Dom Post on empty promises
The Dom Post editorial:
In Government, Labour presided over a 48 per cent increase in the average salaries of public service chief executives, pushing the earnings of more than a dozen past the prime minister’s salary of $393,000. In Opposition, Labour is calling for new state chief executives to be paid no more than the prime minister.
In government, it took nine years to increase the minimum wage by $5 a hour during an economic boom. In Opposition it wants the Government to increase it by $2.50 to $15 an hour in just 12 months, despite the fact unemployment is rising.
Do Labour’s strategists think voters are stupid? Or do they just think they have short memories? This is populist, lowest common denominator politics that will do Labour no good in the long run.
Spot on. Only a moron could actually think Labour is serious about either of those promises.
… the salaries of senior public servants should be determined by their responsibilities and performance, not by slogans. And scrutiny should occur on an ongoing basis, not just when Labour needs a headline. The benchmarks for most of the salaries Labour is complaining about were set when it was in office. It did little to constrain salary increases then and is in no position now to criticise a Government that has stopped further increases in the total amount paid to public service bosses.
To me it just shows that Labour is so desperate to get back into power, that they’ll say anything.
Similarly, there are reasons to constantly review the minimum wage, as Labour did when it was last in office. It provides vulnerable workers with a measure of protection from unscrupulous employers. But, if there is a time to dramatically increase the minimum wage, it is not when the world is tentatively emerging from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Doing so would benefit some workers but cost others, in marginal enterprises, their jobs and deny yet others a chance to enter the workforce.
Can you imagine a worse time to increase the minimum wage by 20% over 12 months? I reckon deep down Phil Goff knows the policy is economic lunacy that would destroy jobs. So the only conclusion is that Labour wants more jobs destroyed, or they are calling for something they know is daft.
Its MPs did the right thing when they reconfirmed Mr Goff and Annette King as leader and deputy. They had few alternatives, and change for change’s sake would only have made the party look more desperate. But Labour will not make up lost ground until it reconnects with the voters it lost touch with in office. Promising things no party can deliver is not the way to do that.
What worries me is that they are talking about spending binges, while the crown accounts still have huge deficits and increasing debt.
February 1st, 2010 at 11:30 am
they really need to sack their party strategists…
right now they look like a talent wasteland.
February 1st, 2010 at 11:32 am
A tired old greyhound that couldn’t run after a wheelbarrow lies among flea infested blankets on the verandah of an old mansion that needs a major makeover or better still demolition. Old yella the old cat is curled up on a disintegrating seagrass chair meowing plaintively when it hears a voice.
The local media do a filler on what wonderful pets they both have been and how, now their owner has abandoned them leaving no visible means of support, are slowly descending into oblivion while the rest of the neighbours are to busy with their lives to care. Hopefully someone will arrange for a vet to put them down, meanwhile back in the real world……..
February 1st, 2010 at 11:34 am
Labour has no monopoly on taking advantage of the public’s lack of understanding of economics. John Key did the same when he said it would be a mistake to sell the railways because the government would make a loss. In fact, the concept of ‘what is seen and what is not seen’ is more subtle than the concept of sunk costs. So some in Labour may not actually understand that a $15 minimum wage would be bad but we know for sure that Key was just being outright dishonest about the merits of continuing to own and operate Cullen’s train set.
February 1st, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Long live King Goff.
He truly is my hero.
February 1st, 2010 at 12:23 pm
The Labour Party wants to pander to people who are essentially babies who think if you scream loud enough for something like a child then you will get it. The picture in the paper of the dreadful woman in full battle cry for her $15 says it all. Someone should give her a bottle of milk, I assume that what you give babies when the scream for something
February 1st, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Labour have no idea about money.
They spend like dogs when the economy is going gang-busters, and they want to do the same when the economy is in tatters.
Deep down in a labour MP’s mindset, is the realisation that it doesn’t matter what something costs, the rich pricks can afford it.
February 1st, 2010 at 1:04 pm
“Only a moron could actually think Labour is serious about either of those promises” .. you will find these morons at RednotsoAlert, the SubStandard and in the unions .. once again i will suggest that Labour will rally their union buddies to cause mayhem by strikes and using these sort of lies as the basis of this action.
February 1st, 2010 at 1:08 pm
“”To me it just shows that Labour is so desperate to get back into power, that they’ll say anything”"
Exactly. Whenever you read left leaning blogs, their obsession is with ‘how can we get back in power’. There is no comment on how can we improve the wealth of NZers or make NZ a better place. It is just how can we get our hands on everyones cash again.
Go read any post on the Stranded, and that is all they are about.
BUT…
National have to be really careful about the new proposed taxes. I am a rich prick, ie: earn over 70K yet I will pay about $2000 MORE in tax if they bring in the land tax and lower the top rate. I don’t live in a mansion. I paid about 200K for a house 8 years ago. It is now worth close to 500K, most of that the land value. My income has not increased as much as the value of my land has. I cannot see how the landtax option is going to make anyone, except millionaires, pay less in tax. The only way it could work is if the tax is payable on the value of the land at purchase or else you will get pensioners paying $20,000 land tax on a property they bought in Epsom for $500 in 1967.
I pay more than enough tax through PAYE. If National bring in this scheme they WILL lose my vote!
February 1st, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Rachael Rich
You are 100% correct – Labour don’t give a shit about the economy or the long term health of the country economically or socially. They just want the levers of govt in their own hands. No more no less. Look at the state they left the economy in 1990 and again in 2008. It is impossible to call the Labour party anything other than self serving muppets looking out for one thing only – their own jobs and salaries.
And BTW, you are not paying enough tax according to lefties – they will keep grinding you down till you leave the country or go on a benefit. Under the leave the country scenario you are never going to vote against them, if you go on a benefit you will vote for them. It really is this simple for self serving muppets who don’t have a clue what good goverance is.
February 1st, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Poor Labour: if the promise an irresponsible spending binge they are caned for insincerity and/or stupidity. If they promise responsible restraint they are caned for hypocrisy. Their solution to this dilemma is to promise both at the same time – one promise emerging from each face.
wreck1080, spot on.
Rachael Rich, they are desperate to get back in power because National is so evil that even when it does exactly what they would do this is evil. And New Zealand must be saved from this evil even if it means abolishing democracy to do it.
February 1st, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Rachel Rich:
“National have to be really careful about the new proposed taxes. I am a rich prick, ie: earn over 70K yet I will pay about $2000 MORE in tax if they bring in the land tax and lower the top rate. I don’t live in a mansion. I paid about 200K for a house 8 years ago. It is now worth close to 500K”
Remember it’s only the LAND value that gets taxed. Not the value of improvements on that land.
I am in a similar situation (earn mid $60k, home worth ~$450, Land ~$250k) – If a land tax were introduced and the top tax rate were 30% (i.e. the top tax bracket and second tax bracket lowered) then I would be in about a neutral position (actually get to keep extra to buy me lunch for a couple of days with a land tax). I’m comfortable with it – I’d like to see property incentives decreased (whether or not land tax is the best tool to do this I’m unsure).
However, I’m not 100% sure what the recommendations were in regards to income tax – was it top tax bracket down to 33% (so now it’s 33% for anything you earn above $48k). Or is the recommendation to lower the top two rates to 30%? Maybe someone could shed some light on it?
If it is the former then I’ll end up paying ~$800 extra in tax p.a. – Doesn’t concern me hugely – anything to avoid another property bubble and mugs thinking they are the only Einsteins smart enough to buy and sell houses.
Regardless, I think what National adopts for income tax could be very different to the recommendations (lack the kahunas to go the whole hog IMHO).
February 1st, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Jag
Between us we do $200+ and very definitely not rich pricks.
We work hard and expect others to do the same, it took time to get here, that said we don’t mind giving people a hand up providing that is what it is and they then work hard and do the same.
I think Kiwis are lazy bastards in the main as they expect govt to do everything for them, it is a bullshit myth that we are no8 wire people.
It is a small % of us who are that and have a can do attitude and expectation.
I have nothing but contempt for the people we know with degrees who accept working for families as they have no excuse as I’ve explained what financial slippage is (loss to country $) of taxes in and then benefits out.
I doubt very much that we’ll vote National as they appear to have bottled on changing the entitlement attitude.
That should have been first to go with tax cuts so those people didn’t pay.
That would have set the scene and attitude for larger tax cuts and making the tax regime simpler and easy to process for the future.
The National I would vote for is for least tax and NO taxes to get in the way of entrepreneurs and wealth builders but giving everyone the chance to be them, through education or incentives to work.
Unlike Loser Labour and Greens who tall poppy and derail both people and the economy.
Key and English don’t look like the team to do it sadly, Key because he wants to be everyman’s friend and English because he is a trougher and hasn’t apologised as the so called Christian he claims to be. But was a weasily politician over it.
A not a good look doesn’t cut the mustard for a man & wife earning $300k to ask for $20 a more a week.
February 1st, 2010 at 4:05 pm
OPM
That’s the problem.
We have ordinary people who have their noses in the trough of (OPM) Other Peoples Money.
Coupled with politicians who are liberal at dolling out (OPM) Other Peoples Money with no thought about their responsibility to be frugal and careful with OPM as a first order.
Until this is dealt with in NZ society (starting at school to every level of local and National Govt) we are always going to be 2nd rate.
That doesn’t mean certain Kiwis won’t be top class and even world class.
Because history shows we do bat above our average on so many levels but the country will never be a Singapore or Hong Kong or Ireland.
Whilst I might not agree with Cactus Kate on social issues I think she’s on the button money wise.
February 1st, 2010 at 5:02 pm
To be fair to Labour, that’s like saying the Ghengis Khan government didn’t treat Chinese peasants well. For the previous nine years it was a two woman band, with a Minister occasionally allowed to play the fiddle on an issue that neither H1 nor H2 particularly cared about. If anyone had stuck their neck out it would have been lopped off.
As a result of the H’s control of list ranking and preselections there’s now a goodly number of pod persons in caucus, programmed to continue their works and vote down any heresy.
Those who cowered under the tyrannical yoke are just starting to timidly advance their own ideas. It may well be that these ideas are genuinely held beliefs… in fact in many cases I think they are. It’s just a pity they never had the collective fortitude to insist upon advancing them over the last decade.
February 1st, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Hey Mike,
I can appreciate all those sentiments.
I’m far from a socialist.
I think that taxes should be as low and as flat as possible to encourage businesses and individuals to stay and prosper in NZ.
I’ve never, and would never accept WFF middle-class welfare. I also think people on high incomes who do are deplorable.
One thing that needs to be improved is the blatant free-ride given to those who invest in property. As a young professional NZer (and with many friends who are also young professionals) I can assure you that it is infuriating to be either locked out of the housing market or pay through the teeth for overpriced housing… this single factor has driven many of my friends off-shore.
I know that broadening the tax system for the left is akin to supplying pseudoephidrine to a P dealer but I believe that applying tax to immobile sources (i.e. property) and encouraging mobile sources to stay (i.e. skilled labour) has to be a good thing.
February 1st, 2010 at 6:42 pm
As Margaret Thatcher is reputed to have observed so aptly and so accurately:
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.
The inherent failing of leftists is that they are fundamentally incapable of absorbing such a truth.
February 1st, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Jag, you have been conned into believing total rubbish. Property investing ain’t no free ride. Its a business like any other and can be either profitable or not profitable. If you think its easy then try being a landlord. You can afford a house by doing that. Won’t be the one you live in but that’s ok. The experience will be good for you.
And don’t forget that many of those property investors you complain about contributed a fair chunk of money to you education. You [paid about 20% if what it cost.
As for your friends going offshore to buy a house that’s rubbish as well. Houses in most other countries cost more than here.
Oh yep you can go to the states and buy a cheapy at the moment but can you get a job? Same for England and worse in Australia.
We all faced this obstacle when we started. I worked three jobs and didn’t have TV or a descent car and so on. Stop moaning and get of your lazy bum and do some learning about the property market. Plenty of deals out there. You just don’t know how to access them. and that’s for you to learn.
Check out this forum for idea’s
http://www.propertytalk.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=55
February 1st, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Anybody who is prepared to put up with the crap that (a) the government and (b) the tenants put them through to be a landlord deserves all the bloody profit they can make. I would not touch rental housing with a bargepole, it would just bring on an early heart attack. Land tax will just push up the rentals for the tenants and will achieve nothing. The real empty promise is that one National made to reduce taxation. Here they are now working out how to screw more out of us. Sorry DPF but they are just WANKERS!!
February 1st, 2010 at 10:24 pm
1. Being a landlord can be a nightmare. It is a nightmare. You are the devil incarnate according to the tennants, the rental tribunerals, everyone. Its the only business I can think of where the supplier can be blamed so often and in so many ways for the customer not paying for the product , thats after he has smashed the product.
2. New Zealand needs professional landlords badly, there is not enough housing now, imagine what will happen if the govt. taxes the bejesus out of the landlords? They will just sell up…. then the govt will have to step in and buy up lots and lots and lots of property to take up the housing shortfall.
3. Its alot easier to give professional landlords a break through depreciation than have the govt having to buy up half the housing stock in Auckland at a later date
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:32 am
Problem is, Kiwi voters are morons. If Labour keep on promising the moon and the stars then eventually it will filter through and Labour will get back in power.
February 2nd, 2010 at 8:06 am
“To me it just shows that Labour is so desperate to get back into power, that they’ll say anything.”
This isn’t new – the last labour government and Annette King in particular campaigned hard and loudly for an upgraded “Level 3 Hospital” at Kenepuru, before their first and second 3-year terms. For instance.
And presided over the steady decline in services and active treatment bed numbers over the entire 9-year period. This is worse than false promises, this is cynical lying.
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:02 am
Jag
I’m with Viking2, Johnboy and pauleastbay on this one.
State housing will never cater for the countries needs and should it anyway, as the Govt that can meet all your needs can take them away too, de[pending who is in power.
Obviously everyone owning their own home is the best goal, but not everyone can.
The Democrats in the US screwed America over and precipitated the financial hole by forcing banks to lend to people who couldn’t and shouldn’t have taken the debt they did for housing.
One question not asked by people like yourselves “is why do little people invest in property as they do in NZ?”
Answer – because finance houses and the stock exchange are not safe and even viewed as corrupt.
At least they still get to keep the property if they aren’t over leveraged!
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:10 am
Jag
I think your efforts would better be focused on putting pressure on getting new developments going as that is a significant bottleneck which is not served by lazy officials using infill to raise rates without increasing infrastructure.
Govt and local govt need to work together with devepolpers not make it hard for them here.
New developments bring infrastructure that spreads the load and opens the way for growth if planned properly and holistically.
Much will be paid for by landlords too, but in the long run it increase the housing stock which will benefit all and stabilise rentals rather than the up and down a scarcity affords.