This entry was posted on Sunday, December 30th, 2007 at 11:41 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Last night I gave some advice to D4J and James Sleep about their vendetta over the last couple of days. I thought the following might als be something they both could take on board:
THE MAN IN THE MIRROR
When you get all you want and you struggle for self
and the world makes you king for a day
then go to the mirror and look at yourself
and see what that man has to say.
For it isn’t your father, your mother, or wife
I couldn’t help but notice that this is the second time you have link-whored your new blog at Kiwiblog, in just two blog posts. I also couldn’t help but notice that you haven’t yet link-whored your blog at the Standard, which your last comment there claims is “fucking brilliant”.
Don’t you think you would get more sympathetic readers to your blog, and a better reception to your link-whoring, if you did it over at the Standard?
As for your claim that National will borrow to fund tax cuts, you should know that the government surplus will top $9 billion this year. I very much doubt National intends to offer $9 billion a year in tax cuts. As long as there is a government surplus, crown net worth will increase, not decrease.
Reid, anything would be better than the IRD rort department , legal mobsters , anything to get rid of them .They dwell in the totally inefficient and dumb arse bureaucratizations that are fill of simple blugders , small minded pea brains that make up big sister gummint .
I am so sorry James, as I just thought that a town the size of Ashburton is currently leaving New Zealand and I just thought when it comes to the caustic history teachers election bribe, that a town the size of Christchurch might be on the outta here hydroplanes ? Silly me, where’s the money honey ??
I note that you are a believer in the Cullen claim that National will borrow to fund tax cuts.
Cullen seems to think that infrastructural costs should be paid for up front. By saving that money to pay for such costs upfront, that infrastructure is delayed, causing the cost of that infrastructure to grow, which then requires more saving, which delays the infrastructure and so on.
Think about it James. You would not save up to pay for a house outright, because by the time you could never afford it. That is why you borrow to buy a house and pay for it over it’s lifetime.
By borrowing to pay for infrastructure, you get the infrastructure NOW, and it is payed for over it’s life by the people who use it, ie that taxpayer, using much smaller amounts spread out over a longer time. The end result is that the Government only needs to take enough tax to service the debt, and not chase an infrastructure cost that is getting further and further away.
Hey sonic watch anyone else noticed the thing on blogosphere ? I chased it away from Harry’s , and hitch’s mob are getting a hammering over the Billary Clint side show act ? The red team looks rather wobbly at present .
I agree, slightlyrighty (3.46pm). Michael Cullen’s insistence on funding infrastructure from current tax revenue has two profound effects:
1. (A purely political one) It provides him with a delusionary mechanism to discount substantially the true extent of his very large fiscal surpluses, thereby justifying – in the eyes of the financially illiterate – his 8-year refusal to ameliorate the negative economic impact of excessive taxation.
2. The front-loading with cash of capital investment has the effect of transferring to the present taxpaying generation the full cost of infrastructure from which future generations will continue to derive valuable use. The appropriate investment approach would be to gear major infrastructure projects (i.e. incorporate debt at an undemanding level, say 40-60%), to spread the capital cost over the life of capital assets so created.
Both misguided effects are grossly unfair to current taxpayers. They are also economically unorthodox, for all Dr Cullen’s frequent claims of “fiscal prudence”.
It is eminently prudent for Dr Cullen to front-load the cost (through the so-called Cullen fund) of an actuarially-predictable future bubble in pension costs (i.e. revenue costs). That policy is legitimate because today’s taxpayers will both cause and benefit from tomorrow’s pension bubble.
It is not legitimate for Dr Cullen to hoard excessive tax income (using highly unorthodox cash funding of large-scale, inter-generational capital expenditure) in order to spring selective social spending “initiatives” at a time of his electoral convenience. That cynical political “strategy” is not compatible with the heavy responsibilities of a Minister of Finance.
clintheine, McShane doesn`t deserve that insult. I think you mean Mr Glenn from Monaco, talk about buying titles, mind you if Tony Blair can sell them why not Helen. Great to hear Tim Shadbolt and Tim Dwyer roasting the Bill on ZB this morning, they were both seriously into Labour bashing. Bring it on.
Happy new years eve to the bloggers posting on Mr Farrars blogg i feel sick for doing this but have a happy new year to the left, sigh people like sleep ,sonic ,???? and the rest of the confused, remember 6 years to you pay for my pension, go sleep WORK HARDER, or go to school JOHN