But they will never deliver
January 27th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Iggy,
Without quibbling the details of your “2 Schools of Thought” you may well want to ask yourself this:
IF:
Socialism = Govt control
AND
Libertarianism = Individual control
THEN in the collective setting that all societies are, who do you trust more?
1. A government that in a democracy is held to account every election.
OR
2. Your next door neighbour. And what happens when you try to hold him or her to account?
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
logix, why do you guys always revert to the “if you want to cut spending, which do you reckong we should do? 1. let the poor die of sickness, 2. let them starve, 3. cut off their education?” sort of argument?
Simply reducing the waste would be enough for most people. Reducing the scope of government involvement in the economy is a good thing in many peoples eyes, and we dont see the point in the government fulfilling a need that free-enterprise could just as easily fill, and cheaper too.
There is no logical reason why government spending SHOULD increase at the same rate as GDP. You want a better benchmark? How bout population growth adjusted for price level increases? How much per person is the government spending?
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
And they will be “happy” as they get locked into their cage further by the dependency trap; and then more furtive and worried as the years continue to pass.
Instead of being given a light and a way to work forward.
Enjoy your chains;
Vote:“No one wants to change it”
will you bite the hand that feeds you?
January 27th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
The fact of the matter, I am sure, is that Cullen has a very similar fiscal policy to Hitler.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Why do you guys always bite when cadmus and other trolls come on board. You can’t win convince them, so just do what I did: leave the country and let them pay the taxes. When I’m ready to return, it will be useful to have the socialists around to work in the gas stations and the like, while I spend my untaxed dollars…
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
Have you noticed how the lefties harp on about maintaining taxation at a certain percentage of GDP? Funny, they don’t seem quite so enthusiastic about defence expenditure.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Logix: % of GDP is the only meaningful measure here, but it’s not even about benchmarks – only comparisons. And if you’re a “high tax = bad; low tax = good” right-winger (as many here seem to be), an honest comparison based on the actual figures should favour Labour.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Perhaps if you don’t take all the hidden taxes into account…
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
What hidden taxes?
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
Jim: other than echoing Johnie’s query, I’d also like to point out that that is the government’s “taxation revenue” figure straight from the HYEFU. It is, by definition, taking _everything_ (or at least, everything that is actually a tax) into account.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
True indocrination. People are actually claiming that to retain your own money is “greed”.
The people who are successful and EARN more money and consequently pay the MOST tax are evil and greedy!!!
I’m not sure if the news made it through your tinfoil hats there people but communism failed. Like the Hidenburg it failed.
It’s become something of a national passtime to punish success and present failure as a morally superior.
No real mystery why so many people are leaving really is it.
Not to worry they being replaced with such desirables.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
Cadmus said “I take it your not behind a checkout or grafting as a labourer, on on a production line……. others are doing their best for there families, give them a break”
So do us, so called rich people, who don’t qualify for WFF “Tax breaks” not deserve a break too???
So I don’t work behind a checkout, graft as a labourer or work a production line. Does that mean I am more priviledged than those in such occupations OR does it mean I took a greater interest in my education, chose to attain a qualification, strived to better my standard of living therefore am in an occupation which pays me more than the average wage but just covers the mortgage, food, bills etc.
Explain to me why I should not get “tax relief” while someone else who didn’t try, didn’t want to try, won’t try and never will try – get’s it??
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Thats it TeKoman, the grasshoppers what a free ride off the ants.
“Redistribution of wealth”
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
To me Wealth is a sign of effort (apart from the Lucky Lotto winners – which i always wish i was one of) so if you don’t make the effort don’t grumble.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
The left in this thread seem to utterly miss the point that tax is an impost to pay for what society requires. Governments should never be in the business of making profits (read, running surpluses). The left can bang on all they like about health/education/welfare/twighlight golf/or degrees for all, or whatever. Those agencies get plenty and we still have a profit. Well, this contributory shareholder wants a dividend! Now.
2008 (or sooner) will be all about the economy and I do think about the cost of living in this society.
Vote:January 28th, 2006 at 12:21 am
Come on guys, you can answer Logix’s quetsions better than that!
health: cut all health spending to ZERO overnight. Sell of all hospital assets. disestablish all health regulations from the medical and nursing councils down.
education: ditto.
social welfare: ditto – except, perhaps for national super.
roading, transport: ditto; Councils & roading or transport companies can make whatever payment requests they desire.
local government, RMA, Maori authorities, Maorti TV, RNZ, TVNZ, etc etc etc: disestablish overnight. Sell all remaining assets.
ACC: completely removed, without reinstating right to sue.
And finally a truly *flat* tax rate: 10% of earnings from the first dollar (per person in each family) capped at a maximum of 10,000 per family per year. Entrenched.
If only Don had courage!
Vote:January 28th, 2006 at 12:25 am
Oh and for some perspective, that’s 6,000 million dollars in 5 months! 6,000 million co-erced dollars that are not needed. That is around 5,000,000 Lotto wins with Powerball that we have given to the Government which it actually doesn’t need. A remarkable achievement for a country of 4 million souls, but of which only 2.8 million serious taxpayers.
Vote:January 28th, 2006 at 7:52 am
Governments should never be in the business of making profits (read, running surpluses).
Sometimes govts run deficits too. And they also borrow money. If you would not allow surpluses to occur, then why logically would you allow deficit’s or borrowing (which is just a delayed deficit) to occur?
You know most of my adult life we had govts that ran deficit’s, ie they were spending money they did not have and were shifting the burden onto future taxpayers. The nature of surpluses and deficits is transitory…you should be happy you have a surplus to moan about.
Vote:January 28th, 2006 at 7:55 am
Ahhh….if only the world was as simple a place as neurotic Russian authors and Chicago economists portray it. The lion would lie down with the lamb!
I’m still waiting for an answer on hidden taxes.
Vote:January 28th, 2006 at 8:54 am
Sinner,
Great answer. I’ll give it points for having the balls to say out loud what you really believe.
Now just take it to the electorate.
Kimble:
logix, why do you guys always revert to the “if you want to cut spending, which do you reckong we should do? 1. let the poor die of sickness, 2. let them starve, 3. cut off their education?” sort of argument?
Does the above answer your question?
Vote:January 28th, 2006 at 10:59 am
Govt surpluses will grow in main, just like the returns in the last six months, not thru dramatically more tax being paid or cut or delayed expenditure, but rather thru investment returns to things like the super fund, and other govt investment funds reaching $3-7 billion on an annual basis as investment funds will quickly exceed $50 billion and climb..
Vote:January 28th, 2006 at 11:57 am
Prehaps the main point of taxation is the greater the taxation the greater power the government has over it’s population.The more money we have left in our pockets the more choice we have concernig how we can live our lives. This is not something this present administration is to keen on.
Vote:January 28th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Sinner, that is why your mate Don Brash lost the election, and in a matter of months will lose the leadership of the National party.
Tell me who will get the assets past and present Nzers have paid and are still paying for?
Your wanting to copy a country that never had any major state assets apart from the Military.
The people of this country paid for there assets why should we sell them at Firesale prices to Brash/Hides mates?
What are you and I going to get out of the sale of our asetts?
Don’t get suckered in by the above, the people held back National and smashed ACT, lets keep it that way.
Vote:January 28th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
There is nothing inherently wrong with the Government owning assets (some may disagree). What is questionable is irrational hoarding of them. If a business has an asset that isn’t much use to it, it’s not good sense to just keep holding onto it “because we can’t sell the company silver”. They should be evaluated just like anything else. It’s the Kiwi Ownership mentality, they feel we need to own everything, it’s also part of our fear of foreign investment. For some reason, someone else owning something must mean they took it from us without compensation. You’re not giving them away. Of course, the classic argument is that Governments will always be corrupt and sell them off to their business cronies at far-below market value, but that sort of corruption could occur in many ways anyway.
Vote:January 28th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Sinner good luck to you; there’s a constituency for your approach, albeit small, and I personally am happy for you to be its representative.
I take real comfort from the knowledge that there’s people such as you arguing that the Nat’s should adopt such radical policies, it frees up the middle for more modest, sensible and mainstream approaches.
Vote:January 28th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
TeKnoman,
> To me Wealth is a sign of effort (apart from the Lucky Lotto winners – which i always wish i was one of) so if you don’t make the effort don’t grumble.
It is a sign which is why no one other than the communists wants to throw the system out the window entirely. but it is not a perfect measure which is why no one other than sinner wants to rely on it entirely.
PaulC
> Governments should never be in the business of making profits (read, running surpluses).
Fundimentaly a government must spend more at some times and less at others – so it must have deficits (when it buys lets say a nuclear power plant – or if the economy colapses) and surpluses when the economy is running hot or if they sell an asset. Recent years have been a perfect time to run a surplus – money which can be spent on that nuclear power plant or paying off somthing in the past.
Nichlemn,
Vote:good point funny how hardly anyone sees both sides simultaniously.
January 28th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
The fact that Cullenis overtaxing NZ is moot. His simple idology is that the govt knows how to spend money better than the people who actually earned/ created it in the first place. He simply will not let the earners keep it, end of story. Arguing he should, despite being correct, is the same as teaching a pig to whistle.
Vote:The point Labour are going to blow the whole shebang, so the actual surplus will be next to nothing by the time the next election comes about.
Why doesn’t he do something constructive with the funds?
Repaying debt gives rubbish returns in economic terms, when compared with infrastructure expenditure/ investment. The 420% returns from roading projects in the BoP, 250% return from Transmission Gully, 210% return from sorting Akd’s roads out are way better than the 6-7% that the govt will yeild as a result of debt repayment. Building new electricity generation, or improving the quality standards in education,by eliminating low rent courses which have minimal actual saleable skills generated from them will also get much better returns.
January 28th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Pundito, you are talking garbage in relating to the “return” on roading construction.
Vote:The funding of roading is done by a cost benefit analysis, so that a road with a return/cost higher than another will be more worthwhile. End of story. It has no function relation to real money any more than playing monopoly does to the real world. Most of the benefits are in arbitrary values merely to compare like projects with some values very high to reflect community standards, others are pie in the sky future benefits which are equally dubious real money values.
An example is arbitrary imputing of travel time as unpaid wages!. So if you use the free time to walk on the beach this is counted the same as someone who say takes work home. It may surprise you that Transit NZ used a value of $22 per hour for car drivers and that was in 1998 !. 2/3 of the country would love to get $22 ph NOW, rather than 8 years ago. But thats who the time savings are ‘jacked up’ as a monetary benefit.
See more in this report about Facts and Furphies in benefit Cost Analysis in Transport
http://www.btre.gov.au/docs/reports/r100/r100.pdf
January 28th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
The point Labour are going to blow the whole shebang, so the actual surplus will be next to nothing by the time the next election comes about.
Precisely because Brash and Key made running a surplus such a politically costly thing to do. And then you argue in favour of a whole bunch of NEW spending, which is one way to get rid of a surplus I guess.
Well I agree that infrastructure spending can have excellent returns, but at the same time external debt has significant risks attached to it, especially if the business cycle has turned against the country. And debt may only have a 6-7% interest cost PER ANNUM, but the entire debt still needs repaying. Consider your typical 25 year table mortgage…the total repayments over that time usually amount to something in the range of 200-300% of the original amount borrowed…not so very different to the total returns on the projects you mention. For example the “250% return from Transmission Gully, ” you quote is over the economic life of the project (any idea how long?) not a per annum return surely. You are just not comparing apples with apples here.
Vote:January 28th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
No listing of “hidden taxes?”. Can we assume then that these are just a part of rightist dogma, rather than fact, like the imaginary benefits of privatisation and private provision of services?
Vote:January 28th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
> He simply will not let the earners keep it, end of story.
a couple of days ago I heard him take apart a person interviewing him on the radio. the interviewer said – the economy is slowing down, it’s time for a tax cut. Cullen basicaly said
the problem is too many people spending money – if you put more money into the economy you just make the problems worse.
I’d add that spending it on infrastructure would do the same thing (but worse) – worse yet you would have to pay much more than you would usually have to pay if you started throwing money into infrastructure now as opposed to in a few years and if the economy slows expenditure will catch up with tax take anyway making the surplus evaporate.
> Repaying debt gives rubbish returns in economic terms, when compared with infrastructure expenditure/ investment.
> The 420% returns from roading projects in the BoP, 250% return from Transmission Gully, 210% return from sorting Akd’s roads out are way better than the 6-7% that the govt will yeild as a result of debt repayment.
I was going to go over this but mr who did it already.. *mumble* anyway I agree their ROR numbers are not comparable to those you would use for a business.
Lastly high return investments should be the first dollars spent by the government thus not in debate as long as the government has a decent budget – it is the LAST dollars that matter and that is where expenditure etc should be cut – regarding al the low return roading projects or whatever.
Vote:January 29th, 2006 at 9:01 am
Johnie: You are after after a list of ‘hidden taxes’? I guess the list would depened on one’s own definition of the term, but to me a ‘hidden tax’ is anything that – solely on the basis of income – one person has to pay that another receives for free from the Govt. These would include (but are not limited to):
School fees. (example, I am expected to pay these, but a beneficiary can get theirs paid by special WINZ grant.)
Medical insurance. Because of the appalling waste in our health system, we have to pay medical insurance over and above what that compinent of our taxes that is spent on health.
The fact that some of us get free legal aid, while others who appear in court are expected to pay for it themselves. (Here’s an idea: have interest-free loans for legal aid as well. Why should students have to pay, while losers get something for free.)
Etc etc
Vote:January 29th, 2006 at 9:05 am
Of course, that’s ‘component’, and there should have been a question mark at the end. But I’m sure that even a Socialist loser would get point.
Vote:January 29th, 2006 at 9:08 am
None of these are taxes….they are all voluntary payments. So – give me a list of hidden taxes.
Vote:January 29th, 2006 at 9:49 am
Congratulations Johnie on coming up with a new Tui Ad ‘School Fees are Voluntary Payments’ …. yeah right
Vote:January 29th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
TeKnoman said,
“Explain to me why I should not get “tax relief” while someone else who didn’t try, didn’t want to try, won’t try and never will try – get’s it??”
Mean thing to say teKnoman!
Others may not have the skills to get ahead, it doesn’t mean they aren’t trying to do the best for themselves and their family.
Vote:January 29th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Why don’t the right just tell the truth…people on high incomes want tax relief because they’re greedy, and without any social responsibility. Why dress it up as some supposed principle?
Vote:January 29th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
Why don’t the left tell the truth, that they are purely jealous materialists, who are way greedier than any so called rich Johnnie the commie?
Vote:The point is those people who got off their butts, educated themselves with tradable talents, took a risk, started a business, and heavens forbid, employed some others, actually don’t like to see the money they worked hard for, and risked so much for, wasted on rubbish like twilight golf lessons as but 1 example, or any of the other numerous BS causes that the left deems worthy of sticking money into (This includes the worst type of hand outs, namely corporate ones).
As for my assertions previously about yields, Logix, once the roads/ electricity generation is built is it going to go away? The facts are all of our major cities are the way they are today because of infrastructure investment in days gone by. Have you not seen the figures estimating that if Akl’s roads were fixed, then the economic benefit would start at $1B per annum, and then compound from there?
Admittedly, there is a very valid argument for private sector provision of new infrastructure, but as yet the much vaunted public-private partnerships which Labour waxed lyrically about pre term2 are yet to eventuate. I don’t believe Cullen will leave the surplus at it’s current levels, and ideologically he and his ilk are opposed to leaving the stuff in the hands of those who made it, so my argument, is rather than having it wasted by various superfluous ministries, why not spend the stuff where it can do some good for the country. Would you rather have the min. of women’s affairs or a hydro dam to stop Nelson Marlborough having brown outs? Twilight golf etc or the freeway extended beyond Orewa? the min. of families or the Napier-Wairoa highway upgraded at it’s most dangerous parts.
I can see this post will stir up a few Johnnies, who will no doubt call me sexist for wanting to be rid of the women
January 29th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Roads kill nobody….drivers who fail to drive to the conditions, now they kill. You could say that personal responsibility would save lives…let’s see righties who argue against personal responsibility.
Vote:January 29th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
If the money wasted on BS ministries, were used on appropriate infrastructure projects,
How about showing some actual numbers to back your case. I think you will find that even if you cut all your “bs ministries”, it would only amount to a drop in all the infrastructure spending you have in mind.
Have you not seen the figures estimating that if Akl’s roads were fixed, then the economic benefit would start at $1B per annum, and then compound from there?
Right. Now turn to the “Electoral Suicide” thread to find out how hard it is to get any agreement on how to fix it. Auckland is the mess it is BECAUSE of it’s “roads only” private car transport solution. Your proposed fix is to throw more money at the same problem. Oh well, it’s only taxpayers money.
Now just to be a little constructive here is my idea of a solution:
1. Finish the critical chokepoint arterial routes in Auckland.
2. At the same time commit to a fully integrated public transport system.
3. Once that system begins to build capacity, introduce a registration system like Singapore. Determine how many cars are to be permitted in the city, and offer an annual online auction for them. Two classes of licence, one for all day use, the other for evening only. Taxi drivers are a special class.
The funds thus raised are invested into building the public system to the highest standard over a period of decades.
Vote:January 30th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Johnie: “Roads kill nobody….”
Ah Johnie: I think that you mean “Roads don’t kill anybody.”
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 7:30 am
Cadmus wrote “Others may not have the skills to get ahead, it doesn’t mean they aren’t trying to do the best for themselves and their family.”
Exactly my point Cadmus I said “Explain to me why I should not get “tax relief” while someone else who didn’t try, didn’t want to try, won’t try and never will try – get’s it??”" I’m defending those who have made an effort to better themselves but fall short. Why don’t you read the post properly before you go off all cock-eyed slamming my post as “mean”!
I assume you believe ever no-hoper deserves welfare regardless of their contribution to this country?
When I see 20 year olds on welfare with a couple of kids in tow getting more $$$ than a pensioner, who served for the country, worked for the conntry and contributed to the country, it epitomises how Govt’s entrench Welfare dependency without consideration for EFFORT!
Reward those that make an EFFORT not those that don’t.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 8:57 am
A lovely simplistic analysis. Tell us how you would make it work in practise.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 11:05 am
loqix – Bullshit, your argument only keeps those that get paid for doing nothing wealthy!
Fact – of the 3 scenarios identified on 20/20 last year, (regarding the most cost effective refurbishment of Auckland’s roads) The model already implemented in WA Perth proved to be the best fit and most effective. This model is already up and running and on display, but no you have the cereal king that thinks he knows better.
But the real argument is THAT MR CULLIN IS STILL TAKING TOO MUCH MONEY OUT OF THE ECONOMY.
My wife is about to have our second child, after which she was going to do as she did with our first, Go back to work, child in daycare. But after the last election she is better to not bother going back by the tune of $80.00 per week.
What a crock of shit, Labour are more in tune with having people sitting on their asses.
At least Nationals advocated tax cuts were to keep people working, you know being useful having a reason for getting up in the morning, being a past of something constructive.
Any dickhead (apart from Cullin) realises that the more pockets a $1 bill is moved through is the ultimate gain, hell look at the Brethrens these clowns make sure that their $1 bills stay in house for as long as possible and only get returned to general circulation in extreme circumstances. Cullin doesn’t quite understand this principle.
PS – all you lefty assholes – I don’t need anyone to tell me how to create wealth, even if you people need your hands held.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 1:27 pm
The green eyed monsters of the Left want to tax the RICH (definition Anyone who earns more than them)Well some of us RICH dont mind paying some tax In my case 20% all up Why 20% Well thats one fifth What I want is to have the FREEDOM to decide how I spend the other four fifths.And as I paid for my childrens education at independent schools and university have always had full medical insurance for my family and dont expect to get any pension from the government I believe this is fair. I only add the last bit to shut down those who will say I want someting for nothing.Governments are the most wasteful way to provide any good or service.An independent audit ( not the usual whitewash) would show the scale of waste that exists.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Still waiting for Johnie to tell the definition of “well off”.(I would suggest that having the freedom to say what he does without us evil capitalists having him killed would define welloff!) Also Cadmus , please let me know how much money I’m allowed to earn before I get labelled greedy. Its keeping me awake at night.Is it 30,000 a year, or no, even 32,000 a year.
Vote:Also Johnie, given how much Bill Gates earns and gives away, would you call him greedy? (you too Ms Marple)
January 31st, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Let’s see…national’s tax cuts would have given me $600 a year. Am I well off? How about someone who would have received $3000 cut a year?
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Johnie –
Take comfort that that person who would have got $3000 / annum of the tax that they paid returned to them, would still be payinga hell of a lot more tax every year than you. Consider it that they would be subsiding your social services.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 4:22 pm
The left fully understand the ‘punishment and reward’ aspects of taxation,the rescent call to increase tax on gas guzzlers, while reducing tax on smaller cars is a case in point. Clearly the policy is designed to punish and hopefully reduce use of larger cars and reward and hopefully increase the use of smaller cars.
Vote:Knowing this and knowing that the left know this,it makes their continued attacks on the productive sectors of the economy while rewarding the unproductive. utterly bizare.
January 31st, 2006 at 7:11 pm
do you really believe that Cullender et al would actually decrease registration rates for smaller engined cars if they introduced higher rates for larger supposedly uneconomical vehicles Steve?
Vote:Where is the basis for your statement? How many taxes or charges has the Labour govt reduced in their tenure?
January 31st, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Johnie, you seem to think it significant no-one has mentioned hidden taxes? Who needs the hidden ones? Under Labour there have been a raft of tax increases, as this now out of date list reveals:
1. Income tax increased from 33% to 39% for those earning more than $60,000
2. Fringe benefit tax up from 49% to 64% ,
3. Trust income tax up from 19.5% to 33%
4. Resident withholding tax – deduction rate on interest and dividends from either 19.5% or 33% to 39%
5. Tobacco tax – increase in the average cost of a packet of cigarettes from about $7.20 to $8.20
6. Petrol tax up 4.7C plus GST, plus 30% increase in road-user charges for diesel vehicles
7. Import fee – $16 on all imported commercial goods for goods with a GST liability of more than $50
8. Petrol- ACC levy increased from 2.3c to 5.08c per litre
9. Alcoholic beverages – the so-called sherry tax – increasing cost from $21 to $38 a litre for beverages with 14-23% alcohol content
10. ACC levies -Farmers have faced a 74 percent hike in their ACC levies in the past three years
11. ACC motor vehicle levies-motorbike levy increased by 57%; car ownership increased 14% and new levies on non-petrol driven vehicles such as service vehicles increased fron1$176.10 to $221.31
12. Birth, death and marriage certificate fees increased by 42.9%
13. Driver licence renewal fees increased from $29.50 to $44.30
14. Fire service levy, household levy increased by 17.70/0 and increase in motorists’ levy of 17.7%.
15. Fishing licence fee increased by 10%
16. Cattle slaughtering levy increased up to 50% per head of slaughtered cattle
17. Export education levy – a $185 charge to institutions per foreign fee-paying student plus 0.45% of their tuition and course fees
18. Fund withdrawal tax – 5% tax on withdrawals of employer contributions to superannuation schemes for those earning above $60,000
19. Border Security Bill
Vote: