Kiwisaver and arrogance
May 31st, 2007 at 7:06 am by David FarrarNow as I have said, I’m actually a reasonable fan of Kiwisaver. But the way the Govt introduced compulsory employer contributions without consultation or warning I deplore.
Dr Cullen defended this at a business breakfast. He claims it would have been too much trouble and time consulting with not just business groups, but with other parties, if he hadn’t introduced it under urgency as a Budget measure.
Well tough. The most major recent change to NZ’s savings and payroll schemes should be consulted on, even if it is hard work.
People should be aware how much this will cost employers. Not just in terms of compulsory contributions, but in compliance costs – something 95% of the Labour Caucus have never experienced. I received my 30 page KiwiSaver employer guide yesterday. KiwiSaver will involve a shitload of work for employers. You won’t believe how much time every week is meant to be spent on filling in forms for the Government, or providing info to them.
No tag for this post.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:05 pm
This attitude Labour have displayed here is typical of their approach to the public and business community since they became government nearly eight long years ago. Business to them are a necessary evil – but they do not vote and therefore Labour have treated them with contempt.
I personally like the kiwi saver scheme, but for Cullen’s underhand and deceitful tactics.
By far the best move Labour could have done was to make all payments into Kiwi-saver 100% tax deductible. Payments into the scheme could have been tied to tax reductions therefore not affecting the take home pay of the contributing members. (this was I think Winston’s proposal) Cullen would have had wide spread support for the scheme on this basis, all the while allowing people to have some sort of tax cut with fuelling inflation.
Of Course Cullen and the rest of the labour party are nothing more than a bunch of condescending socialist prick who want the middle classes to fund their socialist programme. At least we can now expect a change of government in less than 18 Months (latest date for election is 15 November 2007.)
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 12:07 am
I just dont think Cullen really understands how difficult it is to run a business. He sees it as a cash cow.
His failure to consult business over this fairly major change shows his attitude.
In some instances a small business owner takes home less than his employess each week. On top of this alot of business is set up as partnerships rather than Limited Liabilty Companies. Fot this reason the tax cuts announced will have no effect at all on them.
It is the approach taken which has angered me.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 8:47 am
But you forget – Big business is Labours friend. They help to keep the masses in their place and voting for Labour to give them handouts.
It is those pesky little sole traders and partnerships that keep giving people a way out and so must be crushed at all costs!
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 9:12 am
iiq374 said
“It is those pesky little sole traders and partnerships that keep giving people a way out and so must be crushed at all costs!”
Certainly feels that way! In the course of a normal working week (if there is such a thing), I am filling out forms, surveys, returns etc, and making payments to/receiving payments from Ministry of Education, Ministry of Social Development, IRD, ACC etc etc. Whoever floated the concept of the “paperless office” some years ago obviously hadn’t taken the public service into account! KiwiSaver is merely going to add another layer of administration and cost to my business, for which I will receive no compensation.
Was Cullen thinking of small business when he super-sized KiwiSaver? Not on your nelly – his sole focus was the 2008 election, despite all the rhetoric. Can I wait for next year’s election? Hmmmm – let me think about that……
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 9:55 am
“He claims it would have been too much trouble and time consulting with not just business groups, but with other parties, if he hadn’t introduced it under urgency as a Budget measure.”
Yeah, and the neo-liberal governments of Lange/Douglas and Bolger didn’t consult any groups before conducting their right wing reforms (oh, except for the NZBR and the Employers Federation of course). Lange/Douglas set the precedent in the mid 80s when they stopped New Zealand’s tradition of consensus seeking with regard to important policy making.
So, are you saying that you would like us to go back to a tripartite system where unions and employer groups are part of the decision making process? If not I would suggest that you can’t have it both ways.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 10:35 am
phillipjohn – all I would have liked was a bit of notice of a change that will potentially add $10,000pa to my expenses by year four – at current staffing! We are a non-profit business, so tax cuts are irrelevant to us, and tax credits for KiwiSaver contributions will be retrospective – meaning we, as the ones with everything at stake in our business, carry the financial risk.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 10:48 am
And again Inventory2 you highlight the point that many miss who champion Labours type of redistribution:
The “good” employers who already redistribute most of their income to their staff and operate on fine margins are slammed (again) by Labour’s implementation.
While the “bad” employers who retain large profit margins et al are rewarded with their tax cut likely to outweigh the payroll tax introduction.
Look through Labours policy implementations and you see this again and again. They are not the champion of the worker they pretend to be.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 10:53 am
“all I would have liked was a bit of notice of a change that will potentially add $10,000pa to my expenses by year four”
isn’t 3 years enough for you?
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 11:13 am
PhillipJohn –
Vote:so you’d be just fine and happy if I took $2,500 from your bank account tomorrow?
Then $5,000 next year, $7,500 the year after, then $10,000 in perpetuity?
June 1st, 2007 at 11:30 am
phillipjohn – we run our business on a pretty tight leash – a whole lot tighter that our accountant is comfortable with! Fortunately, our house is freehold, so the bank is happy to support us. ANY extra expenditure, especially that to be paid to the Government, is unwelcome. Our own expenditure is something we can control – government compliance is beyond our control. Kiwisaver will actually penalise us for being successful. As we grow and employ more staff, our liability will grow as a consequence, as will the time and cost of compliance. Are we compensated for that? Not flippn’ likely!
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 11:41 am
“so you’d be just fine and happy if I took $2,500 from your bank account tomorrow?
Then $5,000 next year, $7,500 the year after, then $10,000 in perpetuity?’
That’s an interesting way of looking at it, but its not strictly accurate. All government imposts on business are in the end merely another cost. SO when compliance with regulation costs you a certain amount, this cost is recovered in the price of the product. In the end, its not the business owner who pays, its the customer.
The key issue is this- how many NZers are hobbled in their desire to be productive by legislational requirements of unrealizing leftist loons like Helen Klark and PJ? Thousands and thousands, with the number growing every day.
Whats the effect of this? An overall lowering of productivity and then, as a direct result, downward pressure on living standards. Every time PJ and his ilk open their stupid mouths and demand more legislation on this issue or that issue, and that request becomes a reality, its another nail in the coffin of NZ’s living standards.
The reality is- every example of poverty and deprivation in this country, if you follow the path of logic back to its roots, can be sheeted home to brain damaged leftists and their social and political ascendancy here over the last few decades. (except for one brief spurt of sanity)
Remove PJ and his ilk from the equation. Stop listening to their bullshit. Get these monsters out of our schools and universities, our governments, our bureaucracy, our newspapers, our television and radio. Send them back to the swamp they crawled out of, and prosperity will return to this country like the sun suddenly emerging from behind a dense black cloud.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 11:49 am
SO when compliance with regulation costs you a certain amount, this cost is recovered in the price of the product
I’m sure you meant to add: depending on the price elasticity?
Which if there are foreign based equivalents is often close to nil?
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 11:57 am
“SO when compliance with regulation costs you a certain amount, this cost is recovered in the price of the product”
The problem for our business RB is that we are an education service, almost exclusively funded by the Ministry of Education. The only increase in the “price of the product” is the government’s annual post-budget increase which could be described as modest at best. Meanwhile, our compliance burden has just increased substantially as we have to accomodate not one but TWO new political initiatives for which we will receive NO compensation!
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 3:08 pm
“Which if there are foreign based equivalents is often close to nil?”
..and that is precisely why it impacts on our living standards. If it wasn’t for the fact that overseas people are doing it better, there wouldn’t be any such impact. This is what socialists don’t understand. Stuck in their little ruts of envy and endlessly seeing legislation as the answer to every perceived problem and obsessed with power, they cannot deal with the reality of running a business, being competitive and productive and efficient. They can only deal with the distorted view that is all their innate narcissistic psychosis will allow them to see.
They are dead weights. They will drag this country down for the sake of the power that is their holy grail.
The money will eventually go elsewhere. NZers have two choices. Shake themselves free of the burden of control freak leftists and their sick ideology, or go eventually to the bottom of the global food chain.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 3:19 pm
At the current rate of descent I’m not sure “eventually” is an appropriate description…
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 5:41 pm
“Every time PJ and his ilk open their stupid mouths and demand more legislation on this issue or that issue, and that request becomes a reality, its another nail in the coffin of NZ’s living standards.”
The fact is that we’re one of the least regulated economies in the world, and have been since about 1987.
http://www.doingbusiness.org/EconomyRankings/
In this time we’ve continued our slide down the OECD ladder, where as more regulated economies have prospered – that’s what the free market has achieved for New Zealand – the fact is that people make an economy and if half of your workforce is earning less than 70% of the average wage this is what you get – poverty breeds poor educational standards, and thus poor workers. The free-market creates a low-wage low productivity economy with low levels of capital investment. This is where the free-market approach falls down, it doesn’t take a long-term holistic view of the economy.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 7:13 pm
“In this time we’ve continued our slide down the OECD ladder, where as more regulated economies have prospered – that’s what the free market has achieved for New Zealand’
Perfectly correct, soon we’ll perhaps slide just as far as Cuba, Venezuela, Libya or perhaps even the USSR. Ooops, now, what was it that happened there? Too much free market right?
Vote:June 3rd, 2007 at 6:14 pm
That’s right, never let the facts get in the way of a good moronic comment RB.
Vote: