2025 Taskforce Recommendations
November 30th, 2009 at 5:51 pm by David FarrarYet to read the full paper, but the Herald reports major recommendations are:
Dr Brash revealed 35 recommendations today but the centrepiece was to reduce government spending to 2005 levels of 29 per cent of gross domestic product by 2012-13.
This could be done by:
* Reducing benefit numbers through “ambitious” welfare reform;
* Ending Kiwisaver subsidies;
* Scrapping the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and using the money to pay off debt;
* Raising the age of superannuation eligibility; and
* Cutting universal subsidies for health and education.
Of these savings, $7 billion would be used to reduce all income and business taxes to a top rate of 20 per cent.
Dr Brash said unless tax and spending were slashed the Government’s “ambitious” goal could not be achieved.
“There may be some other cunning plan, but I am not aware of it,” Dr Brash said.
He said the proposed cuts were “not a massacre”, but a winding back of spending that had not been effective since 2005.
The taskforce’s other policy prescriptions included:
* Reducing the minimum wage and reintroducing a lower minimum youth wage;
* Changing employment laws to make it easier to sack workers;
* Extending probationary employment periods to a year for all workers;
As I type this I am literally on board NZ1 to Auckland sitting by the gate in Los Angeles. The wireless can still pick up the Koru Club signal – just. Will blog my thoughts on the different recommendations on Tuesday when back home.
Related posts:
- The 2025 taskforce recommendations
- Brash to chair 2025 Taskforce
- Goff says axe 2025 taskforce
- Stop pricing young workers out of the labour force
November 30th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
How predictable.
Most of it is the stuff that Labour and National did (or tried to do, because Douglas got the sack when he went too far) between 1985 and 1999 – the stuff that caused the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia in the first place.
How the hell does lowering the minimum wage bring New Zealanders’ wages closer to Australians’ wages FFS? It drives wages down, not up?
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
So that’s Key and English out. Too much for them to stomach. NZ on a sustainable path to poverty. Off to Aussie we will all go.
Vote:But then who is surprised at this? Anyone at all.
No doubt the National Socialists will all come out to play and attempt to denigrate all the effort, English has already. Time to tell us who leaked the emails. Oh which emails were they.???
November 30th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Talk about return of the living dead. Watch out Brash is back.
Be afraid be very afraid …
I am sure that Key will be very relaxed about it.
One question though, if the taskforce is only a third of the way through the money supplied and Key is ruling out their proposals then why isn’t the whole thing canned now at the saving of about $300k or so?
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Gess you talk crap toad.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
I see the socialists and bludgers are out already.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Toad>How the hell does lowering the minimum wage bring New Zealanders’ wages closer to Australians’ wages FFS?
If we exploited our mineral and energy wealth, then we wouldn’t have to compete on the basis of being a low wage neighbour of Australia. But you’re one of those “every tree is sacred” types, and I’m guessing that you’re opposed to burning oil or gas.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
What was the point of Don Brash writing this ??, surely he’d know it was unrealistic to expect an electorate to vote for it.
In the end it shows why he was never destined to be PrimeMinister.
Some parts of it are actually good, but in a democracy unrealistic.
My ideas would be.
A youth wage of 75% of minimum would make alot of sense & should be done, reducing the minimum makes no sense, linking the minimum wage to inflation does make sense.
Reducing the max tax rate to 20% is cuckoo land no matter how much extra I’d make, be realistic & say 30% & some sort of capital gains tax on property + increase GST.
A interest rate of 50% of benchmark interest rate for student loans would make sense.
Reducing Govt expenditure to 35% of GDP within 6 years, maybe smarter to go for 0.5% actual reduction in govt spend p.a. ( ~2.5% actual ).
Keep Kiwisaver as is, goal after 6 years is govt surplus, rising to 2.5%, which is to go to KiwiSaver.
Continued reforms of Social Welfare, but retain the intent of the existing system.
Healthcare & Education are bottomless pits, good luck finding the answer there, certainly it needs some serious analysis & I don’t see the evidence that any country has it right yet.
If labour market reform as suggested was the answer, the USA would have the most productive labour per hour, it doesn’t, when France beats you in productivity per hour, safe to say the answer is not in USA style labour laws.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
About time ,bloody bennefits and such need to be slashed,I earn, its my money ley me decide,bugger the socialist hoards, but NZ has been on the tit too long.
Vote:If only we had pollititions with some balls.
As for the great unwashed, harden up.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Fran Wild had some good discussion on ZB….. Mr Key really needs to grow some balls, it is going to take some radical outside the box thinking to get the NZ economy / GDP etc to half the Aussie rate….
You crazy lefties are all ok with the next 4 generations paying for the fuck up and gross increase in BS spending over the last 9 years, you all should be so so ashamed!
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
I very much we dont need to move to the next level and state that John Key sits down to piss!
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
This is the sort of forward thinking I expect from the Nat’s. Instead we get Labour lite and a PM who is a gutless wanker.
All of this reports recommendations should be implemented immediately, Neville Key has no excuses not to do so, the bastard cannot hide behind broken election promises given he has already reneged on the tax cut promise.
The thing I find so annoying is that right now is the time to be doing it, Key is riding high in the polls, Labour are no opposition at all and nobody cares what the Greens think, this is the time to be brave, this is the time to make the tough calls.
Kiwis have proven that they will reward politicians who are brave enough to make those choices, never forget that the Lange government was returned with a large majority in 87 despite the major restructuring that went on, do not listen to the blatant lies from Comrade Toad, the people of NZ did not kick out Labour in 1990 because they went ‘too far’ they kicked them out because the gutless wankers started reverting to socialism.
The people of NZ voted for ‘more of the same’ when they elected the Nat’s in 1990, hell, they were so determined to keep going down the reform path that they elected that idiot Bolger as PM.
Key needs to learn fucking quickly that there is a real appetite for this type of change in our community, ordinary working blokes have had a gutsfull be bludgers like Philip Ure and Natasha Fuller, they have had enough of being financially raped by Labour and Labour lite, all we need is a PM brave enough…..instead, we get Neville Key.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
A minimum wage exacerbates youth unemployment, generates signals that acquiring new skills is unnecessary (should you win the lottery and secure a job), and encourages people to leave training earlier.
All of these things reduce productivity amongst these workers, making the shift to higher wages more difficult.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Not time to be brave BB, it is a matter of fact account of what needs to happen in this country…..
The safe strategy game Key is making / playing now needs to cease, he has the support, HTFU and start making these ever so vital needed changes!
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Toad, what age are you? Are you even old enough to have worked and live in the conditions that prevailed prior to 1982?
Vote:If you aren’t then its clear you simply have no experience of those conditions and there for should STFU and maybe learn something.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
A lot of good ideas.
I think it would be splendid to raise the age for the pension to 75 (if working class people have wasted all their money on beer and takeaways their families should take them in); end Kiwisaver; end a universal public health system and use the Super Fund for reducing debt; cutting taxes for rich people to 20%
I have always been at a loss as to why poor people (unable to afford some of these things) should ‘expect’ them as some sort of ‘god given right’ – expecting something for nothing.
It is no wonder the Country is in such a mess and Brash is to be commended for his sensible ideas.
http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Nigel, stop being a NIGEL…. Sheesh bro…..Why retain social welfare? Its not working at all……
Social Welfare in NZ is like the worlds biggest tit, of which far to many NZ’ers are sucking off of!
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
The tough decisions made in the 80s and early 90s have helped insulate us from the worst effects of this recession. If we don’t do something to reduce government spending and increase economic growth we’ll find it increasingly harder to fund necessary public services and be ill-prepared for the next recession.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Viking2 said “So that’s Key and English out. Too much for them to stomach. NZ on a sustainable path to poverty. Off to Aussie we will all go.”
I have a hunch that the ability we currently have to turn your last sentence into reality, ie buggering off to Australia whenever the urge takes us, will not be with us for much longer.
Vote:The idea of restricting our access was raised very recently by some Aussie lefty and I didnt hear anyone from our current mob sticking up for us.
The government, both labour and labourLite have often spoken about keeping the brightest and best of us here and pulling up the Trans Tasman drawbridge certainly achieves that.
G
November 30th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Is this a hospital pass from Brash to Key? Obviously something needs to be done, and there are some good points to an extent, but Brash seems to be saying that unless all his recommendations are followed in full it won’t work. How would he know he has the perfect formula?? Without collateral damage and unforeseen effects?
The report definitely looks like a brash act.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
The National Socialists should be renamed “The party of least resistance”. Fuck we may as well give up, this country is screwed. Shonkey has no cunning plan, just more socialism, just more mediocracy, just more excuses for our children to leave these shores never to return.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
@ Viking2 6;:58 pm
I’m almost 52, and had my first (temporary) paid employment during school summer holidays between 1973 and 1974. So I have 9 years in the workforce before your 1982 date (don’t actually get the historical significance of that date – or was that when Muldoon brought in the wage freeze?).
Oh and your posts at 6.14 and 6.15 in response to me don’t really add much to the debate, do they?
Essentially, in 3 posts in response to my initial comment, you have put up no argument – just ad hominem attack – some of it based, as you now find out, on the false premise that I am younger than you thought.
Viking2 – you disappoint me. I thought you had the capacity to debate issues. But you are rapidly descending to the level of HurfDurf and d4j.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
“How the hell does lowering the minimum wage bring New Zealanders’ wages closer to Australians’ wages FFS? It drives wages down, not up?”
In order for people to get a pay rise they first have to have a job. LDO. The main inference from your statement, toad, is that raising the minimum wage would permanently reduce the gap. But that is too easily refuted, so people arent bothering. You need to learn to think beyond stage one and ask, “and then what?”. Consider what is unseen as well as what is seen. You’ve just been Bastiated.
I wish Key et al had come out and said that everyone should ignore ANYONE that lumped all these recommendations into a single objection and dismissed the lot of them. Those people arent discussing the issue, they are wasting your time.
They are easy to spot, this sort of comment gives them away, “huh, so the way to reduce the wage differential is to pay people less and let them be fired?”. They are so arrogant they think that the counter-intuitiveness of the recommendations means that the authors are stooopid.
Each of these recommendations is worth discussing on its own. Hopefully DPF will devote a single post to each of them to allow proper discussion.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Toad
How come you never debate issues anymore?
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
micky is worried about the govt wasting money? HAHAHAHA
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Nigel>If labour market reform as suggested was the answer, the USA would have the most productive labour per hour, it doesn’t, when France beats you in productivity per hour, safe to say the answer is not in USA style labour laws.
France’s high productivity is largely due to its high unemployment. Unemployment tends to effect the least productive members of the workforce. Therefore the more you can make unemployed, the higher the average productivity of those still working.
Your solution isn’t likely to be acceptable in NZ. However, Obama seems to be promoting European style unemployment rates as a policy for the US.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
It would help if the points were represented accurately though.
“Extending probationary employment periods to a year for all workers”
This should read as extending MUTUALLY-AGREED probationary employment periods to a year for all workers.
The “all workers” refers to all workplaces being able to use probationary periods, meaning large AND small firms. How much time and effort is this misrepresentation and subsequent misunderstanding going to waste? Watch for the haters to latch on to this in their efforts to discredit the entire report and scare monger.
I will be very surprised if the Stanturd doesnt deliberately misunderstand this point very soon and do exactly that.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
davidp, if the goal posts are high productivity then thats where you are going to kick the ball.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
@big bruv 7:39 pm
I try. No-one else here seems to bother. Just look at my 6.02 pm comment. It got three ad hominem attacks from Viking2, davidp suggesting we should mine the sit out of everything an cut down every tree, and Kimble making the extraordinarily profound statement none of us could possibly have thought of ourselves that “In order for people to get a pay rise they first have to have a job.”
Hardly a debate, bruv. These guys don’t know how to get started. You need to have a rational argument based on evidence, and to be able to cite you evidence (preferably link to it) to get started. Most of the muntheads here don’t even know what a rational argument is.
h
Yeah, I know, now I’ll get lots of responses linking to Potty Peer Monckton I suppose.
Hmm, interesting that climate change wasn’t among Brash’s recommendations. Then again, Brash is like Monckton – a longstanding climate crank who ignores the evidence and makes it up as he goes. Because responding to climate change has no place in the neo-liberal ideology.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
So was my response an ad hominen attack or a munthead argument Toad?
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
“Hmm, interesting that climate change wasn’t among Brash’s recommendations.”
Thats a good point. Australia is going to bring in an ETS eventually. If New Zealand didnt sign-up to reduce our already paltry emmissions then we would be more competitive. We would be taxed less, decreasing the after-tax income differential if nothing else.
toad, did you fail to understand what I meant when I said that they first needed to have a job to get a payrise? Its really quite simple, and I cant see how you can refute that. Unless you think that increasing the price of something DOESNT reduce the amount demanded of it? Is that what you are saying, toad?
As far as “evidence” goes in economic debate, you would be better off making a rational argument than relying on elusive and ultimately inconclusive “evidence”.
So, what is your logical argument for increasing the minimum wage as a way to permanently increasing the wealth of the nation and its citizens?
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
In after the Left got the shit frightened out of it.
Though it’s a pretty good message to the baby boomers that your era of entitlements are over.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Nigel> More particularly, and in addition to davidp’s point, France (and Germany) both have high productivity due limited working hours. If you are capped at working 35 hours two effects happen: first, companies attempt to utilise capital over labour and second lower labour utilisation tends to result in a higher output during the actual period worked. In the first case, the French use technology to solve problems so as to avoid needing to hire people, whereas in a free market you’d have to cost labour and capital competitively. If you make labour expensive, then purchasing capital becomes more and more attractive, causing unemployment, and particularly among the young and less experienced.
As for utilisation, if I work from 7am to 6pm (which I’ve had to do on several occasions, based on workload issues) I’m far more likely to become tired and less efficient as the day goes on. So limiting time worked pushes up the ‘productivity’ per hour, even if the overall workload is still increasing per hour added. Furthermore, the sort of work that can be performed for such periods tends to be of a lower productivity nature (‘knowledge economy’ solutions or doing extremely hard toil both burn people out quicker than working at a supermarket) and often can burn people out if you try to push them for extended periods. So you must take into account that productivity is very much a function of what kind of work you’re doing and how many people are capable within our society of doing that work without being burnt out.
So yeah, the French are around 15% more efficient than the Americans, but given that the Americans work more than 15% longer than the French and have a higher workforce participation rate, they still do better in economic output, including per capita. The French ‘benefit’ is that if you don’t want to work, the state will let you sit in the sun drinking wine and coffee. Not a bad life, but it rests on the suckers who work for 35 hours a week. By comparison, I prefer having a job and earning my wine.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
I notice that Stuff is long on details of the social costs of reduced government spending but – as usual – short on the quantifying the personal and societal benefits gained from lower taxation.
I despair. We are a country filled with MSM-fed ‘dupizens’ who believe it’s the government’s role to provide for their lives, while the government looks after that provision in return for votes.
We really are screwed. But let’s just keep borrowing $250m per week and hope it all goes away.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
“But let’s just keep borrowing $250m per week and hope it all goes away.”
I think the $250m per week is going away just fine without our needing to support it with hope.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
“..# Chthoniid (808) Vote: Add rating 9 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 30th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
How the hell does lowering the minimum wage bring New Zealanders’ wages closer to Australians’ wages FFS? It drives wages down, not up?
A minimum wage exacerbates youth unemployment, generates signals that acquiring new skills is unnecessary (should you win the lottery and secure a job), and encourages people to leave training earlier.
All of these things reduce productivity amongst these workers, making the shift to higher wages more difficult..”
gobsmacking logic there from the clitoiid..
eh..?
brilliant..!
thick as fucken dog-shit..
couldn’t think his way through a door..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Toad
Thanks for the reply, I am interested in this comment of your ‘Hardly a debate, bruv. These guys don’t know how to get started. You need to have a rational argument based on evidence’
It is difficult to debate the issue with you when you begin your post with a blatant lie, you insinuated that Douglas and Labour got ‘the sack’ because they went too far with their reforms when you bloody well know that it not the case at all.
You have also slipped into the annoying left wing attack mode mindset when confronted with evidence such as that posed by Lord Monckton, I suspect this is because you cannot refute what he has to say.
All of us who do not agree with your (and the lefts) views on climate change are branded as ‘deniers’, we are to be ridiculed and attacked at every opportunity because your argument does not hold up to closer scrutiny, you cannot debate the issue and win so you seek to silence all opposition by other means.
Thankfully it seems that the wheels are starting to fall off the climate change con, people are starting to see it for what it really is, namely, the biggest fraud ever committed, hopefully we can stop it, hopefully the ever growing number of people who are only now waking up to this con will see it as nothing more than the largest forced transfer of wealth we have ever seen.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
It is just a waste of my energy to debate with those that dont understand that Climate Change is in fact a con, it just isnt worth the effort….
Along with I truly cant be bothered arguing with lefties whom dont think that Labour wasted billions of dollars over the last decade…. It is absolute fraud, all the hard working people of NZ had their money taken from them. Labour turned the vast majority into believing that they could not live and exist without Labour wiping their asses…. It is absolutely pitiful……
And dare I say it, John Key is not changing things fast enough to ensure the population learns to stand in its own 2 feet (of which needs to happen at lightening speed)
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
@Chthoniid 8:00pm
No, you’ve put up the only rational one I’ve yet seen on this thread. But I’m not convinced it is evidence-based.
MartyG at The Standard (who I disagree with strongly on other issues, such as his lack of Tiriti analysis, but who is really good with stats) addressed the argument re youth rates with some <a href="http://www.thestandard.org.nz/farrar-vs-the-facts/" hard statistics.
And this Treasury paper did too.
So you have a rational argument, but I have doubts about the evidence it is based on.
BTW, love your photos.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Oops, the link should have been hard statistics.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
A lot of good recommendations,
* lower income taxes > more incentives to study and work hard > enjoy the fruits of your labour instead of kissing goodbye to nearly half of it.
* lower corporate taxes > incentive to remain based in NZ > more jobs and higher wages while still being internationally competitive.
Pity it will be too hard to push these proposals through..
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
It may be the right perscription from the good doctor, but politcally unpalatable. At least this will put some debate about the quality of Government spending. I don’t see how a two children family that are paying the top rate of income tax should need WFF, for instance.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Disgusting… I was lucky to not be alive for Rogernomics. Lets hope Key doesnt take it on board. But he will with a good deal of it, no doubt.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
@big bruv 8.20 pm
Moncton doesn’t pose evidence. He poses big black lies. As do Treagold and de Freitas.
Evidence, bruv – not ideology!
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Hah, I’m not the only one to have used the wireless on board NZ1 at LA – great! I find you have to hold the phone up to the window to get the wifi signal strongly enough….
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
I’ve seen 3 or 4 people say something similar to “How the hell does lowering the minimum wage bring New Zealanders’ wages closer to Australians’ wages FFS? It drives wages down, not up?”
Actually the objective of lowering (or preferably eliminating) minimum wages is to increase demand for labour, thereby increasing emplyment. People in employment bring multiple benefits to a society – paying taxes, not drawing welfare, commiting less crime etc. It might well be the case that average wages would decline (because more people were in work but the marginal employee was on a lower wage) but thats statistics for you. Clearly it needs to be coupled with welfare reform otherwise the dole, sickness benefit or most easily obtained benefit becomes the default “minimum wage”.
But seriously if “lowering minimum wages” as your one take out from the report you didnt read much of it.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
We seem to forget the simple benefits of what it is to have a job…. There is more to it than what KiwiGreg mentions, of which I agree… But we have a generation that doesnt take on board that hard work is good for the soul and that we dont get the extras n life without hard work……
Pretty simple really…
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Getstaffed, most journalists are socialists, so why are you surprised?
It’s just as well TV3 had Copenhagen to cover with such worship and reverence, they couldn’t go into full on righteous indignation mode on Brash.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Toad. because your first paragraph is total crap and is entirely wrong. Douglas did not get the sack as you put it.
Vote:He resigned from his job and all because Lange found the fucking Pope and didn’t have the stomach (pun intended) to continue on and do what was needed. The medicine was hard an many but was definitely needed. Had the rest of the job been done you would be working for a living and I would be rich and retired.
The stats as I recall show that we began to catch up on Aussie as the gap was always there but that stopped the Day Bolger and Peter’s took over. The only really good work done after that was the Contracts Act. The only two faults with the contracts Act was that it didn’t outlaw unions completely and that it didn’t extend wages rate protection to youth workers.
What we have now is plain bloody stupid and is why no one will employ young people anymore. Why would you. Its also IMHO why we have so much trouble with youth. They simply have too much money to spend and most of them waste it on booze and drugs etc. oh and don’t forget boy racer cars. (which incidentally can now be crushed. State theft.)
If you want a debate and or a good discussion you need to try a bit harder when it comes to your own piss poor efforts.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
‘But seriously if “lowering minimum wages” as your one take out from the report you didnt read much of it.’>
I entirely agree. The issue of taxation (particularly aligning rates at 20 – 25 per cent), abolishing the silly idea of the NZ Super Fund, and possibly raising the age of NZ Super, all have signifant advantages to the economy. Similarly, making KiwiSaver more transparent and less bureaucratic, would offer a real advantage. These issues are far more interesting, and offer a far greater opportunity for serious (and logical, not rational) debate. Instead we’ve been hijacked by the tired debate about minimum wage…boring…
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Toad
Evidence is what your side is yet to produce, even you admit as much.
All you have is theory, you have the word (of now throughly discredited) scientists who are (as we have just discovered) not exactly impartial.
And please, there is no point posting something that claims Lord Moncton is telling porkies when it comes from a source that hs recently been exposed as one that has been telling lies for years.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
I have a question.
Why the fuck did John Key set this up if he was just going to ridicule its recommendations?
rt and then destroy it, impressing the sheep of middle New Zealand with their centrist, dont-scare-the-horses pragmatism.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
“as one that has been telling lies for years.”
You should stop talking about yourself blow hard blouse.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
I think it was a coalition deal with Act, they wanted it. So it’s not surprising National are not exactly embracing it.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Toad>It got three ad hominem attacks from Viking2, davidp suggesting we should mine the sit out of everything an cut down every tree, and Kimble making the extraordinarily profound statement none of us could possibly have thought of ourselves that “In order for people to get a pay rise they first have to have a job.”
No where did I propose that NZ “should mine the sit out of everything an cut down every tree”. I’m all in favour of exploitation of offshore oil and gas reserves, and mining where the benefits gained outweigh the environmental costs. Not every tree is worth a billion dollars.
So you’ve managed to condemn Viking2 for ad hominem attacks, and make an ad hominem attack on me. And you did it in the same sentence. Are you surrounded by an irony repelling force field?
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Okay davidp, I might have exaggerated your comment somewhat. I think the limp responses of Viking2 led me to consider you were of the same ilk.
I apologise. You have clarified your position, and I agree it is much more thoughtful, although I don’t necessarily agree with it in its entirety It is a matter of how “the benefits gained outweigh the environmental costs” is decided.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Viking 2 said Toad. because your first paragraph is total crap and is entirely wrong. Douglas did not get the sack as you put it.
He resigned from his job
[Can someone please tell me how to indent?]
My clear recollection is that Lange did sack Douglas (and I am older than Toad) and Key made a lot of money that day when he arrived at work and said he had heard (on RNZ) that it was going to happen and bet, on behalf of his company, that the dollar would collapse.
A lot of money. On our dollar collapsing. And he’s our PM now. He’s a smart guy.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Big bruv
re Monckton, try here
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
…and is why no one will employ young people anymore. Why would you. Its also IMHO why we have so much trouble with youth. They simply have too much money to spend
If no one employs them, where do they get these bags of cash??
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
@big bruv 9:10 pm
Please explai to me exactly what the lies are when you claim RealClimate have been “telling lies for years”. And cite the evidence that they are lies.
Monckton is the liar here. The post I linked to is by Gavin Schmidt.
There may be some doubt about the appropriateness of his blog co-author Dr Michael Mann’s response to a purported request from Professor Phil Jones re Freedom of Information Act requests. But we don’t know whether that request was genuine (emails could have been doctored before release) or if it is, whether Mann acted on it.
Jones’ and Mann’s integrity may need further investigation in that regard, but there is nothing implicating Schmidt, who wrote the blog post I linked, to any allegation of wrongdoing.
And Schmidt exposes Monckton as a fraud.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
For those who demonise SIR Roger Douglas, let me remind you he SAVED this country in the 1980′s from going the way Dubai is going now. Let me repeat, he SAVED this country. He never damaged it. He fixed it. The problem is that all those who complain about what he and Prebble, de Cleene and Bassett did suffered from what they did because most were parasites on the public tit – remnants of privilege and subsidies who never earned a productive dollar in their lives.
We will never, ever, have a wealthy, healthy, educated and prosperous country until the thickos that infest places like this blog wake up to the fact that SIR Roger Douglas fixed this country. Let me repeat in case you are so blind you cannot read: he FIXED this country. Him and the others from the class of ’84 are the reason you probably have a job today (except Phil U that is), and probably have a viable business and lifestyle. You, the complainers, are the problem. Stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
I’m just too pissed off with John Keyless to write anything. Others have said it all anyway.
We’ve reached a point with politics in NZ where even a 1-year old government is so deep into the business of manipulation, dishonestly, stalking horses and spin. Have some balls John Key. Be honest. Tell NZ what the problems are and what your plans are to fix them. And then do it. Don’t take us for fools with false studies you don’t even intend to read.
Where’s the honour in being a placeholder PM, John? Either do something to better NZ or piss off. You’re wasting our time and our future and we don’t have much left to waste.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Luc, indentation is like this:-
[blockquote]
[/blockquote]
Just replace the [] with greater and less than symbols.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Too much discussion of climate change conspiracy. Lets get back to the 2025 report.
Anyone care to comment on dumping the interest free student loans? It seems to be left out of the above summary, however was suggested. I believe they wanted a shift to market loan rates for student loans.
I’d suggest they retain some reduced incentive for select degrees – such as medicine, engineering – as a means to encourage people from doing useless degrees.
While I am a science man myself, I would omit science as I consider the bachelors science degree, along with arts, to be devalued by the lack of prerequisites. It is possible to get both without learning anything useful – a result of the moronicly executed push to get more people educated which just resulted in a lowering of the bar. Hopefully Uni will wise up and introduce a “Hard BSc” (bringing back maths and other prerequisites) and that could be included. I think there is also some justification for incentivising foreign language specialised arts degrees.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
D4J shut the fck up about Mocktonplanktonwhothefckcarsckton.
You are falling for toads trick. He does this everytime. This is what he does:
1. reads a post he disagrees with without the need to even start thinking about it.
2. decides to derail the comments thread
3. he then complains that no one here will debate him with facts and that they only insult people, thereby insulting everyone here
4. he is presented with some decent argument, but someone else (it doesnt matter who, anyone will do) responds to his baiting
5. he ignores the debate he SAID he wanted and throws a few more insults out there himself
6. when things are getting a bit more heated he changes the subject to climate change, derailing the thread
Notice how this topic had nothing to do with climate change? Not a single thing. But toad uses that absence to change the topic. Then all we get is another idiotic spat and link war between the religoids on the enivironmentalist left and the remaining 6 people in the world who actually give a fuck what they say on the right.
toad, your attempt to derail the thread has been exposed proving that you dont actually have anything to argue with Brash et al about, or at least you dont have the intelligence to do it. I myself can mount strong arguments against a number of their proscriptions. They fact you had to TROLL means you fail.
toad, you have been humiliated, please don’t respond to this because that would just amplify your fail, just go cry into your fair trade lentils.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Gooner, the fact is that very few of the Douglas reforms have been repealed. That’s the plus. He followed the Muldoon era and Muldoon totally distorted our economy.
The Douglas negative is that he adopted a scorched earth policy. If you had done what I did and regularly drove in the East Tamaki industrial area in those days you would have been gobsmacked by the number of “For Lease” buildings. Sadly, those days are reappearing but I don’t blame the present government for that, yet.
The simple fact is that Tina was not the only whore available to Douglas. If you don’t understand the reference to Tina, just ask.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
It must be costing a fortune. How many students leave uni and then leave NZ within a couple of years? Never to return and never to repay. Or possibly to repay in 30 years time when the zero-interest rate has reduced the capital to effectively nothing.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
testing
[blockquote]Luc, indentation is like this:-
[blockquote]
This is indented text
[/blockquote]
Just replace the [] with greater and less than symbols.[blockquote]
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Well said malcolm
Luc – keep at it. No square brackets, just greater-than and less-than’s in their place
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
The only way that NZ will be a wealthy country is for some serious investment capital into some of our innovative minds and companies. And that has to be Govt driven.
Forward thinking is not about trying to match Australia. Shouldn’t we aim for number One?
Sorry motel owners, but Tourism is a dead duck, despite it being our leading export earner. A lot of hard work for very little returm.
Where is the Govt backing in New Zealand enters space race
If our airforce is so expensive to maintain, why can’t we develop our own unmanned aersopace industry? Kill two birds with one stone – monitor our coastline with drones, export the technology to our allies.
Tinkering with employment laws and minimum wages does not solve the problem whilst we are a nation of workers and consumers. When we are a nation exporting high-value commodities, then our fortunes may change.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Arrrgh. I’m going to bed and I may dream of a country with a decent PM, who has a plan to turn his country around.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
>blockquoteblockquote<
ps redundant apostrophe in thans
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
>blockquote/blockquote<
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Luc, we were bankrupt in 1984. There was no alternative. End of story. In fact, I am so right, I argued in favour of Tina in a stage 3 public policy politics paper taught by leftie stalwart Brian Easton and got an A. Of course, Easton had no alternative but to give that grade because I was right and am now.
Of course the property market collapsed in East/South Auckland. But that wasn’t Douglas’s fault; that was Muldoon’s fault. Public policy takes years to manifest in societal change – upwards of twenty years if you’re really looking for progress – but it is possible to implement policy that impacts in a shorter timeframe, say five years.
The damage to our economy in the late 80′s and nineties was caused by Muldoon and earlier welfare statist/socialist regimes and weren’t the result of the reforms of the 80′s and 90′s. Douglas et al turned it around quickly to stop the IMF knocking on the door, but longer term, including the lucrative times we faced in the last 8-9 years, and the bouncebacks we have managed to do following recessions, including this one, are a result of the Douglas/Prebble/Bassett/de Cleene reforms. That is the real result of public policy, and thus those reforms, but you won’t hear that from left wing politicians or liberal academics because they are too interested in keeping their jobs instead of focusing on what is best for this country long term.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Luc, look here: http://www.w3schools.com/TAGS/tag_blockquote.asp
(not suggesting that Getstaffed didn’t explain it very clearly)
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:31 pm Vote:
November 30th, 2009 at 10:35 pm Vote:
November 30th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Kimble – this thread was started at 5:51 NZDT.
My first reference to climate change was at 7:58 pm, and that was only in passing. It just got picked up on.
I’m actually happier to debate the minimum wage, and that is what I wanted to do – see my comment @ 8:33 pm. Bugger all response, because it is evidence-based, and no-one has produces the evidence to refute it.
The only reason I brought Monckton into the thread was to cite sa an analogy, admittedly on a different issue, someone who ignores and falsifies the evidence. That some of the CCD cranks who frequent this blog took the bait is not my fault.
It was not an intentional threadjack, and that it went onto climate change was not my doing, but that of the CCD trollswho jump at every opportunity to quote cranks like Monckton.
Personally, I’m more comfortable on arguments about the minimum wage. But maybe tomorrow, Zebedee is telling me it is time for bed.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Toad, if you’re so in favour of the minimum wage, why shouldn’t it be $35 p/h?
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
There you go Luc, got it.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Thank you malcolm and getstaffed.
toad, I get the same thing about any Israel thread – funny how there are no Palestinian threads, does anyone wonder about that? – and I join in quite late then get accused of hijacking. I guess there are just a lot of people who don’t like facts!
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Luc, bold is the same but with a {b} in the brackets.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Good comments Gooner. Politicians really shouldn’t be allow to continually reinterpret economic history for their latest purpose. John Keyless was shameless on the radio this morning when he said NZ went too radical in the mid 80s and Oz won out because they didn’t.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Goooner
$35/hr
Brilliant idea. Just think…all our best brains will concentrate on the high hanging fruit instead of the opposite.
We are all lazy at heart, and our best brains are no different. Challenge the bastards!
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
saying a polly
Vote:‘saved the country’ is a bit
socialist for me
November 30th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
If Key had any sense of history he would have criticised Muldoon for what happened in the 80′s. not Douglas. We had to be radical because it required radical action. It’s that simple.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Speak for yourself Luc.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Agreed Haiku, but I’ll go there just this time because what Douglas et al actually did was remove politicians from our lives and the economy as much as they could. That is the true genius: it took politicians to save us from politicians.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
The lefties would be appalled if we were giving away 250m / week to big aussie business.
They seem quite happy that it disappears to other countries though.
Why are the positive aspects not being reported? Peoples wages will increase massively. This will drive up the wages of lesser skilled folk, who will have more opportunities themselves.
Instead, they concentrate on the loss of free doc visits.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Re NoSkire at 10.20:
NoSkire, we couldn’t even make a go of surviving as a builder of agricultural topdressing planes. It was great of these guys to launch a rocket, but in hard cold reality, it’s less of an achievement comparatively than that of German amateurs 80 years ago. Trying to compete in rocketry would be like trying to compete in making cars. These industries are huge groups of industries.
Perhaps if we aimed to be leaders in gyroscopes or some such for space technology we might have a slim chance.
One candidate we could build on is the Government funded research into superconductors. This is a technology of promise that seems slow to take off, but as scientists find materials that will superconduct at higher temperatures, it could rocket away. For example, superconductor cables can transmit electricity at zero loss, and enable maglev trains. Already they are in cat scans, I understand.
We have many good technologies from Government funding in NZ, but commercialising them is immensely difficult. Ask how tough a job that is to people getting their hands dirty at the coal face, in companies like Botry-Zen, BLIS Technologies, Pacific Edge Biotechnology, Genesis Research, etc.
Everyone talks about why we should become high tech, then throws their money away into finance companies and property development while these pioneers wither for want of risk capital. It’s us, not the Government, that are the problem.
Time to stop bitching and put our hands in our pockets if we want technology industries.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Do you mean we should subsidise capitalists?
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Lucy: How would buying shares in a tech company be subsidising that company. You provide equity, become one of the owners.
Even if you bought bonds from that company, you, as a private citizen, lend that company money. The Government has nothing to do with it.
The Government already provides some, but comparatively paltry R&D help. So paltry some research companies are tempted to move to Australia, for example.
I see this as incentive rather than subsidy. It’s like centuries ago offering explorers a prize for discovery.
The superconductor research has been entirely Govt funded, as pure research should be. It seldom features on Labour Radio or in the MSM. Too complicated, I suspect.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Jack5
Offering a prize is completely different to providing equity.
What happened to the “Government can’t pick winners” mantra that Douglas always presented as fact?
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, just pointing out the inherent contradictions in your post.
Australians subsidise research. Let’s just recognise that for what it is.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Actually it seems to be generally recognised that Muldoon’s removal of the universal retirement accounts that were set up by the Labour government (excuse me if i’m wrong here but i think that was Roger Douglas’ idea) that led to NZ’s inequity against Australia.
IMO, we have one more generation to get things “right” in NZ before we become a basket-case. Capital and labour are highly mobile and becoming moreso, especially those who are skilled. If we carry on the way we are currently, with wealth envy and a cradle-to-the-grave mentality we will only hasten our downfall.
I don’t agree with all of Brashs’ recommendations. For instance, i believe we should implement a capital gains tax, if only to remove the current inequity inherent in the system. The real estate “market” does nothing to increase our wealth, but instead is a liablity in that it sucks investment money from the productive sector. This needs to be addressed, but Brash has overlooked that glaring anomaly altogether it seems.
I also believe that the current Cullen fund should be distributed to individual retirement accounts (Kiwisaver if you will) which would become compulsory for everyone over 18. This would get us back to the original idea of the 72-75 Labour government and also allow us to “sunset” superannuation over a thirty or so year period. Superannuation is going to become such a millstone around our necks that the only way out of the mess is to get rid of it – again by making everyone responsible for their own retirement. The funds (at 8% the same as Australia) would provide massive domestic funding available to capital markets and reduce our reliance on overseas investors, lowering the dollar (making our exports more competitive) and growing our wealth base.
Also, we should remove “universal” welfare entitlements. There is nothing to be gained from having someone become a burden on the state from the time they leave school until the time they die. We now have massive problems with inter-generational welfare dependents and unless we break that cycle we are only going to continue the slide down the OECD rankings. The first place to start is with the DPB. We should immediately introduce legislation that states that a woman on the DPB will only receive support for children that were born at that time. Any subsequent children are HER responsibility not ours. Free abortions should be made available to those who want them and encouraged as a matter of national importance.
A lifetime five year entitlement to welfare is all that should be expected. At that point the state has done more than enough to help you, it’s high time you did something to help the state. Obvious exceptions would be those who were completely mentally or physically incapacitated, all others can be found some work. After a year, training schemes would become compulsory, even if its just to go back to school and pick up on the skills that the person failed to learn the first time around. Boot camps should be established to help those who were nearing the end of their five years worth, as one last jolt to help them become productive members of society.
Some of these measures may sound harsh, but harsher still will be the reality for these people when (not if) we become bankrupt. Once the IMF and World Bank take over there will be no welfare programs, so its better to prepare for it ourselves.
Special economic areas (where companies get five to ten year tax holidays) should be established in provinces where unemployment and prospects are low. This might apply to the East Coast and Northland for instance, and particular attention paid to those companies who formed partnerships with the local iwi to upskill their people (because Maori and Pacific Islanders are over represented in unemployment statistics).
Tax in general should be flattened – income to between 20-25% and GST at a flat rate of 15%. All other taxes would be at the income rate, which includes excise and tobacco duties, though there’s probably no reason to keep these if you set GST higher. Anyone caught rorting or evading taxes would be subject to confiscation of ALL assets that were acquired during the period of evasion plus penalty taxes of 100% of the avoided amount. Set the bar so high that avoidance/evasion is expunged from the vocabulary.
Further, introduce tougher company and investment legislation so that the cowboys in the sector are driven out. We have some of the poorest securities laws in the western world and successive governments should be ashamed of the fraud that has been perpetrated on succesive generations of New Zealanders.
Yeah, we’ve got some bitter pills to swallow over the next few years, but we really need to look at countries like Argentina to see what the alternative of doing nothing to address our woes will be like instead. It’s long past the time of “she’ll be right, Jack”. Now is the time for action – drastic action.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
My view on the national productivity issue is pretty simple: Any economy that (a) insulates people from the consequences of their disinclination to work hard, or (b) penalises those that do step up to work hard will slide backwards. And we’re sliding backwards down the OECD rankings, and relative to Oz while the welfare state swells and the number of taxpayers per beneficiary drops.
So we can argue over which industries are hot and which are not, over which should be nurtured and which should be asked to self-perpetuate from day one. But that’s not the essence of the challenge.
What we need is an environment where NZers aspire to provide more for themselves, their family, their community and their country – in that order. Instead, we have an environment where we’re encouraged to ‘tall poppy’ anyone who succeeds in this endeavor and one where we’re insulated from opting out of it ourselves.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Really what you want to do, Jack5, is have the government stop artificially pumping up the housing investment market. Then people would invest in wealth generating industry.
Bring the top taxes down or change the law to remove negative gearing exploits of the system. Stop restricting housing development or introduce some tax on investment property. Both left and right wing options are available, but no one wants to do it.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Re Lucy at 11.17:
Re my earlier:
I meant “we” as investors and savers rather than the Government, which to me is always “it” or “them”.
Yes, I guess R and D incentives are a form of subsidy, but one in which the Government is doing so to seed growth rather than to pacify whingers. The considerable Government funds ploughed into research such as that of the old DSIR’s superconductor work and the many Crop and Food projects are investments rather than subsidy. The Government stands to earn royalties from these technologies, but if and only if they can be commercialised, which is by far the hardest part. The private sector is needed for this.
One reason it is hard is that it needs a lot of high-risk investment — beneficial gambling. It would help if we all were able to satisfy our gambling instincts through such beneficial gambling, which IMHO differs from the destructive effects of excessive gambling in casinos and slot machines. High tech investment while high risk is long term, and is nearly totally isolated from the addictive, quick feedback entertainment effects of casinos and pokie slot machines. Tech investment tends to appeal to those with spare dollars, because of either their age, their business success, or their inheritances. It does not hurt families in the way that casinos, and especially pokies, can by enticing people to gamble money they cannot afford and which should be going to their families.
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
luc
What getstaffed was trying to say was;
type this; <blockquote> ‘paste txt in here’ </blockquote>
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
And what NeillR said @ 11:18pm
Vote:November 30th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Poor Don Brash. It looks like Key and English set him up on this one.
Consider this ambush; the farcical police enquiry into the stolen emails; and the liberals and the leftish MSM’s outrage at Brash’s call for equal treatment for all under the law. Together they look like a compaign of ambush and vilification of Brash almost the NZ equivalent of the Dreyfus Affair, with hostility to freemarketers substituted for persecution of Jews.
It’s a sad day for the Centre-Right and Right when Key and English appear to be on the same side of the line as Mad Duck Mallard.
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 1:07 am
Totally disagree Jack5. That’s the defeatist attidude that drives our best offshore.
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 1:51 am
Well it’s pretty clear that a Brash led National govt would have actually done something.
Unfortunately we’re stuck with Key.
It’s quite amusing thinking back to pre election times when most of the commenters here thought Key was the bees knees, and was quitely going to go about reform once he got in.
“Why vote ACT?”
You all said.
“We don’t need ACT as John Key will be a great reformer.”
The benefit of hindsight. Heh.
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 1:55 am
Noskire at 1.07 accuses me of a defeatist attitude that “drives our best offshore”.
Noskire, you’ve fallen for the PR hype on this rocket play. More people are driven offshore by the bullshit and lies that have seen five billion of investment go up in smoke to lying finance companies and thick financial advisers than any alleged defeatist attitude towards space pipe dreams. That finance-company industry collapse has hit funds for business, which hurts jobs. And what are the Kiwis going to work at in Australia? Space stations, or boring old mines?
Tell us how our NZ rocketeers will make money? From launching satellites? First you need a site near the Equator, with other ancillary observation sites, then you compete with American, Chinese, French, and Russian rockets, and maybe a few others. Where are the engineers, the metallurgists, the fuel specialists (by the tens of thousand) that will give you an edge in competition?
How, if we can’t make small-run specialist planes or general planes, can we make space rockets economically? Who are the potential customers? How can NZ make rockets cheaper or better? What then is the market edge for NZ rocketeers?
Noskire, I’m not defeatist, but realistic. You and the media hypers who have lifted this interesting NZ experiment into a potentially incipient industry are Don Quixotes.
Talk to Rakon or Buckley’s the high tech magnet people, or to Tait Electronics or the Dunedin engineers with their meat processing robots. They will bring you into the real, tough world of technology start-ups.
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 2:01 am
Noskire, consider also the NZ wind turbine maker that has found the going tough in carving out a corner of the market with its unique design. It started with less hiss and roar than our rocketeers.
When developers are going to ask the public for money to help development, there needs to be a mild scepticism to protect investors. Commercialising technology innovation is very high risk. Investors know that, but they need cool, balanced information rather than grandiose crap such as “NZ has entered the space age”.
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 4:09 am
He’s a geriatric product from the Act Party’s archive keeping the old boys on the gravy train.
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 6:05 am
We are not a lazy country. We work longer hours than most OECD economies. We are relatively well-educated; our human capital is in general good. Our government is about as big as most of our OECD equivalents. We have an economy which is the least corrupt in the developed world. We create businesses easily in an environment which is close to the most conducive for business creation in the world. We have a stable political system, the envy of many others. Our economy is amongst the most open in the world. I could go on in this vein. Where do we fall down? Our R&D is about half that of competitors, and our private sector does far less than provide sectors elsewhere. We suffer from capital shallowness. Our management capability is often woeful. Our problem rests primarily in our investor and management class. This may be unpalatable to some, but, nevertheless, it is the case.
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 6:13 am
Exactly, they are already there with innovative technology, hobbled by investor apathy. Not as “newsworthy” as rockets and jetpacks but far more potential to become significant businesses. Does anyone know of any Kiwisaver schemes that will put say 10% of investment into companies like this?
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 7:41 am
“problem rests primarily in our investor and management class. ”
That fact you even think there is an “investor class” says it all really.
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 8:05 am
Reducing benefit numbers through “ambitious” welfare reform; YES!!!
Scrapping the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and using the money to pay off debt; YES!!!
* Raising the age of superannuation eligibility; NO!!!
…and get rid of WFF…implement flat tax of 20%…now we are on the right track.
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 8:06 am
Bill English is at least honest – he admits that without Brash’s policies the gap with Australia can’t be closed so he has abandoned the goal: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10612654
Key on the other hand seems still to be saying parity by 2025 is his “vision” even though he has no plans to try to achieve it.
All is lost.
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 8:17 am
According to double dipper and trougher Bill English the plan to close the gap with Australia is “too radical”. He also said that bringing the two countries to economic parity by 2025 is an “aspirational” rather than realistic goal.
What a “leader”, what a mediocrity we have as minister of Finance. Of course, he’s fully supported by the fearless, ballsy, John Key.
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 8:19 am
@george – that is very true. as dissapointed as I am with this National govt, at least English and Key are being at least somewhat honest.
That is, instead of trying to say we can have rapid economic growth *and* a huge welfare state, they admit that it’s one or the other but that they prefer to have the welfare state *instead of* economic growth.
Fair enough too I guess – people voted for a large welfare state, so that’s what the Nats are giving.
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 8:39 am
What is proposed here is absolute nonsense which is obviously unpalatable to anybody who wants to live in a secure social and economic environment. Nobody except the extreme fiscal nutters would even entertain these proposals in toto and so (thankfully) they will probably never be actioned.
I can’t see the problem with levvying taxation. It is necessary to have taxation in order provide services and infrastructure etc for a civil society…. but where the problem lies is that instead of providing for the common good, governments are involving themselves in stupid wasteful schemes which burn our money with little or no result. I refer to like ‘conservation’, families commissions etc, supporting intergenerational welfare fraud, stunting business and development thru the RMA, giving billions of dollars of our money to Maoris etc etc etc.
If a dedicated knife were to be taken to all the bullshit and waste, then we would actually be able to thrive as a country. Its not the amount of taxation that is the problem; its the stupid wasteful and often corrupt way that it is spent.
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 8:42 am
To those who thought I was suggesting France’s direction is the correct approach, you missed the irony in my email, I was not praising France, rather suggesting if the US with Labour market laws not to far off Brash’s suggestion were the answer, then surely the US would have higher per hour income than France.
Vote:Obviously those reforms don’t increase per hour productivity, which is what is required to beat Australia, working more hours won’t close the gap, our unemployment rate is to low to suggest there is much latent labour demand in our market.
To Robert Winter, I think we do produce the investor/mgmt class, the problem is they are by & large not in NZ, some reforms like reducing max tax rate & educational/health reform might help there, certainly the broadband initiative is crucial, but my read is it will always be a struggle to retain that talent & offering the better life style to go with our already world leading environment/sporting is the answer.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:43 am
Looks like National is keen to lock in the decline.
Even now Bill English is starting to openly admit what David Farrar has thought all along, that New Zealand will never catch up to Australia never mine approach parity with a real first world economy.
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 8:51 am
Do we need to “catch up” with Australia? Why don’t we stop worrying about neighbour envy and concentrate on doing what is best for us? Yes, we need significant reform of tax and welfare and government spending. But we surely should target a balance that is best for us, we have some similarities but we also have considerable differences to Aus. We should work to our strengths.
A couple of things to keep in mind:
Vote:Being devoted to the dollar god is bad religion.
The best things in life are not things.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:51 am
@ OECD they are starting to look more and more like Muldoon “I aim to leave the country no worse off then I found it”.
Anyone who wants an Australian standard of living will have to go and live there I guess.
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 9:10 am
Brian Gaynor on Business Breakfast this morning had some good points along the lines of; Brash said nothing about aiding the productive sector in the economy, or raising confidence in the capital markets.
Vote:When the best game in town is borrowing overseas to speculate in property you have to know that the country is going down hill.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:15 am
Actually Matt if you read the report you will see that he has a lot to say about that – it boils down to “if you want to help the productive sector (1) stop dumping costs on it (2) get out of the way and (3) stop trying to pick winners because you, Mr Bureaucrat, cant”
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 9:36 am
Kathryn Ryan waterboarded Brash this morning and he came up spluttering. His main premise boiled down to this: the reforms recommended by the 2025 taskforce will lead to smaller government and smaller government leads to outstanding economic growth.
An example of this approach is Singapore. But what the counterexample of Somalia? And the fact that the majority of countries whose standards of living we aspire to do not live by the small government philosophy.
So what I would like to see from the taskforce is this: instead of parroting 1980s ideology, provide us with compelling, rigorous economic proof of the proposal that in New Zealand, the smaller government it recommends will lead to outstanding economic growth in the New Zealand context.
Failing that, it’s just a recycling of an unimaginative, tired, mantra that has no relevance to New Zealand.
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 9:55 am
National are a pack of tossers and I rue the day I voted for them. Don Brash has given them a way forward but in the words of Macdoctor -
“Without even looking at Brash’s recommendations I could have told you that they will be rejected out of hand by Key. The entire taskforce was never designed to produce any viable suggestion. Regardless of the merits of Brash’s recommendations, there was never a chance that Key would follow them.” and
“I had not realised you could assassinate someone twice…”
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 10:26 am
The Aussie Productivity Commission sounds like a waaaaaay better model. Oh well.
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 10:33 am
There is a simple solution to catching up to Aussie: Become part of Australia. Problem solved.
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 10:43 am
Stop property speculation. Get investment capital into the tradable sector of the economy. Stabilise our dollar to help our exporters. Encourage national savings and superannuation. Look after our natural assets.
Stuff Australia, they’ve got their own problems- time we looked after ourselves and stopped foreigners getting rich on our assets and hard work. Oh and keep Fonterra as a co-op for the benefit of our farmers.
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 10:56 am
“An example of this approach is Singapore. But what the counterexample of Somalia?”
If you really dont understand the difference there is no point in arguing with you. If you are just making wank statements because you dont actually have an argument against small government there is no reason to argue with you.
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 11:31 am
Obviously some sneaky politics going on here, this report in it’s current form would NEVER be implemented by Key and English and as centrists gives them opportunity to distance themselves from it and follow through their watered down version.
The fact that Don Brash was the head of the report speaks volumes, if they had found someone less divisive (former National Party leader from so recently who still has the Hollow Men stigma attached to him) they might have come up with similar radical steps (if the mandate was for radical steps i.e. to catch up with Australia in the time frame would take bold steps), but there is no political mandate for bold steps. The government has indicated already that it is not going to concentrate on the economy while taking risks with it’s social policies.
Yes it is right wing economic report and I wasn’t surprised to see the recommendations or the response, some on the centre left are up in arms about it and stuck in a timewarp, fact of the matter is Key and English have already effectively killed it. Sure the ax is now blunt but Key and English will continue with their death by a 1000 cuts instead of one chop instead…
This report will the be the centre stone of ACT’s 2011 Election Manifesto…
Cheers…
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 11:56 am
Says who? I remember Key campaigning on the fact that the equivalent of Eden Park was leaving for Australia every year and that something had to be done about it.
National was elected on the basis of correcting the imbalance – so where’s their solution? It’s not good enough that we now have fatuous statements like “its too tough” – we knew it was going to be tough, but we also knew that it had to be done, otherwise we would have re-elected Helen Clark and her mob of economic vandals for a fourth term.
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 12:10 pm
“I remember Key campaigning on the fact that the equivalent of Eden Park was leaving for Australia every year and that something had to be done about it.”
Which just means that “something” must be done about it, not anything.
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 12:32 pm
NeillR on political mandate: ‘Says who? ‘
Says the PM and Finance Minister and having a former leader come out with recommendations (right or wrong) means nothing when it is DEAD before it even gets out of the water.
Thing is I am suspicious about why Brash was appointed by them as the head of the task force in the first place (with a scope and personnel for such predictable recommendations) when they were obviously going to reject the recommendations…
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I’m not looking for an argument, thanks. I think the “small government” mantra is ridiculously simplistic and Somalia is an extreme counterexample. Your fit of pique simply informs me that you recognise the need for a certain level of government and this is what discussion should concentrate on. It’s a simple trade off, tax vs spending. What do we cut?
Furthermore, I would say this: Brash stumbled when Ryan challenged him on what was the evidence that his approach would actually deliver and his reply was to the effect that he was just guessing. I don’t think that is good enough.
I remember when Key was promoting the example of Ireland’s tax breaks. That seems to have fallen off the agenda very quickly now Ireland has it’s own massive problems.
There is no simple fix and Brash’s Tina doesn’t work for me.
Vote:December 1st, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I think the “small government” mantra is ridiculously simplistic and Somalia is an extreme counterexample
I don’t think Somalia is a legit counterexample. Every(?) advocate of small government seems to stress the need for a strong and capable law and order system to prevent citizens from infringing on its citizens’ various rights e.g. property, life. Something that Somalia certainly doesn’t have. Private bodyguards don’t count.
Vote:December 2nd, 2009 at 2:57 am
“”Universal (unrelated to income or health status) subsidies for doctors’ visits should be abolished.
This I strongly agree with. Subsidies should be targeted to those who most need it. It is ridiculous that Eric Watson gets subsidized doctors visits. And it is very inefficient to tax people to then just give them that money back in subsidies.”" …end of quote…
David, I wonder is there any evidence for the idea that it is more inefficient to tax people and give them the money back in subsidies, than it is to target the subsidies. It makes intuitive sense, because there will be friction in the system as the money oasses into and then back out of the bureaucracy. I’ve heard the opposite can sometimes apply, that setting up a bureacracy to target who should get the subsidies can be very expensive, and it often doesn’t work anyway because the wealthy structure their finances so as to appear poor and get the subsidy. I know this happened at university, with allowances being claimed by many students with well off parents. I guess it varies from case to case. Do you know of any specific evidence on doctors visits?
WT
Vote: