Roger Douglas on his proposals
Roger Douglas defends his proposals in the NZ Herald and rejects the “hard right” label.
Now most people know my personal economic views. If I was designing a country from scratch, I would adopt many of Sir Roger’s policies. But that is not the same as putting forward a policy platform which reflects NZ today, yet moves in the right direction.
What is interesting is that Sir Roger mentions his proposals on health and education and taxation, but doesn’t cover the aspect which I suspect most set off glee in the Beehive – namely to cut current spending by $3 to $5 billion. That is what made his proscription somewhat toxic to many. The fact he does not repeat this in his article, suggests to me he knows it.
It is one thing to say we will not increase spending as fast as Labour (which does reduce it as a % of GDP). But it is quite another to start talking about a 10% reduction in current spending. NZers will equate that with a huge cut in education, health and other public services.
The proposal to tax exempt the 1st $20K of income is a desirable end goal, to minimise the deadweight cost of tax churning. But suggesting one can end up there in just a few years is not credible. Peter Costello and now Kevin Rudd are heading towards that goal, but only by having a small reduction every year consistently year after year – not a big bang solution. It will take Australia 15 years of tax cutting to get to that situation.
In fact one thing which I have wondered, is how much less revenue would occur under the proposed tax policy. Let’s take them one by one:
- Reduce top tax rate to 33c = $900 million according to Treasury budget documents
- No tax on 1st $20K of income. This is a bit harder to work out as you need to go to the tax tables showing income in each band. I calculate there is $26.2 billion at the 15% rate which is $3.9 billion and $22.6 billion between $9,500 and $20,000 which at 21% is $4.7 billion. That is a total of $8.7 billion. However Treasury advise to offset this by 17.31% to allow for extra GST etc so net change is $7.2 billion
- Adjusting tax brackets to 1999 levels takes a bit of calculation also. The CPI increased 24% since Dec 1999. But we have already got rid of the bottom rate and the top rate. Hence the only threshold we need to adjust is the 21c/33c threshold at $38,000. It would move to $47,000 with CPI adjustment ad would cost $1.1 billion
So the total annual revenue reduction would be $9.2 billion.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:31 am
In my view the most damage Lange ever caused to the country and it’s a long list, was not, surprisingly his anti-nuclear stance (although it’s a close second), but his ‘cup of tea.’
In my view this country is stuffed, economically. We’ve lost the advantage we had in the early-mid 90’s as other nations have gradually enacted and surpassed us in the necessary reforms started by Douglas and continued by the courageous Richardson.
It’s past time in my view for another round of radical surgery, whether or not that’s electorally palatable. Sometimes leaders have to take hard decisions. This is one of them.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:33 am
A well reasoned article and on the back of this and other publicity I think I can see people realising that there is much merit in what he is advocating. I can see Act support rising a little on the back of the positive publicity that is being gained and I for one (I think Cactus Kate would be another) who will be pleased to see Roger back in parliament.
People need to remember what the state of the country was in 1984 thanks to the socialist policies implemented by Rob Muldoon. The 1984 Labour Government was the savious of the country and we need to realise the radical action taken was indeed needed to turn the country baround. It is upon those economic foindations that this current Labour government has enjoyed so much success and growth for the past few years.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:41 am
With a CPI increase of 24%, that explains why I seem to have less and less money each year, and I have spent Easter polishing the CV to send to Australian job sites and head hunters. My preliminary research shows the same job in Oz gets me $NZ8300 more each year in the hand , made of $5k in exchange rates (i.e. higher pay rates) and $3300 in tax rates.
Any party that promises to index income tax rates to to the CPI gets my vote. Fiscal drag is tax increases by stealth. How much does that CPI increase relate to in terms of an effective increase in the tax rates? I assume it is not a 24% increase thanks to the tax brackets, etc, but my gut feeling is the 33c rate has become an effective 40c rate in 1999 dollars. This excludes all the other levies, taxes, duties and “donated SOE profits” added to the mix
DPF – could you do your spreadsheet magic and put some numbers to this.
This explains why we could not afford a holiday at xmas (which I really needed after a hell year), or celebrate our 10th wedding anniversary. I think it is to late for NZ and Natioanl haven’t got what it takes to put it right, since half the votors rely on the taxpayer for at least part of their income.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:58 am
The thing is David, Sir Roger knows very well these figures and statistics. He has advised many countries on their economy so I am sure he isn’t just saying this without a thought to how this will affect Kiwis.
Lange has a lot to answer for. Douglas’s straight talk is exactly what the right needs now.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Excellent article
Right on the money
But I think a point Sir Roger should be making is that the policies would not cause short term pain this time because they will be more than balanced with tax cuts immediately, there is not fiscal deficit that needs plugging
And also I wonder why he is not pushing flat tax anymore given the massive economic booms it facilitated in Eastern Europe
March 24th, 2008 at 11:10 am
I hope National are factoring in a 5% ACT party vote into their calculations.
By reclaiming the language of the right, ACT will get people to take notice.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Could anyone outline how these massively reduced taxes and tax-takes would facilitate economic growth?
March 24th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Watch Commanding Heights stephen.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:25 am
“Could anyone outline how these massively reduced taxes and tax-takes would facilitate economic growth, as well as mitigate the cuts in governments services etc etc?”
Because more money availible to the earner to spend or invest creates jobs,new businesses and investment in the former.Indeed the only way more money in pe4oples pockets does,t create new growth and profit is if they hide it under their beds or eat it!
The cuts in Government services matter not a jot as we have seen billions spent just on health create no better outcomes at all….so what’s it matter if we reduce the spend on these State turkeys whilst opening up the private sector to take over and fly?
As the States only legit roles are policing,law,and the military they will only need a fraction of their current income to carry out their duties….the rest is the business of the private sector…ie; all of us individual Kiwis doing our own thing for our own benefit whislt enriching our fellows by making them better off via our efforts.
March 24th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Well $9B is about the size of the surplus isn’t it? You wouldn’t have to cut a dime out of our bloated public service. Plus, everybody assumes a reduction in revenue, which is almost never the case. Studies show that the optimum level of tax for a country – ie. the level which generates the most revenue, is about 15%. I suspect that the growth in investment caused by the lowering of the top rate, and the rise in spending generated by wiping the bottom one will more than make up the supposed shortfall. I think we’d still end up with the large surplus.
There is nothing unrealistic about Douglas’s proposals at all. Quite the opposite. It is the insistence of National that spending growth must continue that is completely unrealistic. They know it and they don’t care – they just want to be government instead of Labour. They may find that problematic if they insist on not playing ball.
March 24th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Douglas glosses over the swedish model of primary school vouchers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7103636.stm
As I understand it there is nothing stopping Roger Douglas ( walk the talk) setting up a school and waiting for the pupils to arrive.
he could have done this yesterday.
But looking a bit more closely at our current system ( and it is surprising how liitle Douglas knows in his back yard) the tertiary model set up by Bill English exactly follows this system , enroll and the funding follows.
This led to the huge waste of the Te Wanaga, that wasnt sustainable, and prone to Donna Huata type rip offs
As allways Douglas assumes the price the State pays per pupil ( when it bulk buys)is the same that individual parents will pay when they have a ‘free choice’
My reckoning is that in Auckland you could double the price for a basic primary school education if it was a free market type service which parents paid the full cost.
And other glib nonsense like renting out hospital wards to Doctors ( hes dropped the nurses allready) in return for a productivity increase..
And just one thing, who will train all the new doctors . They are just a productivity drain according to this dangerous lunatic
March 24th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
It was a pretty cack-handed performance that forced John Key to come out and disown him. Not very smart really. He should have laid his ground-work better especially with John Key. Douglas is not getting anywhere soon in politics without John Key and now John has ruled him out. Now Douglas wil try and nail John that his prescription was not really all that extremist or right wing. But it is too late Douglas you fluffed it. You are better off in trying to get alongside the post Helen Clark Labour Party.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Tim – who said Douglas fluffed it?
Why do we want a National-led government as opposed to a Labour-led one? Frankly, Labour will be prepared to make much greater concessions to ACT than National. Douglas will be completely aware of this.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Roger Douglas has just explained why he should never be in cabinet again. His proposals make the rich richer and the poor comparitively poorer and I challenge anyone to outline otherwise. Why can’t people see this?
March 24th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
How does making the first $20,000 tax free make the rich richer? The only way that the “poor” are going to get richer is to improve productivitiy, create conditions where businesses can make more money and afford to pay their staff more and to lower taxation so the average Kiwi has more money in their pocket. If these neo-Marxists policies of the Clark led communist regime are so good why are we relatively poorer compared to Australia than we were in the 90’s???
March 24th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
This country is going backwards and is long overdue for a sweeping reform. At the very least, Working Against Families, interest-free student loans and KiwiSaver have to be removed. KiwiSaver alone costs at least $1.5 billion a year. Reducing government spending by $5 billion a year is not at impossible.
John Key thinks that by being centrist, he’ll get votes from the right, “hard right” and some centre-left who would otherwise vote Labour.
He’s forgot that people who want economic reforms like me can also vote with their feet.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
“..If these neo-Marxists policies of the Clark led communist regime are so good why are we relatively poorer compared to Australia than we were in the 90’s???..”
because our union movement ‘bent over’ for the douglas’ of this world..
whereas the aussie unions said..’you’re not sticking that in me..!..”
(quite simple/straight forward really..eh..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 24th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Dude it very interest to see that you tax proposals would result in a massive loss of income to NZ Government.
The NAT Government elected in 2008 NZ strong again [think about it dudes] will actually cost quite a bit. We will have to raise wages significantly and in a funded way to recover our Country.
I know you don’t like that idea but if we raise wages we can get import
seriously good people in, best to forget about them baby boomer hospital health care losers,stuff them, pay for them to become Australia citizen,
we will have to hold Teachers on good salaries, and fundamental requirements,
and of course farrar yous have to pay for me,
March 24th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
may..key can leave the 1% of rabids..such as yourself..for act..
(and psst..!..working for families ‘was a tax cut..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 24th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
“Roger Douglas has just explained why he should never be in cabinet again. His proposals make the rich richer and the poor comparitively poorer” …(BUT NOT AS POOR AS THEY ARE NOW )
“and I challenge anyone to outline otherwise. ” (I just did.)
“Why can’t people see this?” (Because they are not all as …(put your own word in here) ..as you are.!!
March 24th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Roger Douglas aka “failed pig farmer“ stuffed up rural NZ in the 80`s now wants a second shot. No thanks!!
March 24th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
David Baigent, why dont you say something constructive and explain how his proposals make the poor ” not as poor as they are now”. Do you mean that a poor family with three kids on on $38,000 compared to a rich family on $110,000 is comparatively richer under Douglas’s policy. Do tell.. we might learn something. Or you may learn something instead… that you are wrong.
March 24th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
At one stroke, ACT regains some of the regard it once enjoyed amongst classic liberals, before Hide shifted the party’s focus into populist anti-liberal issues and perk-busting (which only made the public service more bureaucratic and risk-averse). Unfortunately, it’s all too little, too late. Roger’s ideas are irrelevant unless the Nats halfway support them, and they won’t do anything which scares the horses in the middle ground. The thought of another term led by Labour will see potential Act supporters giving their party vote to National. ACT’s future is as an electorate party providing support on the right without compromising the party vote (akin to Maori and Labour) built around personalities (as per Peters and Dunne, God help us), but Roger’s times has passed, and Rodney hasn’t got what it takes. Anyone with the smarts to do it wants to be in real power, and not take for granted like the Greens, and so will join National. Let’s hope Franks can bring that sharpness into National.
March 24th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
So Dave, the rich can’t have a tax cut unless the poor get a bigger one?
March 24th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Why would a government spending reduction of 10% scare the punters, the fucks already waist the other 90%. We need a change of direction not a shifting of heads in the trough. This bunch have failed to deliver big time, the country dosen’t just need a tune up it needs a new motor. New Zealand use to lead the world in inventive policies but no, better to wait till we are all drowning in leftwing socialist shit. They say if you make a mistake and learn from it you are clever but if you make the same mistake twice you thick, I would have to say that if we vote for more of the same we really are thick dumb fucks.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I find it extraordinary that people still think that removing taxes on the first 20K will make the poor poorer. How on earth can you possibly think that? To explain it simply: If someone is earning say 30K, the first 20K is currently taxed, costing them from memory about 2,000 a year. Therefore, remove the tax and you automatically put $2000 a year in the pockets of the low paid. Can someone from the left (or any persuasion) kindly explain how that makes the poor poorer?
Further, I can’t imagine how anyone can think we don’t need some pretty major changes to NZ. Take education: HC has stated the up to 40% of kids coming out of school now are either illiterate, or can’t read or write properly. Does anyone want to seriously argue that this can be fixed with a few tweaks as National and Labour apparently do? From what I can see, it needs pretty major surgery to sort it out. I have heard from numerous places that the swedish experience is a good one. Why not try this, afterall, we’ve happily tried lots of things that no one else was silly enough to do (eg NCEA).
And health, again we have seen over the weekend the “desperate” shortage of doctors and the massive waiting list that has more than doubled under Labour. Again, will this be fixed with some cosmetic tootering?
All I can say about ACT is – great news. NZ is in desperate need. The socialists are once again stuffing up the country as they did in Muldoons time and once again, it has to be rescued. This is a pivotal election coming up. I just hope NZ’ers wake from their slumber in time to realise it.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
OK I`m not of the hard left – or hard right obviously but lets say the poor are those earning 35k-38k. Removing taxes on the first $20k will not make the poor comparatively better off as the rich also get 2k in their back pocket. Drop the top tax rate will benefit only those on the top tax rate – this does not benefit the poor – it makes the poor comparatively poorer due to a greater after tax income gap between the rich and the poor.
So no, Anthony its not that the rich cant have a tax cut in case the poor get a bigger one. The poor effectively cant get tax cuts – Many poor families – those families getting WFF that are on 35k or less – are getting even more paid in WFF than in tax if they get a tax cut – so any such cut is effectively a welfare payment. But to give the rich a tax cut that will give them more money in their back pocket than the poor get is hardly making the poor better off – especially when scrapping of WFF is thrown in the mix.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Dave, you are assuming that I, a single man on a $40k salary with no children, should be forced to pay for people on higher incomes than me to have a family. Two words: FUCK OFF. On basic principle, I don’t care if it makes them “poorer”, it’s my money not theirs, and their decision to breed is not my problem or responsibility. As it is, WFF is making ME poorer. I want my money back.
As it is, there will be very few, if any, families who will be worse off, and they won’t be the poor ones. No I don’t feel sorry for them. I want to see the whole country become wealthier, not a redistribution scheme that cripples us all and is fast turning us into a basketcase as a nation.
Dave, you are a retard if you think that a tax cut for wealthy people somehow makes other people poorer. Please outline how reducing the top tax rate, or abolishing the bottom one for that matter, reduces someone, ANYONE’s take home pay. It doesn’t. You suck. Go wear the dunce cap and sit in the corner.
As for Kehua, you might be more correct to blame Sid Holland for giving his fatcat voters farming subsidies as the real reason rural NZ got stuffed in the ’80s. It just wasn’t sustainable, and blaming Roger for it is like blaming your chemotherapy for the cancer.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
“I find it extraordinary that people still think that removing taxes on the first 20K will make the poor poorer. How on earth can you possibly think that? To explain it simply: If someone is earning say 30K, the first 20K is currently taxed, costing them from memory about 2,000 a year. Therefore, remove the tax and you automatically put $2000 a year in the pockets of the low paid. Can someone from the left (or any persuasion) kindly explain how that makes the poor poorer?”
That’s easy. Someone always has to pay for essential services, like health care and schooling. By reducing government revenue through a tax cut, funding of services will move from the public purse to the individual purse (i.e. user pays). Sir Roger claims that poor people will then be able to afford health insurance etc, but people are already struggling to afford the basics, wouldn’t it be more likely that the poor either consolidate their existing debt or have an extra roast meal per week than pay for health insurance.
Therefore, when it does become time to pay for unanticipated health costs, those who cannot afford it will pay the highest fees, as they will be fee-paying clients rather than insured clients. So in fact, poor people not only pay relatively more but absolutely so. What kind of society would refuse health care to those in need? The United States’ Medicare model – and that’s what Douglas is proposing. He should at least be honest about what outcomes are likely for end users.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Dave you poor soul you seem to have well and truly bought into the envy politics of this Labour government. Just because the “rich” as you call them will also pocket money from a tax free threshold doesn’t make the poor worse off. What is the net effect of giving someone $2000 extra per year? If you guessed raised living standards you’d be right. It is irrelevant whether they are richer or poorer relative to someone else – if it makes their life better.
The left fail to realise this and to them everything must be measured relative to others in society. This is flawed envy politics at its most repugnant. It is in effect saying let’s hold the poor down and dependent on the state because the alternative would mean they are worse off relative to others (even if better off overall). ACT’s proposals look to liberate the “poor” (and every other section of society) to reach their full potential.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Douglas gives me the impression that the Act party on 0.7% of the vote and being totally dependent on National voters in Remuera for their political survival can call the shots. John Key could cut the Act Party off in one stroke. Now Douglas thinks he can use all those techniques he used on the Labour Party to bounce John Key into his agenda. John cut him off fast and it serves Douglas right. He needs to get his head around on how the National Party operates but for someone who has a lifetime in the viper pit of the Labour PArty I doubt that Douglas will achieve much from the National Party which is a pity.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
PP – Thank god we have people like you to think for poor people and make decisions for them. Where would they be without people like you? Arrogance seems to be an all too common trait of the left.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
“Dave, you are assuming that I, a single man on a $40k salary with no children, should be forced to pay for people on higher incomes than me to have a family. Two words: FUCK OFF. On basic principle, I don’t care if it makes them “poorer”, it’s my money not theirs, and their decision to breed is not my problem or responsibility. As it is, WFF is making ME poorer. I want my money back.
As it is, there will be very few, if any, families who will be worse off, and they won’t be the poor ones. No I don’t feel sorry for them. I want to see the whole country become wealthier, not a redistribution scheme that cripples us all and is fast turning us into a basketcase as a nation.”
Working for Families wouldn’t be necessary if firms had invested in productivity enhancing measures during the 1990s. Low wages in jobs across the economy is what forced the introduction of Working for Families – to combat a falling birth rate. With WFF, the government is essentially subsidising employers who view their business as a route to joining the ‘idle rich’. Perhaps BlairM, you could holler across at Phil’OReilly – and tell him that you want your money back – because that’s precisely where it has gone.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Tim – I don’t think so at all. Let’s wait to see what the votes are on election day. If it had passed your notice what ACT were doing was presenting their policy platform and vision. It is presenting this that gives the voters options and hopefully translates to votes. It was the media the pressured Key into his statements not ACT (legitimately) presenting it’s core objectives.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
*Yawn* Policy Parrot, it’s the same tired old argument with you guys, and it’s wrong.
Firstly, the surplus is huge, not a cent needs to be cut anywhere.
Secondly, nobody is suggesting the American model, and if they were it would be with welfare grants anyway, so it would be unaffordable for precisely no-one.
Thirdly, the American system is an excellent system – the vast bulk of the uninsured are a) healthy young people who don’t need it, and b) wealthy people who can just pay cash. Most employment in America comes with medical insurance. It is also illegal for healthcare providers to refuse to treat someone. All this with no waiting lists! So don’t give me your Michael Moore bullshit about American healthcare.
And OMG! imagine business owners using their companies to become rich! Those bastards! Wealth-envy strikes again!
March 24th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Mike C – if your ilk had their way – the poor wouldn’t have any financial capacity to make decisions at all… they’d be at the mercy of your charity.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Blair you moron, people have been getting money to have kids since 1948. Under a National Government, too when they were in. I never said a tax cut for wealthy people somehow makes other people poorer, ( actually I said the rich will continue to be comparatively better off just as they already are when remoiving taxes on the forst 20k and comparatively better off in reducing the top tax rate – so how are they not.) WFF is not making you poorer, Blair, scrap WFF and you`ll still get the same amount and waste it on piss. Far better to have the same tax rate and give it to me to raise my kids. Ha!
March 24th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Policy Pussy – they’re at the mercy of charity anyway. Wouldn’t you rather it was private charity that helped them back on their feet rather than government charity that just filled their bank accounts for the week, left them in squalor and drained the economy?
Dave – I like piss. And if your brats are anything like you, a nice bottle of shiraz for me will be money better spent. It appears that you think stealing from me to look after your kids is morally acceptable. I disagree. But I’ll be thinking of you struggling with your noisy brats as I stain my lips red and consider us almost even.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
“And OMG! imagine business owners using their companies to become rich! Those bastards! Wealth-envy strikes again!”
Your hypocrisy rings hollow when one compares this statement to the one earlier
“As it is, WFF is making ME poorer. I want my money back.”
“But it’s my money”.
Please – unless you are a sole trader other people are involved in the generation of “your – as you claim” money. Perhaps it is time they were given just dues. We are talking about people and real-life decisions, not nefarious objects or theories which actually don’t deliver in reality.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Dave – comparatively or otherwise it is still a spurious argument which demonstrates a thick grasp of envy politics on your psyche. Oh and feel free to have kids if you so choose. However you have no right to the money I or anyone else earns just by virtue of being a breeder. Just because child supplements have been around since 1948, it doesn’t mean they aren’t on the table for debate.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
People dont have the right to WFF just because they are a breeder. How do you know my kids arent adopted? Bad argument. Anyway, nobody has explained how the rich are not comparatively better off under Douglas’s policy. I have stated how they are. ALso, WFF is not jut child supplements.
dave 1, Mike and Blair 0.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Dave – I have stated (and you appear to have ignored) that it is irrelevant if higher earners are better off comparatively – if those on lower incomes are better off themselves. Bring the crayons, I’ll draw you a picture.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
What’s wrong with wealthy people becoming wealthier dave?
March 24th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Nothing. There`s nothing wrong with wealthy people getting better jobs leading to more wealth. Whats wrong with paying poor people to have kids because employers dont pay them enough.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
The point that seems to have been totally lost amongst arguments about who is “comparatively better off” etc is that IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT’S MONEY.
Of course when you cut taxes across the board those who earn more will keep more. It is because THEY EARNED IT.
I heard a good example by a Nat (of all people, given that they now appear to have given up on reducing taxes) a year or so ago who said tax cuts are like panadol. Take two people with a headache, one severe (a person getting heavily taxed), and one mild (a person getting lightly taxed), give them a panadol. Both will get relief, but the person with the bad headache will get comparatively more relief. Is that a good enough excuse to not give them both panadol?
One last point. I’m not one of these people who thinks tax is theft. I don’t mind paying taxes, and I don’t mind paying twice the tax as someone who earns half what I do (though trust me, that would be difficult!). The point is, that’s actually flat tax. Paying tax proportional to what you earn. Twice as much as someone who earns half what you do, not three, four, or eight times as much. And doesn’t that sound fair?
March 24th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Nothing if you are doing the paying by your own free will. However there is a problem when do-gooders see fit to appropriate my money and use it to supplement the life choices of others.
Put simply if they don’t have enough money to support kids, the responsible thing to do would be not to have them. The system we have is insidious in that by providing cash for kids we are incentivising a behaviour that is to the detriment of the parents and the kids in the long term – oh and the poor buggers that get lumped with the bill, ie the taxpayer.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
This is about where I find that bottle of shiraz. Just remembered this. Have fun kids.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Dave:
Yet another moron who thinks he can objectively judge his own case.
I’ll keep score: Dave -4; Mike and Blair +7. How do I work that out? Just look at the negative karma you’re generating on this thread. I guess that means few readers here agree with you. Now run along, Dave, and tell those at The Standard and StalkerBlog that the Kiwiblog Right (seeing as they insist on seeing the world through a collectivist prism) are an evil breed.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
James,
No the person with the heavy headache wont get comparatively more relief, he`ll get the same relief as the other person – but he may feel feel like hes getting comparatively more relief as his headaches is worse. So tax cuts arent like panadol. Bad example.
POC, Karma means nothing, you dont have to agree with me, but at least you can point out where you think I am wrong. You havent done that. All I ask is for you to tell me where Douglas’s policy makes the poor better off in comparison with the rich.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Dave, you are misusing language and statistics to prove a point that you are wrong about.
Firstly, the poor would surely be those earning less than 20K, not those earning 35-38K. I think in NZ today your group would be known as lower middle income. Misusing language.
Secondly, comparitively better off I would have interpreted to mean in percentage terms. If I give someone who is earning under 20K a 100% tax cut, and someone who is earning over $60K a 6% tax cut, who is comparatively better off? To do this properly you need to calculate the actual numbers. Try this on for size, based on people earning $20K, $40K, $100K, $200K, and ignoring all random tax credits and other subsidies, dealing only with the income tax rates. All calcs come from https://www.ird.govt.nz/cgi-bin/form.cgi?form=ptscalc2007
$20K – currently pays $3,630, or 18.15%. Under new policy would pay zero, saving $3,630 and paying 0%
$40K – currently pays $8,070, or 20.17%. Under new policy would pay $4,370, saving $3,630 and paying 10.92%
$100K – currently pays $30,270, or 30.27%. Under new policy would pay $24,240, saving $6,030, and paying 24.24%
$200K – currently pays $69,270, or 34.64%. Under new policy would pay $57,240, saving $12,030, and paying 28.6%
So, what do you mean by “relatively better off.” Those on $20K had their tax cut by $3,630, and an infinite percentage. Those on $40K also by $3,630, and by 45%. Those on $100K by $6,030 and 20%, those on $200K by $12,030 and 17.25%.
In absolute terms, the rich pay more tax and therefore any cuts will give higher dollars to them. We cannot give a tax cut of more than $3,630 to the person on $20K, and the maximum we could give to the person on $40K is $8,000. In percentage terms, the more you earn the lower the cut. So it simply isn’t true to say we are widening the relative gap between rich and poor.
Since I’ve taken the time to put numbers to this, perhaps you’d like to take the time to write a proper response?
March 24th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Dave:
Your James W (277) Says:
March 24th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Here’s a simple question for you Dave (and any others)-
Person A earns $90,000.
Person B earns $45,000.
Option 1. The government proposes a tax cut which would let Person A keep a further $9,000 of their income, and Person B $4,500 of their income.
Option 2. The government proposes a tax cut which would let Person A keep a further $6,750 of their income, and Person B $6,750 of their income.
Which of these options, if any, would you support?
Bearing in mind that – in BOTH cases Person B is still better off, despite being COMPARATIVELY worse off in Option 1.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Ok here we go Dave. Yes the “rich” as you call them may have more money in their back pocket – due to reduction in the top rate. This hasn’t been denied, I presume much to your annoyance. However have you heard of a concept called marginal utility? $2000 to a person on $20k means a heck of a lot more than $2000 to someone on $40k (ceterus paribus). As a higher proportion of income this tax cut has a greater effect on improving living standards for someone on a lower income than a higher one.
Please admit that you are envious of those on higher incomes and wish to punish them accordingly. You’re arguments suggest it – all that is required is for you to confirm it.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Um… WTF happened to my 5.28 comment?
Dave:
Your first contribution to this thread wasn’t exactly promising:
I don’t sense you have an open mind to any view other than your own. You say Douglas should never be in cabinet again and you’re equally sure his proposals will make the rich richer and the poor comparatively poorer. Now explain what you mean by comparatively poorer as you appear to think this means something other than poorer.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
dave: what does “because employers don’t pay them enough” mean? On the surface that sounds reasonable, but I think that debating technique is known as begging the question. If you start with the proposition that employers are somehow taking advantage of people by “not paying them enough” then logically your answer is that we should do something about it.
My question is what you think enough would look like, and how you would determine that. Is there some objective value that we can place on someone’s work independent of what someone else is prepared to pay for it? Should an artist be paid for their work (they worked really hard on it) even if everyone thinks it is crap? Or should they be obliged to create something that someone else is prepared to pay for.
If nobody is prepared to pay this person “enough” then does that perhaps suggest that your definition of enough is wrong? If somebody is prepared to pay this person “enough” but they aren’t choosing to take that job, does that tell us something? I feel that your statements don’t really form an argument at all without quite a bit more information.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Paul L: Someone who saves $12,030 has obviousy got a better deal than someone who saves $3630. That’s what it comes down to. Marginal utility or no marginal utility
You havent taken into account Douglas’s policy to scrap WFF. My comments were directed at his policy, not just some small part of it. Also, a family earning 38k would not be a middle income family if the average family income is more than 62k. Next, by comparatively better off I mean in dollar terms, not percentage terms – of course the more you earn the lower the cut in percentage terms even though the more you earn the higher the cut in dollar terms- and it is the difference in take home pay which is what counts, not the percentage. So my point – backed up by your example – that the poor are comparatively worse off in dollar terms with Douglas’s policy still holds and none of you right wingers can refute that.
Mike: Im not envious of those on higher incomes. However I do see that those on higher incomes are envious of families who bring up kids on incomes who get money from the state because their emoployer doesnt pay them emough. By enough, I mean enough to bring up a family on without going into debt by paying the essentials – food, accommodation, power , clothes, school fees, car warrant, rates, insurance etc. Thats why single people dont get WFF as the Government deem they have enough without needing that assistance and those with kids dont. It’s that simple.
POC:In light of Douglas’s claim to make the poor people better off – both of them. In light of his inference that poor people would be comparatively better off, none of them because none of the examples you give achieve that aim.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Is your answer to POC addressing the example I raised?
March 24th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Dave:
Rephrase “who get money from the state” to “who get money from those on higher incomes, via state redistribution” (who you claim not to be envious of) – and you’ll have an improved understanding of how a progressive tax system works.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
James, yeah
March 24th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
dave: you are moving the goal posts. You have changed my words (I didn’t say middle income, I said lower middle income), you have changed your definition (now comparatively worse off in dollar terms ). And marginal utility wasn’t my argument, it would be polite for you to keep track of who says what – we on the right are not some sort of borg collective.
You are quite correct in your new argument, almost any tax cut that is offered to the rich will result in an increase in the dollar gap between rich and poor. As to whether that is in any way a useful argument – well, obviously you think it is so I guess I’ll just have to say I disagree.
I would note that inflation also tends to increase the dollar gap between rich and poor, so I will be expecting to see some comments from you soon on how important it is to drive inflation down to, or below, zero. Hopefully thinking about that will give you some idea of why your first argument was pointless.
And you have failed to explain “enough” in a useful way. Are you seriously telling me that someone earning $38K doesn’t have enough to bring up a family without going into debt? Are you including a home mortgage in that calculation – if so, then that is a little glib – by your definition most of the rich don’t get paid enough either because they also have mortgages.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
James W:
I think so – our 5.28 comments are conflated for some weird reason.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
POC,
not necessarily from those who get money from those on higher incomes. For example a one income family with five kids on $70k gets $261.00 a week in WFF money from the state distributed from incomes which on the whole are lower than that one income family.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Dave: which is yet another reason why WFF is unjust.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Paul the rich people have bigger mortgages than the poorer ones – they can afford to. Some have two mortgages – one for their own home and one for their investment home. As far as being comparatively worse off in dollar terms that was always my argument – if I was talking percentages why on earth would I have used “comparatively” as each percentage is different.
It is dollars in the pocket that counts. A middle income family earns the average family wage – about 62k. So a family earning 38K is poor as lower middle income would be in the late 40ks.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
NO, WFF is not unjust as a policy, however I do think the threshholds are set a little high. I dont think a person with three kids on 70k should be paid $60.00 a week just to go to work – or be paid WWF payments for raising kids.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Dave:
I note you’re now shifting the debate from Act’s policy proposals to the existing government policy.
My beef with WFF is this: why should the taxes of a person earning, say $50,000, be redistributed to those with (in some cases) a combined family income exceeding $100,000? Go here, look at the table and tell me how it’s fair.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Anyway getting back to Acts policy proposals, Douglas wants to scrap WFF. He is in a minority. WFF was only brought up by me given that it is part of Douglas’s proposals. His proposals were attacking govt policy – specifically WFF. Douglas would be better off talking to business groups and govt departments to encourage greater productivity and higher wages before attacking the tax and WFF system.Hes out of touch and should not be let loose in any cabinet,
March 24th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
David, I find your analysis disappointing.
Given that expenditure has risen by over $20 billion ($10 billion real) over the past 9 years, a reduction of $3 billion in spending is relatively minor.
It’s no more than what a Labour government is trying to achieve in Australia ($15 billion).
To look at the revenue implications of my tax proposals in isolation is utterly dishonest. What I said was:
“make the first $20,000 of personal income tax-free so people can afford to buy their own healthcare cover and risk insurance such as accident and sickness cover. Hardly ‘hard right’ policy.”
This would certainly reduce tax revenue as claimed. But on the other hand it would obviously save the government a large amount of money not having to provide those things.
This is yet another case of politicians like Cullen and party mouthpieces like Kiwiblog being so busy waltzing across eggshells that they don’t dare ask themselves:
1. Where is New Zealand today?
2. Where are we going?
3. How do we move in the right direction?
New Zealanders currently earn $100 per week less than Tasmanians. And Tasmania is by far the poorest state in Australia.
In these dire circumstances, I intend to keep proposing solutions to fix the New Zealand economy. Why? It may surprise you that the answer is quite selfish.
I’ve got a lovely young granddaughter. She lives next door. I want her to keep living in the next house, not the next country.
Many New Zealanders are in the same position. They want to see New Zealand prosper, even if Cullen and Kiwiblog don’t.
This is Act’s competitive advantage. No other party has the guts to provide the solutions to keep my granddaughter at home.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Dave:
On your blog you say:
I hate to be the one to break this news to you – but you don’t seem to be terribly receptive to alternative arguments. Just out of interest, do you have strongly-held views about retaining a separate Maori electoral roll? I recall having a fairly vigorous debate with a “Dave” (I think) last year, and wonder if that person was you.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
I am extremely recective to alternative arguments. I welcome them. I have even changed my views on hearing other people arguments -for example I was opposed to teh prostition Law reform Bill and later supported it. And yes, I do support the Maori seats, whereas a couple of years ago I opposed them.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Thank you for the comments Roger. As I said at the beginning if I was designing a country from scratch, I would adopt many of your policies. I think targets such as no tax on the 1st $20K of income are laudable ones. I just don’t think they are achievable within one parliamentary term, and one has to take it a term at a time.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Dave, Roger’s proposals are largely designed to help the poor. I know that some on the left find it hard to believe, but Roger has a long and proud Labour party history. He changed his politics when he worked out that many of the Labour party policies didn’t, in fact, help the poor at all, rather they trapped them in a cycle of dependency. I think he would be incredibly offended if you suggested to him that he had lost his care for the poor.
Let me give two examples.
Health. Roger suggests that our public healthcare systems delivers lower service than the private. I think this is an objective fact. The rich don’t experience this or particularly care about it from a personal perspective – they get their healthcare through the private sector. The poor are the ones who experience rationing, queuing, treatments not being available etc. Roger’s question is why everyone in NZ can’t have private health care. The numbers suggest it would cost the same or less as the public health system we currently run. Note also this isn’t a discussion about who pays, it is a question about who provides.
Education. Again, the rich already get good education – either privately, or through buying houses in good school districts. Our existing policies (in particular zoning) mean that children from poorer backgrounds have no choice. Offering school choice benefits only the poor – the wealthy already have school choice and are exercising it. This policy is being used in Sweden, and is working well. The group that most dislike this policy are the teachers unions – a group with a lot of power in the Labour party. I believe this is because of the way this policy would make it clear which schools were performing and which not – allowing citizens to vote with their feet is not something the teachers unions are in favour of.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Hey Roger – great to see you commenting here. I was vaguely wondering whether you might, but decided you might be out of touch with the internet. Seems that was wrong, maybe Rodney is being a good influence?
To be fair to DPF, I don’t really see kiwiblog as a party mouthpiece. DPF has shown many times a willingness to buck the party line, but at the end of the day he is a National party member, so you’d have to expect many of his opinions to be similar to those of the party. That is different than taking his orders from the party.
Have you thought about updating and reissuing “Unfinished Business.” It was a great book in its time, but most of the numbers in it are out of date, and there are probably better examples out there (like Sweden in the case of education vouchers) that would fit in well.
I agree with DPF that National simply cannot afford to answer all these questions in their first term. That is the opportunity for ACT – for voters who want to see it in the first term (even though we know we won’t get it). The more votes ACT gets, the more you can pull National towards these policies. That is different than saying that National have to sign up to the program – you have to win first in the electoral market, then you can use that influence.
I’ve read much of Rodney’s stuff, and I know he has most of the same beliefs that you do. He is also very articulate in presenting them. But the media have no interest at all when he gets out there, whereas you can say the exact same things and get media attention. That is a huge asset to ACT, but also one you need to protect. If you push too hard, and don’t show where your programme could be watered down, how you could work in coalition, then people will decide it cannot happen, and the media will turn off.
Do you have a blog of your own, or some sort of website? Should we be looking to Rodney’s blog?
March 24th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Thanks for the feedback.I will comment from time to time as I am out working and campaigning for ACT almost fulltime!
I have a website http://www.rogerdouglas.org.nz. This is mostly historical but I will be updating it in a month or so time.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
“..This is mostly historical but I will be updating it in a month or so time..”
(should we hold our (bated) collective-breath..?..)
phil(whoar.no.nz)
March 24th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
“(should we hold our (bated) collective-breath..?..)”
Yep, right after you’ve inhaled Phil
March 24th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Roger Douglas “Hard Right”.
He is more socialist than those Christ’s College and Auckland grammar school graduates that head the Labour Party.
Goodness gracious me; the leader considered her local high school (Te Awamutu) not good enough and headed off to Epsom GGS. While her primary school classmates took the school bus to Te A. College.
Roger Douglas had for some time been the M.P. for Otara and if that does not give one a real experience in what the less well off need, then nobody knows. His constituency appointments would have given that son of Norman Douglas a real knowledge of what can help them.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
DPF
I think you summarise the issue perfectly when you write:
That’s the difference.
I think New Zealand has lost its way. 400,000 kiwis leaving in the past nine years confirm that.
We need to arrest the slide — and set the goal of beating Australia. We get upset coming second in sport. Why should we accept coming well down the ranks economically and socially? We shouldn’t. Just like in sport, we should strive to be the best. We don’t accept the All Blacks can’t beat the rest of the world in three years. Nor should we. Nor should we accept that our politicians can’t implement decent policies over three years. They can and we should.
I accept that the National party is a conservative party. It doesn’t do much in government. The only exceptions have been when Ruth Richardson was Minister of Finance and in opposition when Don Brash was leader. It’s no bad thing being conservative and cautious — it’s certainly better than the policy adventures we have had with Helen Clark and Michael Cullen.
But if we keep doing the same old policies we will get the same old results. Even with a change of government.
I don’t believe that ACT or kiwis should accept the dictum “that it’s great policy but it can’t be done in one parliamentary term”. Why can’t it be? And why shouldn’t we expect our politicians to implement the best policies for New Zealand?
With just two MPs ACT has got the Regulatory Responsibility Bill that forces parliament to recognise kiwi’s basic rights rather than riding rough-shod over them before the Commerce Committee, we have the Taxpayer Rights Bill in the ballot that would cap government expenditure in real terms and require a referendum for government spending to be increased in real terms, and we have articulated a detailed policy for a “scholarship for every child”. These are all easily doable in 12 months of any government. These policies would make a dramatic improvement in NZ’s fortune.
Sir Roger in a few days has outlined key ideas on tax, on working for families, and health.
We need to debate and argue the policy direction of the country.
I see that as a key role for ACT. If we don’t do it, who will?
And please explain to me why a government couldn’t do these policies in 12 months, let alone three years?
PS To those politicians who dishonestly paint Act as ‘hard right’, a few questions:
1. Do you support the changes Roger made in the 80s?
2. If so, would you have had the guts to make those changes had you been there?
3. Were you there?
4. If you were there but did not support Roger’s changes, why in nine years haven’t you reversed them?
5. If you weren’t there and don’t support them, when do you plan to reverse them?
6. What is hard right about the Swedish education system of a scholarship
for every child – now being adopted by the British Conservatives?
7. What is hard right about patients in pain on waiting lists being able to
get an operation quickly?
8. What is hard right about a worker’s first $20,000 being tax-free?
March 24th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
PaulL:
I generally agree, but aren’t you oversimplifying the workings of our political media?
The main problem, as I see it, is that Act hasn’t been able to succinctly articulate its policy mix. Elections have become an undignified lolly scramble. The media require soundbite-friendly messages (“Labour offers interest-free student loans” or “National promises to spend X% more on health”). Frankly, Act’s policies require more detailed explanation, but they haven’t been given sufficient airtime in a crowded media-zone. This is particularly relevant when pitching a message to swinging voters (who apply the “what’s in it for me” test). Slogans like “a tax cut for every worker” (from a bygone election) were overly simplistic – and easily manipulated and discredited by the other side.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
The sub text of these comments is “Act is back, and sexy with it”.
Yay.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Making the first 20k tax free is effectively ” a tax cut for every worker”. But when a tax cut for every worker is fused with the abolition of WFF, while the average individual is better off, the average family is actually worse off. Even a family with two kids on 70k is worse off – they lose $3120 in WFF payments for a 2k a year tax cut.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
$4000 if both parents are earning $20,000, making them better off than under WFF.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Remember one thing about Douglas he has spent a lifetime in the Labour Party – it is his DNA. He thinks you can get things done in the National Party the same way as the Labour Party and which he used to such stunning effect in the mid 1980s. When it comes to ideas any old person can have those – you can just look them up. Why we could even look at what Douglas is wanting and adopt them. The trick in politics is to win an election and then get the public to buy it. Douglas has not worked out how one can do that in an MMP Parliament. Also the decision making structures in the National Party are far more democratic than the Labour Party. Douglas does not really understand this it seems. But now John Key has ruled him out of cabinet so that is that. It is over before it has really begun.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
“But now John Key has ruled him out of cabinet so that is that.”
And JK has never changed his mind before? If anything it provides people who actually want change (rather than more of the same) a greater reason to vote ACT. If ACT get reasonable numbers at this election I don’t think JK will have much issue on going back on those sentiments. The public will have voted for it so he could simply point to the public’s wishes for exoneration.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
BTW dave I was only using $2k to illustrate a point. As PaulL points out the tax paid for the first $20k of income is actually $3630. So I guess that means you will now be supporting this proposal instead of WFF – considering it delivers more than the scenario you posit?
This is of course without factoring the indexing of tax brackets to 1999 levels, which of course will deliver more money to workers.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Roger Douglas returning to the ACT fold is hardly the triumph of the “hard right”-I should know. Roger has always been-and remains a social democrat.
Sir Roger’s policies have always been targeted at the under-priviliged. He has always cared far more more about those at the bottom of the heap rather than those at the top.
What sets Sir Rogerc apart from other soc dems is a recognition that the market is the greatest wealth re-distributive mechanism known to man.
That the free market approach benefit all sectors of society is a bonus, but I doubt very much that making the wealthy wealthier was ever Sir Roger’s primary motivation.
New Zealand is going backwards in education and health. the economy is slowing down and good people are leaving the country in droves.
This country needs to put privatisation, low taxes and liberalisation of health and education back in the centre of the political debate.
We need to bring the children home from Australia and further afield before we lose them forever.
ACT has people of the calibre of Rodney Hide, Heather Roy, Sir Roger Dougls and Graham Scott ready to put real solutions before the people-plus a few more heavy hitters waiting in the wings.
ACT will get several seats in the next parliament. Several of ACT’s MPs will be qualified to march straight into Cabinet.
John Key might not be too happy about that now, but I can’t see him turning ACT away when Rodney comes to call, if the PM job depends on it.
If he really is that silly, I can guarantee you that Helen won’t be.
Either way Rodney, Roger, Heather and perhaps a few others are going to have significant influence in the next government.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
POC: I think you have too little faith in the swinging voter. A number of reputable studies show that people don’t actually vote their hip pocket, they vote what they think is good for the country. The left don’t actually want to trap people in poverty, it’s just that they’re made up of people who care more than they think. The right don’t actually want to grind the poor into the dirt, it’s just that they’ve seen the path to prosperity, and it doesn’t come from increasing dole payments. Problem is, most of them have never lived on the dole themselves, so they sometimes aren’t good at expressing it.
The challenge for ACT isn’t to somehow hoodwink people into what is good for them, it is just to explain it in a way that the average joe can understand. Richard Prebble was brilliant at this, Rodney has the potential but hasn’t cracked the media. Roger has the ideas, but sometimes cannot put them across in a punchy enough way, and doesn’t like to separate elements of the policy programme – too much of an “all or nothing.” The tax policy can live independent of the health policy, the health policy independent of the schools policy.
If I were running ACT, I reckon I’d punt on:
– half the tax policy. All income under $20K to be tax free, we’ll talk about the top tax rate next term. The rich don’t vote their pocket books, they’d rather the $20K tax free than the 39c rate being dropped. Make this one of ACTs bottom lines. Who exactly could argue about it?
– the education policy. Education goes directly to long-term prosperity. The Swedish implemented it and it works well, as Roger has said, you can hardly argue that the Swedish are hard right. Again, the only people who can argue are the unions, and they just look petty when they do so – how can you argue about a policy that only helps the poor? And all the Volvo driving chardonnay sipping lefties will have to think very hard about it.
Just those two, nothing else. Well, maybe Rodney’s two bills from above – but really they wouldn’t be as big a wins as these two.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
The ideological position of the left really comes out here. They actually believe that making the first 20K tax free would make lower income people worse off.
Perhaps what is more interesting is that National doesn’t want to tackle real reform either.
The New Zealand economy is suffering death by a thousand cuts in the form of ever increasing social spending and an abject failure to keep real tax rates stable let alone reduce them. The reason for this is simple – whenever social spending or taxation is discussed the left change the argument from one of dollars and cents to one of emotion – e.g. “surely we all want a health system that provides free healthcare for all”, or “our children’s education is the most important thing we can spend money on”. Meaningless statements that should not be argued against because to argue against them exposes one to the accusation of being uncaring and to ask how these things are to be paid for reveals one to be more concerned with money than “things that really matter”. The answer of course is that ACT should never talk about saving money. They must, unrelentingly, claim (honestly) that they want a health system that is the best in the world, and an education system that is the best in the world, and that this is the way to do it. Then when anyone attacks their policies ask them whether they are against having the best health and education systems in the world – do they not care about the Kiwi Battler (stop short though of proclaiming “What about the children. Wont anyone think of the children?”).
A few carefully constructed quips to take the wind out of the looney left would also be useful. Alternatively a smear campaign – e.g. only ever refer to the labour party as the Communist Party and National as their willing accomplices perhaps or the Fifth Column, and New Zealand as Helengrad. Specific smears (references to Hitler / Stalin should never ever be used – they will always backfire).
March 25th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Very very sound comment from Paul L.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Dead right PaulL. Love your comments. Radvad too.
Trevor, naughty boy: not several seats – a dozen!
Don Brash got 39%. Bob Jones got 12.5%. Lange/Douglas won in ‘87.
Rodney + Roger, united and supported like never before, will get at least 10%. Stay tuned.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:20 am
With you on board John I am sure we will
March 25th, 2008 at 12:30 am
PaulL:
Great post – and, again, I find little to disagree with.
A couple of thoughts:
You generally make thoughtful comments, and have shown enough intellectual honesty in the past, that I’m prepared to accept you’ve seen these reputable studies. But how conclusive are those studies? I presume these studies use a self-reporting methodology – how else can one measure swinging voters’ subjective thought processes? On that basis, are you prepared to allow for the possibility that people claim to be voting according to their perception of national interest? In other words, people decide what’s best for themselves and then simultaneously persuade themselves that what they want is what the country needs? I’m sure this point has been documented and addressed in those studies, but I can’t see how one can get around this methodological limitation. Yes, call me cynical, but I’m sure marketing research would have some useful insights to offer here.
Absolutely – that was precisely my point. I think Act’s status as “a minor party” goes some way to depriving it of political oxygen. That’s not a criticism of its members – for example, I’ve met Gary Mallott and he struck me as a man who’s passionate about his politics. I’m sure there are some wingnut supporters in Act, as in any party. Exhibit A: Len Richards and his unique style of megaphone diplomacy at Labour Party events.
But here’s the problem: how does Act get the air-time it needs when the political media still frames issues as an election as a two-horse race between Labour and National? Why should things be any different in 2008?
March 25th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Yeah, valid point RossK. Political reality is, well, reality and things like that awful student loans policy have to be swallowed and time to move on but I do worry that National is not prepared to have a fight on things like social spending and in particular WFF. I support saying little until after the budget – why make a rod for your own back – but the softly softly approach is worrying. It will be fascinating to see whether ACT can make some mileage and bring themselves back into contention as a real player on the political landscape and gain some real reform concessions.
In terms of the “hard right” tag for ACT it may not be fair but, unfortunately, it appears to be the general perception. Whilst by no means hard right in the global scheme the sad fact is that ACT is the right end of the NZ spectrum so I guess it is hard to convince the media and the public that they do not represent the “far” right (in this country). Welcome to perceptions…
March 25th, 2008 at 1:29 am
I guess that means you will now be supporting this proposal instead of WFF – considering it delivers more than the scenario you posit?
No, because the average family will be worse off. Sure, I could support a tax cut for high income families on 70K than WFF for these people, given that I have already said that I don’t believe WFF should be extended to families on such high incomes.
But not for those on lower incomes – even with indexing of tax brackets to 1999 levels. Given that you pay $3630 tax on the first 20k – $69.81 a week, that would mean that any family who gets more than $10.00 ( or a little more for 1999 indexing) a week for Family Support loses out. The other $60.00 is the In Work Payment. I think the average family – 2-3 kids – on the average family wage – $62k – should not get $150 in WFF payments, – but thats more than double what they would get under a 20k tax free income and WFF scrapped. A third of working families would lose out big time as they`d need a 100% tax cut on all tax, not just the first 20k – to be better off with a nabolition of WFF.
You people supporting Act still havent told me how a family of, say, three kids, earning less than the average family wage who has WFF scrapped will be better off under Rogers policy 20k free tax policy. Because you cant. That’s because it is impossible to do, given that a third of working families effectively don’t pay tax at all!
March 25th, 2008 at 1:58 am
Dave
Maybe there is the problem right there. The massive redistribution of money to families is anti family. I, and a lot of my friends, work hard to get ahead. We have the idea that we would like to accumulate some money, buy a house, and eventually be in a position to support a family on one income. Factoring in subsidies that we might be entitled to in the future never even occurs to us. Yet people like you, by the massive tax redistribution imposed on us right now, make our aspirations harder to achieve.
Why take money off me now, to give to someone with a family, thereby creating a situation where when I have a family, someone else will have to have money taken off them to subsidise me because I was left short from having to subsidise someone else. Why do it? It is stupid.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:50 am
Dave Dave Dave. I think it’s time to forget WFF. It was designed to make it as difficult as possible for people to vote for a party who would abolish it. It was the ultimate in election bribes and you have bought into it despite you being a Nat.
WFF is giving taxation back to many familes who simply don’t need it, but who is going to turn down free money? Step back and look at the wider picture – lower taxes is beneficial to everybody. A tax cut for every worker is wonderful. Lets take money away from politicians and give it to the workers. If we deliver tax cuts then Labour or anybody else cannot decide to redistribute it like in the form of WFF.
Dave, if you unclog your head a little with that then I believe you may change your mind.
All those years under Labour has softened you up!
March 25th, 2008 at 6:11 am
Policy Parrot
your comment at 435pm is absolute nonsense. First, “had employers invested in productivity in the 90’s…” Newsflash for you. Productivity was three times higher in the 90’s than it is now. Labour is the one who has flushed productivity down the toilet and hamstrung employers into lower wages.
Re your other comments on why you make people earning $20K poorer when when we give them a $4000 tax break, you don’t seem to understand that if health insurance costs say – 600 a year, then they are still 3400 better off. If they want to use that money to consolidate debt or whatever as you say, fine. They will still be 3400 a year better off.
So back to my original question, how does giving huge tax breaks to people on low incomes make them worse off?
March 25th, 2008 at 6:32 am
Peak Oil Conspiracy: “I think Act’s status as “a minor party” goes some way to depriving it of political oxygen…”
IF we remain a minor party. Who’s been struggling for oxygen in the past week? Not Act!
“How does Act get the air-time it needs when the political media still frames issues as an election as a two-horse race between Labour and National?”
Add a horse. Kiwi! (Melbourne Cup, 1983.)
GPT1: “Whilst by no means hard right in the global scheme the sad fact is that ACT is the right end of the NZ spectrum so I guess it is hard to convince the media and the public that they do not represent the “far” right (in this country).”
Hard is one thing. Impossible is another. Look at the karma points on this blog.
Nothing can stop an idea whose time has come.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Dave: Paul L: Someone who saves $12,030 has obviousy got a better deal than someone who saves $3630. That’s what it comes down to.
Tell you what. When the person saving $3630 PAYS $69,270 in tax, rather than $3,630 in tax – then you might have a point. Until then, you are sprouting nothing more than the politics of envy.
John Ansell: Nothing can stop an idea whose time has come.
I agree wholeheartedly. I do not spend 14 hours a day working to supplement somebody else’s choices. Because they choose to have 4 or 5 children I have to pay for their children, whilst as a responsible member of society I’m not having more than one child because I know I cannot afford to do so.
Bluntly put? Fuck them.
It’s high time the government stopped digging in my pocket to buy votes for themselves. These “feel good” policies need to stop.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Peak Oil: “Act hasn’t been able to succinctly articulate its policy mix.”
Fair point Peak Oil. So how’s this for succinct:
Education – defy mediocrity. Create a world class system by awarding every child a scholarship to the school of their choice, i.e. let the state fund schools via parents. Run those state schools that parents want. Otherwise let parents take the state’s money to private schools. Pay good teachers more than mediocre ones. Replace mediocre ones. (The Swedes run this
system and great schools are sprouting up everywhere. Average size: 181 pupils.)
Health – get everyone to buy a health insurance policy from the money they save in tax – so they can get world class treatment as soon as they’re sick.
Economy – lower taxes to reward hard workers and job creators who are gutsy enough to take risks for the rest of us.
Red tape – stop it strangling our initiative. Reform the RMA. Pass the RRB.
How am I doing?
March 25th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Rodney said: “Defy mediocrity” and “Create a world class system”
that’s two cliches running on from each other in the first bullet point. Drop the Obama-esque cliches and get to the point please.
“How am I doing?” said Rodney?
Easy. You’re doing well if you are implementing Roger Douglas’ book Unfinished Business (pub 1993). The education and health policies are right out of Roger Douglas’ manifesto for the ACT Party 15 years ago.
Question is, if you want centre-right voters to sign up to Roger Douglas’ economic and social plans, based on his book 15 years ago and his revival in the ACT Party this year, what are you there for exactly? It doesn’t appear to be leadership – that’s now coming from Douglas.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Rodney, Sushi makes a fair point with the cliches. I have a general idea of “how” you want to make those concepts work – but do you have a policy document that details how it will be implemented and what is required for it – along with the pros and cons of such an approach?
March 25th, 2008 at 8:40 am
thanks for the belly laugh..!
“..The sub text of these comments is “Act is back, and sexy with it”..”
and is ansell getting a tad..over-excited/exuberant..?
(maybe he’s hoping to be working on his (first!) ‘winning’ campaign..?
and if so..he deserves an award from the meat marketing board..
for ‘re-packing/re-selling of ‘old meat’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 25th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Pascal – I’m sure such documents will be coming out which details the policies and how they will work. It will also no doubt be available on the website as per normal with policy. You’re right though that these policies need to be branded effectively and marketed differently than the past, cue John Ansell. However the broad policies have been announced (before other parties I might add again). I expect further details will be fleshed out closer to the election as well as marketing approaches.
March 25th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Rodney is a salesman and tactician like no other. Roger is an architect and strategist like no other. They’re the ultimate economic/political dream team.
Now: which of you lefties want to debate Act’s adoption of the Swedish education system?
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/526631/part_2/made-in-sweden-the-new-tory-education-revolution.thtml
Excited philu? Damn right.
March 25th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Mike: Pascal – I’m sure such documents will be coming out which details the policies and how they will work. It will also no doubt be available on the website as per normal with policy.
I’ve always been impressed with ACTs ability to research, articulate and publish their policies. The one party to actually get a treasury costed analysis of their budget that showed how affordable it was, wasn’t it?
I’ll go have a garner on the website and see what is available there now – it has been a few weeks since I’ve been there.
March 25th, 2008 at 9:37 am
yes.yes…mr ansell..it’s all very commendable’/'job-descriptive’ to be ‘excited’/a ‘believer’..
but the reality is that you are trying to re-package/re-sell..to the new zealand public..the architect of a period of great ‘pain’ for many/most new zealanders..
and no amount of self-belief/belief in your ‘product’..will get you over that hurdle..
the good news for the centre-left..is that the spectre of douglas will drive the ‘waverers’..those who decide every election..
back into the (boring but not scary) arms of labour etc..
so..good luck!..with that promotion of ‘nightmares-past’..in the form of ‘wodger’..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 25th, 2008 at 9:55 am
POC: the particular study I saw was combined with another that looked at wealth v’s voting patterns. It was for the US, but I am assuming same applies here. I seem to recall it was the freakonomics guy – who has a good history of finding ways to proxy things so that he doesn’t have to rely on surveys. I do remember it also had some content about economic knowledge and the supposed intelligence of crowds – pretty conclusively proved that crowds are systematically wrong in some cases.
Whilst we’re dealing with the tax for under $20K, we need to deal with abatement rates for benefits – these are a bigger problem for someone getting into work than the tax is. That is a little trickier, but I’m sure the smart people at ACT can work it out.
Rodney, not punchy and direct enough. It’s hard to get it better, but it’s worth it.
I’d drop the question of people buying their own health insurance for now – too scary. Focus on the public system being allowed to purchase privately, or on “the govt” buying private health insurance for everyone. As to whether some govt department actually buys it, or we just give everyone the money to buy it and let them make their own choices, that is probably irrelevant. The point is you get private health care, not public, and you don’t have to find the money for it out of your own pocket – guaranteed.
Economy, agree, but how about we focus on the bottom not the top? I agree that productivity is better with lower tax, I agree that high tax is wasteful of talent. But it makes it easy to tar ACT as the party of the rich, and the rich can wait until the poor are taken care of. Focus on the tax free bottom 20K, and on the abatement rates for the dole. Make it easy to get into work, rather than someone on the dole heading into work ending up worse off each week once they pay for the clothes, transport, lunch each day etc.
Building your policies around things that are palatable and understandable makes the media easier. I’m not saying drop all the rest, I’m saying choose what you focus on.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Philu:
The other day you had this to say about your debating talents:
Well, Philu, here’s a chance to showcase your impressive talents. This thread is entitled “Roger Douglas on his proposals”. So far you’ve had much to say about Roger Douglas. But I’ve yet to see constructive commentary from you on his proposals (not gutter-sniping tactics – rather outlining why you think they’re so bad). What’cha got?
March 25th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Re your other comments on why you make people earning $20K poorer when when we give them a $4000 tax break, you don’t seem to understand that if health insurance costs say – 600 a year, then they are still 3400 better off.
Find me a decent health insurer that costs $600 a year. Then tell me how a family on less that 45k can afford it if they have WFF docked.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Rodney Hide:
I agree with PaulL: “Rodney, not punchy and direct enough. It’s hard to get it better, but it’s worth it.“.
A few more musings. NZ-style election debates follow a very predictable formula: economy, health, Treaty etc. It’s designed to let a panel of speakers, including Act spokespeople, simplistically utter a couple of soundbites, in between ad breaks. I’m being honest, Rodney, when I say Act spokespeople didn’t always captivate me in the past. John Ansell is optimistic that this year will, somehow, be different. Maybe. I’ve left NZ for a more prosperous life overseas so won’t be around to witness Act’s campaign execution.
There’s a large collective (there’s a socialist concept for you) of expats. If you segment the market and identify Act prospects, your next task would be to explain why a party vote for Act isn’t a wasted vote. I suspect those agitating for political change want, at the very least, a statistically significant swing to National and enough coalition partners to allow a centre-right government to be formed.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:09 am
“the reality is that you are trying to re-package/re-sell..to the new zealand public..the architect of a period of great ‘pain’ for many/most new zealanders..”
Phil, you’re right. The 80s were a period of pain for many New Zealanders. (But not most.)
And why? Because previous governments had fooled themselves and us that it was good for our people to essentially dig holes and fill them in again.
(Well, what else would you call our car assembly industry, where cars were assembled in Japan, disassembled – to the disbelief of the Japanese – then shipped to NZ to be reassembled?)
Someone needed to stand up and be brave and say, “Enough”. That someone was Roger Douglas.
The vast majority of those people who were in pain are now gainfully employed doing something useful for themselves and the country.
Who among our present politicians would have been brave enough to do what Roger did? Our present leader and deputy were there, hiding to avoid blame, but happy to share credit for the gains.
Often in politics, the choice is not between good and bad, but between bad and worse. Given that choice in 1984, Roger bit the bullet and chose bad.
Result: we were soon prospering. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were created.
Self-interested politicians always choose worse.
Result: worse productivity, worse standard of living, worse education, worse healthcare, worse emigration, worse violence.
We don’t just need a change of government. We need a change of direction. Real leadership.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Rodney – dave is a classic example of why you are better to stick to a few simple messages. He cannot assimilate any more than that, so we have him bleating on about WFF (which Roger chose to mention) rather than the content of the discussion. On message is very important. I also note that the message has to be “the govt will pay” rather than “you can buy your own.” As you can see, the difference between the two is substantial.
Dave, if WFF is reduced, something will offset it. Families might not get much benefit (as you say, they already pay no tax) but the many many people who don’t qualify for WFF will get benefit.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:47 am
“Our present leader and deputy were there, hiding to avoid blame, but happy to share credit for the gains.”
Oops, just noticed my poor choice of words. Clearly by ‘our’ I mean our country’s, not our party’s. Rodney, Heather, I didn’t mean…
March 25th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
PaulL:
I’m sure “the govt will pay” would be gratefully received by the what’s-in-it-for-me brigade. But don’t you think it’s difficult to reconcile that message with a party that stands for individual freedom and responsibility?
March 25th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Ansell, When it comes to facts, you’re a hazard to shipping.
Just to take one example, you say, “… in 1984, Roger bit the bullet and chose bad. Result: we were soon prospering. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were created.”
Well here are the facts: the number of employed in NZ fell from 1.341m in March 1986 to 1.216m in September 1989 (HLFQ.SLA.3HA, Statistics New Zealand). That’s what actually happened “soon” after the reforms were initiated in 1984.
As I pointed out in a thread a week or so ago, in 1984 Douglas promised we’d be better off in the “medium term” in 1984 and the medium term came and went, and then came and went a second time, and we still weren’t better off.
But I do like your strategy of using Roger Douglas to attract errant nutcase hard-right punters back to the fold. Try getting Ruth to stand as well. More impact still. Go for it!
March 25th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
John Ansell said: “Rodney is a salesman and tactician like no other. Roger is an architect and strategist like no other. They’re the ultimate economic/political dream team.”
except their political work together has been marked by acrimony and division, at least when Douglas was Party President of ACT in the late 1990s and early 2000s. According to media reports at the time, there were very public stoushes between Hide and Douglas over party direction.
I’m sure that they are prepared to put aside differences in the hope ACT will benefit from their co-operation, but it’s fantasy and sheer-hope to suggest they are a dream-team. The very public front-footing on economic issues by Douglas over the last two weeks makes it clear Douglas isn’t going to play a back seat role to Hide’s leadership, and if anything, will be the ideas man that takes a leading role, potentially overshadowing Hide’s leadership.
And lets face it, it could well confuse people as to who exactly is leading ACT when a former leader and party president is headline grabbing on massive public policy plans while the current leader is meekly sitting by saying he intends to be a good local constituency MP. The dream team has the same potential to fall apart, as it allegedly did around 8-9 years ago.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Is there anyway on this blog we can filter people out? Dave has proven that he can’t cope with simple mathematics at all and is really interested in debating the semantics of the word comparative. Sounds like when I was listening to Jeanette Fitzsimmons being interviewed on Triangle TV (an Auckland television station). She was saying how great it would be to be able to tax “rich” people at 90% but had to admit that it probably wouldn’t work as “they” don’t like it.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
jafapete, I took it for granted that we all realised that there were immediate job losses, since we’d been talking about that. But I should have made it clearer.
On the other hand, if you’re suggesting that we’re still no better off after the Douglas reforms, then I think even Clark and Cullen would agree that your term ‘errant nutcase’ should be applied closer to home.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Ansell: “I took it for granted that we all realised that there were immediate job losses, since we’d been talking about that. But I should have made it clearer.”
No, you just need to become better informed, or start using words like “soon” and “immediate” in a less Rovian fashion — I suspect the former.
To begin with, I don’t know anyone who would say that 5 years I gave you figures for (to 1989) is the “immediate” period following the initiation of the reforms. Be honest, now; it’s not.
But, the picture is even worse than that. Employment in NZ over the period didn’t hit bottom until the September 1992 Q (at 1.181m)(HLFQ.SLA.3HA, Statistics New Zealand (Persons Employed by Sex by Employment Status; Total Both Sexes; Wage or Salary Earners).
(Note: the Household Labour Force Survey (HLFS) started in October 1985.)
March 25th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
POC: two part process.
1. We want to restructure who provides. The govt will fund health insurance for anybody who wants it.
2. We want to make this more efficient. Why does the govt take your money, keep a bit, then give it back to you to buy health insurance. For those people who choose to have health insurance, and pay enough tax for the rebate to work, we’ll just give you a tax rebate instead. Anybody who doesn’t want to do this doesn’t have to.
See, much less threatening, no element of compulsion, and achieves the important parts of the programme.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
We have 3.7% unemployment today because of Douglas’ reforms. When John Ansell says we need a change of direction he is spot on, so that in the medium-long term the destination is arrived at.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
I think jafapete confuses cause and effect when viewing the pain associated with the Douglas reforms. Here’s a question; was the massive unemployment experienced by East Germany (30% plus) after the fall of the Berlin Wall caused by the fall of the Wall and the subsequent exposure to West German economic ways? Or was it caused by how East Germany deliberately conducted its economic and social policies for the 30 to 40 years prior?
March 25th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
bruceh: Hey, I was opposed to the crappy economic policies of Muldoon. What’s that you say, he was National?
Sadly, we can’t run a counterfactual case to show what the outcomes would have been had we implemented structural reform from 1984 in such a way as to minimise the impact on the most vulnerable — with, say, enhanced retraining. (Note, no sane person would argue that some structural reform wasn’t very necessary after so many years of National government).
And, as I conceded on an earlier thread, much of the pain in the early 1990s was down to the vicious policies of Ruth and co — not Roger — including introducing the Employment Contracts Act, stand downs, benefit cuts and so on at a time of very high unemployemnt.
And that some of those policy settings caused unnecessary hardship is manifest in the decision of the current National Party not to re-introduce things like the ECA.
As for the suggestion that the current 3.7% unemployment rate has much at all to do with the reforms in the mid-1980s — as though other policy pathways wouldn’t have resulted in the same outcomes or better — that’s just wishful thinking, to put it politely.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
jafapete, the discussion is bigger than whether it was National/Muldoon before 1984 or Kirk/Rowling before that, or which party has done what since the reform era ended with Ruth’s sacking by National.
The discussion is more one of prevailing cultural/ tacitly held beliefs about how a nation can best work. Between WW2 and 1984 the buy-in was that economic protection from the outside world and from each other was the best form of social/ employment protection. Also that a state franchise on education, health, accident protection, retirement income and social support would offer the best certainty and quality of delivery outcomes to the recipients, the people, especially the vulnerable.
The economic protectionism argument is over bar a few romanticists hanging on to a mythical past.
The means of delivery of social outcomes is where the argument is still in mid-course. The sacred cows of state control and delivery of social policy are indeed very sacred, especially when they continue to be deified to the public by politicians across the spectrum.
But like the old economic protection approach, the chronic inability of these fat cows to deliver quality outcomes is becoming rather embarrassing and their days of sacred untouchability are starting to fade.
If anyone was going to be able to make state controlled delivery work well it was going to be super-intelligent political scientist Clark and her smart govt crew! Certainly there can be no complaint about the money available – the private economy of the people has delivered bumper outcomes for their decade in office. And National seems happy to preside over much of the policy directions and settings current Labour put in.
Roger Douglas represents a lineage out of the ancient Pragmatists school – bugger the ideology and the sacred cows, what’s moral is what works. If its not working its immoral.
As Rodney Hide predicted at the start of the current regime, Clark/Cullen’s approach has made the govt rich, the peoples wealth continues its decline relative to our neighbours and the chronic failure of state services to deliver, especially to the most vulnerable, is becoming acute. Like Ansell said above, nothing like an idea whose time has come.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Wouldn’t income splitting between couples be a good way of dealing with the transition from WFF to the new tax regime?
March 25th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I do wonder if these ACT policies are suitable to help the centre-right get elected…
To most in the centre they are scary, with the jumps too big and too far to the right to be given serious consideration.
I appreciate ACT needs to have a point of difference from National, but Labour will be laughing all the way, as it may play directly into their vote-bag.
As for John Ansell, I consider your change of party support disappointing. You have gone down in my estimation a great deal.
March 25th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
First time caller – you seem to typify the average Tory who is more intent on replacing Labour than enacting a vision for this country. How do you guys do it? It’s about as in depth as the Standard guys coming on here saying National bad, Labour good.
Centre right voters have two choices this election – to change the government but keep the same direction (and really what is the point?), or to change the government and change the direction of New Zealand onto a path of prosperity.
For the first option – it’s simple, vote National and you’ll get more of the same except John Key answering questions at question time. For the second, vote ACT and not only will you change the government, but you will assist in changing the direction of this country into something better (in conjuction with National). Dare to believe!
ACT is not too far to the right and I challenge you to suggest how that is so. It does however have a vision and goal to make New Zealand prosperous and somewhere we choose to live.
Oh and as far as I know John Ansell worked for National last election because of Don Brash not because the party “wasn’t Labour”.
March 25th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
I think the choice is becoming increasingly simple – if you want genuine change in the direction of this country, ACT is the party of choice.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Polling seems to indicate….
March 25th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Rodney said:
We will never beat Australia economically. That is a pipe dream. They have all the advantages. Population, mineral resources, infrastructure, proximity to the rest of the world, and a huge head start. Unless they screw up.
Oh, and they thraaash us in sport, too.
Perhaps a more realistic goal? Like “we will get 3% growth pa when the international recession is over”?
March 25th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Governments lose elections, oppositions don’t win them. So Key is being plain stupid in ruling Roger Douglas out – viz Act =7 MPs holding balance of power. Does Key form minority Govt with Act on the cross benches able to apply great leverage by threatening to bring govt down whenever it fails to get its way or does Key Flip and so become a weakened leader. The facts show that National s suppport picked up as a direct result of Don Brash espousing more radical policies than Labour lite, also Act so wake up John the reality is Act is pre requisite for a National led govt so embrace their better ideas and weed out the poorer ones by including them inside the tent were it is easier to do the policy deals than outside. Look at the Karma points – not scientific agreed but they are an indication of support.
March 26th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Jafapete:
You have form on the Douglas reforms issue.
Most of the Left say the never support Muldoonism (what they really didn’t like was his style). Yet Muldoonism was leftwing in nature (centralised economic planning). Muldoonism was the culmination of a previous trend (irrespective of party) to increase the role and the cost of the State.
Jafa then concedes that he likes the outcome of Douglas’s economic reforms, it’s just there were other ways to achieve it (without all the pain) and the benefits didn’t flow fast enough. This is typical dishonesty from the left: they are like sellers of the weightloss miracle pill.
If one thinks about it – if it where easy it would be done instead of waiting for a crisis. You see a bit of this ‘too hardism’ from Mr Farrar. Again take up the health analogy: “look if I had the ideal body weight I would eat healthily, but since I am fat to eat healthily is too hard and the results of that will take too long so there is no point in eating healthily”
Both Labour and National appear to have signed up to the existing social policy programmes in health and education. The are both conservative parties now. All the evidence is that despite unprecedented levels of expenditure in both, the education system is failing almost half the children and our health system is going third world. Defending the status quo in these arrangements is simply not going to be enough.
The problem is Jafa that most other successful nations make micro adjustments in policy over time that reduce the size, role and therefore cost of the State and increase individual choice and personal responsibility. In New Zealand no one is pushing an examination of the slowing failing status quo in say health and education except ACT. Labour has stoutly defended the status quo and National appears to be going to do the same. In the meantime a ’social democratic’ state like Sweden introduces school choice and its now a political consensus.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:50 am
I don’t think so. For starters, Key wants to get National as much of the vote as possible, and if he sees ACT compromising that, he needs to do something. Roger Douglas may actually be a draw card away from National to ACT, and that hurts National’s power. If he can convince people that a vote for ACT is wasted, then it’s more votes for National.
And nothing is lost by doing it. If people go to ACT anyway, and they do end up holding the balance of power, few people will blame Key for choosing ACT as a coalition partner. Sure it’s a flipflop, but that’s coalition politics.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Mike Collins…a vote for ACT is a vote to keep Labour in office. It’s a simple as that.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Act are a sideshow to this election and Helen will be chuckling at the party votes peeling away from National towards Act.
If you really, really want a change in NZ this year, a change that give a clear mandate for sweeping changes in Parliament you need a very large seat majority to National, maybe with an Act supporting bloc.
Labours election campaign will be divide and conquer – they’ll be wanting Act and National and the religious right to be an amorphous blob. Strange but true.
March 29th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Incidentally, in reference to your proposal on making $20,000 of income tax-free, unfortunately Nats leadership team is not at all on board with the idea. At last regional conference in Canterbury/Westland a remit on making $10,000 tax-free was passed, but English claimed the idea was too expensive in the Press the next day.