Ansell and ACT part ways
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:00 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports that John Ansell is no longer working on the ACT campaign. It doesn’t sound like a big bust up, just one of those disagreements over the extent of the role not being what was wanted.
It will be a blow to ACT as John is very highly regarded for his creative nous.
Ironically sort of good news for me, as John has done work for the anti-EFA campaign and we still have a wee bit of money left over which we need to spend before the election!
Tags: ACT, John Ansell
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:05 am
Just pop back to National John… just to make sure we beat the bloody lefties!
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 9:13 am
bummer..!..
no more ansell to take the piss out of..
our days have all got a little dimmer..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 9:22 am
this is the money-quote from ansell..on why he has ‘bailed’..
“..It’s nuts..and I said as much..but couldn’t get any traction..”
imagine being flanked by hide/douglas..both yabbering at you..
‘nuts’..!..indeed..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 9:29 am
I look forward to something outstanding on the visual front soon then. I’m sure JA will have a special idea or two to put infront of the voters. in the meantime,
left of page, pic of Helen, Luigi, et all, under the heading “electoral integrity”: on the right “yeah right!”
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 9:41 am
first time caller:
“He would not say who his differences were with, saying he still supported Act and would not work for another party this election.”
dave strings: a pledge card, by the looks.
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 9:54 am
Speaking of “anti-EFA”, I am running a poll today in my own blog. I’ve got some new feature pages due to go up in a week or two’s time that will attract well in excess of a million page views a month. There’s also some video that will almost certainly be carried by some of the world’s TV media.
Clearly this is a *huge* advertising opportunity and I’m weighing up what I should do with this ad-space, so I’m running a poll that will let my readers help choose. One of the options is to use the space to promote an NZ political party so as to challenge the EFA.
Earlier in the year I ran more than $5K worth of banner advertising for the Labour Party, to see if I’d be pinged for infringing the EFA — and nothing happened.
If I were to do the same for National, ACT, the Greens, the Maori Party or whatever — I wonder if the response would be the same? Kiwiblog readers are invited to vote in the poll which appears on the Aardvark Forums.
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 10:04 am
Ad man throws tantie during election year and quits. Yawn, that’s a new story. If we had a dollar for every time that’s happened throughout NZ political history then we could finance a campaign better than Owen Glenn.
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 10:06 am
Sad. It should be all hands on deck as this campaign is going to be one of our most important. I don’t believe it will be the last we hear from John.
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 10:21 am
kate..not so yawn-inducing when you consider the fanfare with which he spurned the blandishments from national..
..and what a ‘coup’ it was..
who will replace him..?..
(i nominate whoever suggested the $1400 dollar bright/cack-yellow jacket hide seems to sleep in..
i think a fake red nose..and some blusher on the cheeks..
would really set that jacket/hide off..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
(b.t.w…the true wine-snob only drinks vegan/organic..
..just thought you might like to know that..for when you ‘upgrade’..eh..?..)
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 10:32 am
Gee Phil, I wouldn’t have thought you could afford to be a wine snob on what we (the taxpayer) pay you for your daily labours.
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 10:46 am
paul..i know about it..
i know about a few things..dosen’t necessarily follow i do them..
my alcohol intake would be one or two beers..every few months..
does that meet your checklist of approval..?
can the boy and i still get our dpb next week..?
an accountant..are you..?
a widget-counter..?..somewhere..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 10:51 am
I am thinking some billboards in Tauranga would be very well positioned.
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 10:57 am
“..winston..the racing industries’ ‘man’..”
“..did you call me ‘slushy’..?..”
“got some ‘fishy business’.?..ask me..!..”
“the cheque-first party”..
“winston..the smile you can buy..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 am
No Phil, I’m not. And if I had my way, no, you wouldn’t get your DPB next week. I have no problem with providing benefits for those in need. I have a real problem with providing benefits for those who treat it as a choice, rather than having no option. Benefits are not seed money to launch a glorious internet career (I seem to recall you telling us at one point that was what you were doing), nor to allow some people to opt out of supporting themselves. It is not possible for everyone in the country to decide that they don’t feel like working, I’m not sure how it is in any way fair that some subset of the population can do that.
I realise that there are relatively few people on benefits who are actively bludging. But we need to tighten up on those who are – they weaken the moral authority of the whole system, and thereby reduce society’s sympathy for those in genuine need. And, my calculation of those on benefits includes those on ACC for very extended periods, those on disability benefits with problems that are able to be solved with a bit of will power, or controlled with treatment, those who have ceased looking for work.
The fact that the numbers wholly on government support are so much higher than the numbers of people actively looking for work is a serious concern, and it will become more serious as we head into this downturn. We should have dealt with this issue when times were good and employers were able to afford to take a risk on someone whom had been out of the workforce for an extended period. Instead we made it harder to employ people, and shifted many unemployed onto benefits that have less of an imperative to find work. The fact that the number of disabled people in NZ has increased during a period where the world has the best health outcomes of any time in human history is quite insane.
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 11:08 am
so..you would remove any state support for sole parents..?..and those on disabilities/etc..
why don’t you go and offer yourself as acts’ campaign manager..?
you sound like their kinda guy..
and..’well-off’..are we..?
never had any family breakdowns/health issues..?
touch wood..!..eh..?
and i’m sure you’d be for means-testing the pension..eh..?
what’s that..?..you receive a pension..?
even tho’ you don’t ‘need it’..?
oh..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 11:17 am
Phil, you’re commenting on things you know nothing about.
Yes, I am all for phasing in means-testing of the pension. It’s stupid to be taxing some people in order to give that money to people who are wealthier than they are.
No, I wouldn’t remove all state support for sole parents. But I know an awful lot of sole parents who work – and NZ has the most generous state funded sole parent benefit in the western world. Even the Scandinavians expect you to get out to work once the last child is in school or child care. And there are a huge number of empirical studies that show the children do better when their parents are in work rather than sitting around all day smoking pot and commenting on the internet. (OK, the last part of that sentence I made up, but children of sole parents who work do much better than children of sole parents who don’t)
As for family breakdowns and health issues – none of your business. But plenty of examples out there of people who have and don’t decide that the right response is to spend the rest of their lives on a benefit. The taxpayers should be getting more for their money – and I’m all in favour of spending a little more money in order to shift those people into work – it doesn’t happen just by forcing them. We need a bit of carrot and a bit of stick. As I have said before, the marginal tax rates those leaving a benefit face are a disgrace, and we need to address those. We need case managers who actually care about getting those on a benefit back into work, and have at their disposal some programs that actually work at getting people job ready. At the same time, those on a benefit have to want to go back to work, so we need to do something about that too.
I realise that going to work every day is a drag – and I realise that many people would rather not. Shit, I’d rather not. But the last 50 years is the only time in human history where you could choose not to work and still expect to survive. I’m not sure where the notion came from that society owed a living to those who choose not to support themselves – that is not a fundamental part of the human condition. Conversely, human history is littered with examples where society supports those who are unfortunate, and I have no problem with that at all. If you cannot see the difference between those two things, well, that probably explains your political viewpoint too, doesn’t it.
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 am
He was clearly clever albeit in a entirely divisive way – not knowing the story, you have to wonder if Hide, Ansell and Douglas were just too many egos. As an aside, I found John’s grip on policy very loose, we discussed ACT’s ‘policy’ for vouchers here earlier, but at least he was prepared to talk about policy (even if it appeared he was making it as we went along).
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 11:33 am
and..um..!..what do these working sole parents..that you ‘know’.. ‘do’ with their children during school holidays..?
could you ask them..?
glad to see you feel the 85% clawback (after tax!) ..on any part-time monies earned by benificiaries..
..sorta defeats the purpose..as it were..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
b.t.w..do you oppose ‘working for families’..
if not..why not..?
and..are you in receipt of ‘working for families’..?
and if so..
w.t.f..!..eh..?
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Yes, I do oppose WFF. Whether I receive it is irrelevant.
It has the same issues as the pension – taxing the poor to give to the wealthy, and the same issues with marginal tax rates as benefits do – the tightness of the attempted targeting along with the generosity of the measure to the target group creates very high effective marginal tax rates.
I’m still very in favour of guaranteed minimum family income (I won’t post the link again) as it fixes all these problems in one fell swoop – and I’d never again have to argue about whether someone should get a benefit or not.
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 3:03 pm
PaulL
Vote:Very nicely put.
Thanks
CC
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Something a little different to that i take it:
Family Tax Credit
This used to be called Guaranteed Minimum Family Income. It is payable by Inland Revenue, and provides a “top-up” tax credit to families with incomes below $18,368. In a single-parent family, that parent must work at least 20 hours a week; in two-parent families, the parents must between them work at least 30 hours a week to qualify. It is not available to a person on a main benefit, student allowance, or to a person who has received weekly compensation from ACC for more than three months.
http://union.org.nz/policy/state-assistance-for-people-in-employment
No ‘minimum’ income specified though.
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
No stephen. Something quite different: http://articles.garethmorgan.com/pdf.php?id=268
Basically every NZ citizen of a certain age gets paid an amount of money just for being a NZ citizen (say, $10,000 per annum). On every single dollar of income they earn, they pay tax at a flat rate – say, 30%. So, someone earning $10,000 per annum will get given another $10,000 by the govt, but pay tax of $3,000. Someone earning $50,000 per annum will get given $10,000 and pay tax of $15,000. Someone earning $100,000 per annum will get given $10,000 and pay tax of $30,000.
It gets rid of a whole bunch of problems we have. We don’t have to screw around with benefit eligibility – everyone gets it. Marginal tax rates are taken care of – the tax rate on every dollar earned by anyone in NZ is 30%. Income splitting is also irrelevant – it makes no difference.
The effective tax rate, however, is still progressive. Someone earning less than $33,000 will receive net benefit from the government, someone earning more than 50,000 will pay the govt $5,000 net, or effectively 10%, someone earning 100,000 will pay the government $20,000 net, or 20% effective.
The actual numbers we would need in NZ at the current time would need some modelling, but it can be shown that numbers can be chosen that preserve the current govt tax take, preserve the progressiveness of the tax system, but remove all the distortions and exceptions – the screwing around with entitlement rules, the high marginal tax rates some individuals face, income splitting, etc etc. Sure, there are probably some down sides, but it looks a whole hell of a lot better than what we do today. And the tax industry and accounting industry would shrink – and since the bits that would shrink are largely zero sum pushing money around, that is net benefit to the country as well.
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
“..Yes, I do oppose WFF. Whether I receive it is irrelevant..”
it most certainly not irrelevant when you are calling for the means of support for me to raise my son to be ripped away from us..?
you fucken hypocritical bastard..!
piss off..!
you’ve just disqualified yourself from the debate..
and how many other of you wankers that would kick sole parents in the guts..are sucking up w.f.f..?
eh..?
fucken hypocrites..!
all of you..!
(and just ‘plain nasty’ to boot..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Philu,
PaulL is calling for both the DPB and WFF to be stopped/means tested. Calling for the same thing to be done in both cases.
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 4:40 pm
In fact you’ve just disqualified yourself. Throwing your toys out of the pram because someone doesn’t agree with you and you can’t debate on merit. Not only are you being hypoctrical, you’re being self-righteous too.
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Ta PaulL, did a very quick search but was surprisingly hard to find. The simplicity certainly appeals, but yes modelling would be fab. The flat tax would have to be reconciled with existing levels of government spending etc… of course, and someone would have to give some convincing answers on how lower tax levels = more tax intake, as Rodney is fond of pointing out.
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 7:06 pm
stephen – not lower tax levels = more tax. That argument is about the future – if you lower tax now, the economy grows and you get more tax in the future. This policy can be structured so the day you bring it in you get exactly the same tax take as the day before – you just need to pick the right level of guaranteed income, and the right level of tax. I may take the time to do the analysis and graphs, and send it to DPF to see if he is interested in posting it.
I am, of course, ignoring many of the supplements etc – such as WFF. Since I think they shouldn’t exist in the first place, this works well for me. If we actually implemented a policy like this we’d have to decide whether we kept them or not (the policy doesn’t in and of itself require that we not have additional targeted benefits, but it does kind of break some of the marginal tax rate benefits).
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 8:48 pm
“That argument is about the future”
Classic right wing argument (in all seriousness). I wasn’t old enough to remember the reforms, but the definite consensus seems to be that they were very painful for a lot of people – I only hope any such reforms can mitigate this.
Somewhat unexpectedly the Greens make a similar argument with tax ‘don’t tax productivity, tax pollution/general undesirables’, but we are yet to see a detailed policy from them either.
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Yes, it is a classic right wing argument. It is supported by empirical evidence, and I do subscribe to that argument. However, it isn’t the argument behind this suggested policy.
In a sense this is a flat tax proposal, but the interesting bit is always the fine print. There are flat tax proposals that have no tax free threshold (pure flat tax), flat tax that has a tax free threshold (no tax on first $20K for example), and flat tax with a negative tax free threshold (which is what this proposal is – we give you a tax refund if you earn nothing). The progressivity of the resulting tax system is driven by where the thresholds are and how high the flat tax rate is.
So, for example, I could propose a guaranteed minimum income of $40K, and a flat tax rate of 50%. That would be more progressive than the current system – those earning under about $100K would be better off, those earning over $100K dramatically worse off. Of course, I would argue that most of those earning over $100K would just structure their affairs to avoid the tax, and if the less wealthy pay less tax, and the more wealthy avoid the tax so also pay less, then obviously the total tax take reduces. If you then run that argument in reverse you conclude that the total tax take increases. There are studies that identify both the growth maximising and tax maximising levels of taxation, and in general most western countries are higher than the optimum on both measures.
In terms of the guaranteed family income discussions – there are to my mind two ways to implement it. One is to try to get the curve as close to current as possible – so same total tax take from income tax, and same overall progressivity. Of course, since it is a smooth curve not stepped like our current tax rates, there are some unders and overs. And also there are people currently getting targeted benefits like WFF, so depending on how you handle them there may be other unders and overs. I would argue that removing the distortions in the system (particularly the high marginal tax rates) and making everything easier to administer would make it all worthwhile.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 5:36 am
That’s not good for ACT
Vote: