Labour on budget
May 20th, 2010 at 9:44 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
If Labour were writing today’s Budget, it would spend more than National to ensure the recovery from recession remained on track, says finance spokesman David Cunliffe.
The Government spending more does not “ensure” the recovery remains on track. It merely ensures that taxes will have to increase in the future to pay back all the debt.
Labour leader Phil Goff has already sparred with Finance Minister Bill English over the tax changes expected today, with Mr English saying last week that Labour’s policies were a recipe for more debt and higher taxes.
How mean of Bill English to say that, just because it is true.
However, Mr Cunliffe told the Herald that his party, as “very prudent managers” of the Crown’s finances, would keep a tight rein on spending at present.
This would have more credibility if Labour had not called for billions of dollars of extra spending and borrowing.
“Right now, the country’s coming out of recession and well into recovery, and with growth rates forecast between 2.5 and 3.5 per cent of GDP this year and higher next year, this would not be the time that we would want to increase the amount of fiscal stimulus in the economy.”
I actually agree with that statement. We’ve just had the biggest fall in unemployment since records began. The economy does not need a fiscal stimulus.
Having said that, Mr Cunliffe believed an argument could be made that the $1.1 billion earmarked for new spending in the Budget “is quite contractionary given that around half of that will be chewed up by the automatic cost increase of health alone”.
It isn’t contractionary – it is disciplined. If one returns to the fiscal settings Labour had, then the deficit was projected to widen and widen, and debt to indefinitely grow until we have Greece like levels of debt.
“Bill English is behaving like an old-fashioned Treasury vote analyst pinching a few pennies here and there. Well that won’t solve the problem,” said Mr Cunliffe.
Increased savings, investment and exports were the keys to improving economic performance and those would be areas of focus for a Labour government.
So in one paragraph Labour argues they will be “very prudent” managers who will keep a “tight rein” on spending and then they dismiss said tight rein as mean penny pinching.
I agree increased savings and investment is important – which is why I support increasing GST and reducing personal income taxes. Sadly Labour does not – they ran an axe the tax campaign against GST.
KiwiSaver, “a spectacular success” under the previous government whose growth had levelled off under National, would probably receive a tune-up.
More than $750 million. God no.
“We would say to the public service you need to be innovative, there’s no point in flooding Labour with the Budget bids that National turned down.”
Well at least there is a glimmer of hope.
May 20th, 2010 at 9:54 am
I struggle to see the practical difference between borrowing to spend and borrowing to cut taxes. I know there’s some fantasy about tax cuts leading to sustained growth that you subscribe to – but this never ever works in the real world, and has the same validity as Labour’s dreams about growing the economy by expanding the government.
(I guess the practical difference is that people like us will do well out of the tax cuts but Labour’s spending would mostly go to poor people.)
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 10:00 am
“If Labour were writing today’s Budget, it would spend more than National to ensure the recovery from recession remained on track”
I’ll say it once, I’ll say it a thousand times.
If Goverment spending can get us out of recessions, how come we have recessions?
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 10:01 am
“but this never ever works in the real world,” (citation needed).
This is essential reading for all commies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
There is not a “cost” to cutting taxes, as studies have shown this to INCREASE the tax take, for example a study some independent economists and accountants did in the mid 1980s, just after the top tax rate was cut from 66% to 33% under Douglas, showed that tax revenues increased over the following year. I believe it also showed more people paying the rate as well, as they stopped trying to shelter income.
If anyone had a link to this study, it would be much appreciated, and helpful for slow learners like Danyl that believe in such nonsense as “borrowing for tax cuts”. The only thing governments borrow for is to continue their endless spending.
I believe the study was cited in one of Roger Douglas’ books. If the master himself is lurking today perhaps he would be so kind as to show us.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 10:03 am
And another relevant read is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_Law
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 10:05 am
Interesting to see how often Greece is being trotted out by the right as a “failure of socialism” lately.
Funnily enough, Ireland and Iceland, both of which went down the neo-liberal path, aren’t looking too flash at the moment either.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 10:06 am
I am still not convinced about those figures about the number of unemployed dropping…
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Toad the main cause of the Irish recession was a property bubble, which could happen anywhere regardless of the hue of the ruling party.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 10:13 am
“I agree increased savings and investment is important – which is why I support increasing GST and reducing personal income taxes.”
DPF, you must have disagreed with your leader Key when he said no GST hike during the campaign? Wow, that’s refreshing.
Good to know you support a higher GST. Why stop at 15%? Push it up to 25% to follow your unbeatable National Party logic to help us save more.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 10:13 am
Danyl
Then lets stop borrowing, I would gladly forgo my tax cuts if the government slashed public spending, they could start with social welfare.
But I would wager that you are not keen on that idea.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 10:17 am
“I agree increased savings and investment is important – which is why I support increasing GST and reducing personal income taxes”
Nothing like reducing the amount of disposable income people have because it costs more to live to increase saving. Get more in the pocket and then everything is more expensive.
Still, it’s a different brand of socialism, one that still increases the size of the state, just not quite as fast (and lies about its tax plans in advance).
Keep the red flag flying (Bob Jones used to sign off with that phrase when writing to National Cabinet Ministers under the Muldoon regime, it seems apt once more with a government that “invests” in grand vision based infrastructure projects, that maintains a bevy of state owned businesses and fiddles with taxes, runs deficits and does next to nothing to reform public services).
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 10:18 am
Shhhhhhhhhhh nickb, they will come for you, socialists dressed in white carrying strait jackets. Danyl and his fallow noddy’s live in world that must control because they believe they know best, fools. Even if it was proven that a flat tax rate of 10% could return more in taxes to government they would loudly reject the concept and stick their heads up their arses. It’s not about how much tax you do or do not pay it’s about those in power unwilling to except people are better off making their own decisions, it’s about control, it’s about bad bastards trying to dictate how you must live.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 10:24 am
It is all just rhetoric from Labour isn’t it? They had nine years of some of the best economic opportunities ever-but what did they do? Labour squandered New Zealand’s chance to set aside a reserve which would have made the current recession so much easier to weather. Goof and his buddies have a cheek to even comment on the economy. Labour lies and lies and lies until the more gullible begin to believe them. You cannot benefit the poor by making the more fortunate poorer-that is killing the goose…
Vote:Stop using the politics of envy and fear Goof (aka little Helen). If either of the major parties cared about New Zealand (as opposed to winning at any cost) they would have spent a lot more time working together on econimic solutions. I have never had faith in Labour and some while ago laost my faith in National.
May 20th, 2010 at 10:26 am
The recession may be over if for a few but yesterday I talked with four independent small business people. One had been in his business for 17 years, another about 15, another 3 and another 6. All had various results from the last 3 years but all were now saying how quiet it had become in the last 3 weeks.
The business of 17 years said that he had retained his staff all the way through but as of Friday he had no work for them in his workshop.
The one of 15 years was out visiting a long time customer about installing a new model or product into their product. He had with him all his workshop staff. Never been able to do this ever before.
The 3 year has gone from 5 staff to himself and has had just enough to keep him going but is slowly running out of money because although he has slashed overheads and all, its borderline still.
The forth has been very busy and has had his best year in 6 but the work has almost dried up in the last 3 weeks.
All are involved in various repair and maintenance operations with a small amount of new work.
None have taken on more staff and all are very concerned for the winter.
So yeah things are coming right, and depite the bullshit from the Westie,(and westies are known for bullshit), unemployent in the area and queues at Winz are not going down.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Yes, lets load up debt for our grandchildren to pay off. Like the US – what a mess there.
Now, when our grandchildren’s economy has a crisis, they will not only be paying off Phil Goffs debts, they’ll be paying their own way out too. Double bang!!
Note, GST is such a tall poppy tax . I think GST will be 30% or more in the distant future. Look at the UK , and Icelands ‘GST’ is now around 25%.
Not that i mind, GST is a fair tax.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 10:34 am
Totally agree with CJD. Labour had nine years of beautiful economic conditions and what did they do with it? Spend spend spend. Working for families (making beneficiaries of the middle class), free student loans (making beneficiaries of students), huge increase in the numbers and staffing of government departments (good for recruiting companies), and increase the top tax bracket (encouraging the wealthy to avoid tax).
All the while our best and brightest went to Australia where they could enjoy economic prosperity.
I don’t want to hear from Labour about any economic management issue. They had their chance — they were absolutely useless. What Labour is about is increasing the number of beneficiaries and therefore increasing the number of likely Labour voters.
As Winston Churchill once said — “If you are robbing Peter to pay Paul you can always count on Paul’s support”.
Well Peter is sick of being robbed!
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 10:37 am
“However, Mr Cunliffe told the Herald that his party, as “very prudent managers” of the Crown’s finances, would keep a tight rein on spending at present”
Prudent as in buying a trainset for a price that still has the vendors wetting their pants in mirth.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 10:41 am
Labour are full of shit
Vote:Until they apologise for Clark-Cullen anti-Keynesian big spending policies in the good times
They can never ever be taken seriously as a proponent of Keynesian policies in a recession
May 20th, 2010 at 10:47 am
“I actually agree with that statement. We’ve just had the biggest fall in unemployment since records began. The economy does not need a fiscal stimulus.”
Isn’t a tax cut a form of fiscal stimulus…?
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 10:48 am
yes, labour are full of shit. This is a timely reminder of how we fared on their watch. h/t John Ansell.
Socialism sucks doesn’t?
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 10:58 am
Nickb,
Tha laffer curve is a joke! The actual data scatter quite randomly across the page — trying to attribute them to a laffer curve involves closing your eyes and drawing the curve on top.
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/07/a_laughable_laffer_curve_from.php
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 11:03 am
kk
what would be even more interesting would be to do this comparison at 10 yearly intervals – 1998, 1988, 1978 etc to track the relativity over time.
John – get working!
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Danyl, I think you try too hard NOT to think. Point 1: Taxation is inefficient, a $1 of tax has losses so that at best it can produce $0.80 of spending, tax forgone is 100% efficient in the hands of those it would have come from. Point 2: There is empirical evidence that leaving more money in the hands of taxpayers leads to increased growth, however it is not true under all circumstances; whereas Point 3: Government spending from taxes will never increase growth despite many claims that it will “next time”. Even such sacred cows (to DPF) such as the fibre rollout have the same problem. Point 4: Your assertion that labour’s spend would benefit the poor is unfounded, it is (as all political bribes are) intended primarily to benefit the Labour Party.
I think we’re very close to that point where the majority of voters will pay no effective taxes at all, thus permanently locking in a tyranny of the majority who seem to firmly believe that they can vote themselves comfortable using other peoples efforts to fund that comfort.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 11:19 am
toad: Interesting to see how often Greece is being trotted out by the right as a “failure of socialism” lately.
Funnily enough, Ireland and Iceland, both of which went down the neo-liberal path, aren’t looking too flash at the moment either.
The problem is not the financial ideology of the country toad, it is living well out of your means – it is borrowing excessive amounts cash because the gov cant balance the books. And this view is not inconsistant with taxcuts, it the government managed the money they take from us more wisely, there would be huge surpluses.
But like Bruv, I would forgo any tax cut offered if the government took a far more fiscally conservative approach to spending the money they take from us in Tax.
One other thing I’d do as well is pass a law that political parties have to spend their own money on blatant advertising campaigns for there party – there is no way in hell the public should have picked up the cost of Labours “axe the tax bus tour”. Also I’d force the parties to provide independant audits of all money they spend during the parliamentary term – both public and party funded.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 11:19 am
What Ed said.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 11:21 am
NickB,
The Hauser’s Law is interesting. However, what result do you get if you plot GDP itself against tax rates. One result is that GDP does not necessarily follow cuts in the top tax rate.
Question: is “increasing the pie” the modern equivalent of “the trickle down theory” by any chance? Roger Douglas had his day and during his time our relative position continued decreasing. Oh, I know, it’s because he wasn’t allowed to go far enough…
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 11:21 am
Well said Ed.
I wouldn’t trust Danyl and the Labour/Green parties with $3 of mine to go down the road and buy me an ice cream.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 11:22 am
kia – Some of this type of info is available here: OECD Trendalyzer.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 11:26 am
@KrazyKiwi, what that list doesn’t show is wealth breakdown, with the top 1% of the US controlling such vast amounts of the GDP intake it does put a different slant on the realtive positions, also many of those states/countries etc have higher taxes than us, our problems are much bigger than simply taxes…
@DPF, how can you claim higher GST will foster BOTH savings and tax cuts..? It can give us tax cuts funding (and consumed) by the extra tax on consumption or it can discourage consumption (presumably to be saved) leaving a bigger hole in the deficit – but it can’t do both…
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 11:27 am
bloody-hands biob said..
“..It’s not about how much tax you do or do not pay it’s about those in power unwilling to except people are better off making their own decisions, it’s about control, it’s about bad bastards trying to dictate how you must live…”
surely…with you…it’s just a matter of unrelenting personal greed…eh..?
that would be why you..a rich dairy farmer..have ‘arranged’ your large income into the trust-world..
..this to enable you to ‘qualify’ for working for (some) families-welfare…
..of over a grand a month…
..eh..?
are you trying to cloak that bastardry in the tattered-flag of ‘personal freedom’..?
that’s kinda ‘rich’..isn’t it..?
(what was it again you said..?
oh..!..tat’s right..!
“..my family dosen’t need working for families..i just use it to pay my tax bill…”
now..i am curious as to how yr fellow-righties view this..?
do they think/feel?:..’onya bob..!’
or..like me..do they consider you a duplicitous/hypocritical/two-faced/bastard/rip-off-merchant..?
..and very largely..part of the/our ‘problems’…?
how do you think the polling wd go..?
bloody-hands-bob..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 11:32 am
It suddenly got a lot smellier in here. Trust Phool to cloud the pool with another incoherent pile of waffle. Must have just woken up from last night’s bad trip…
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 11:36 am
“Labour on budget” = vent your spleen on a hypothetical budget from a hypothetical Labour government, so when National unveil the mediocre and vision-less real thing, it doesn’t seem quite so bad.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 11:38 am
Malcolm “Labour on budget” = vent your spleen on a hypothetical budget from a hypothetical Labour government, so when National unveil the mediocre and vision-less real thing, it doesn’t seem quite so bad”
You are so right-running a country should be left up to those who know what they are doing…like Roger Douglas..eh!
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 11:47 am
David Cunliffe is a Keynesian worshiper. It is unbelievable, that one can still advocate for Keynesian economic framework after its been shown to be an utterly false theory. I had pointed out to him at RedAlert about the falsifications of Keynesian, but he was very dismissive about it.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 11:51 am
CJD, It was Roger Douglas who got us in this parlous state in the first palce – destruction of manufacturing, corporatisation of profits, socialisation of losses, theft of public assetts and leading the global race to the bottom. Roger Douglas has been good for Roger Douglas, but he fucked over NZ bigtime, and you areswipes want more of the same, failed policies.
Yesterday’s men singing yesterday’s tunes.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 11:54 am
I had no idea Sir Roger was such an integral part of the chinese manufacturing revolution. Well done that man.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Shit philly it’s you fucking socialists that want to give it away, who am I to refuse. I believe it’s my patriotic duty to lessen my tax liabilities any way I can. Once again clown, you morons wrote the rules don’t go and get all prissy when others play you at your own game. This budget will be a good test between my accountant and Shonkey’s hope to limit the “rich” in getting WFF, my money is on the accountant. Will keep you informed, either way I couldn’t give a fat rats toss, I’m tied of the bullshit that governments in this country talk.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Thread fucked, get us a new one.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
yr a stellar/shining example/template of yr ‘kind’..there…bloody-hands-bob..
readers can make their own judgments on yr words/attitudes/actions…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Yeah sure LeftRightOut Douglas bad/Reagan bad/Thatcher bad…ironically they weren’t really were they, at all… In fact they were GREAT…where are your heros?
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
nickb – “just after the top tax rate was cut from 66% to 33% under Douglas, showed that tax revenues increased over the following year.”
You’re not seriously trying to equate a 50% drop in the top rate 20 years ago to one of a few cents that is likely today are you? 66% was a punative rate, whereas 38% is not really, although I do think that the top threshold should be lifted to $100k if the rate stayed up at 38%.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Oh and philly I arranged my affairs into a trust because gives some security to the thieving socialist fucks such as yourself. Like many others I would happily fore go WFF if I could keep the money in my pocket instead of paying vast amounts of tax. Why should someone who works everyday, runs a family, note the word family, not be entitled to what is on offer. You wish that I simply pay, pay, pay. Fuck you.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
” Funnily enough, Ireland and Iceland, both of which went down the neo-liberal path, aren’t looking too flash at the moment either.”
Jezuz you commies are so far off the fucking mark its no damn wonder you never have the faintest idea about anything. Neo liberal.. pfffft, what utter utter crap. They’re not neo liberal, they’re Keynesian you dickwad- IOW the gummint tries to control the country’s economy in order to balance out the perceived up and down cycles of capitalism.
Its a worldwide trend pushed by idiots like you Toad, and like all the fucking ideas you brain damaged lot have, it ain’t worth shit. It was never going to work in the long term for the simple reason that eventually, you grasping thieving pack of numb skulled socialist bastards run out of OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY.
Up and down cycles are necessary Toad. A part of life. Like autumn and spring and summer and winter, they’re a natural event that must occur. Trying to fuck with it is like trying to make water run up hill.
What we are seeing now is the result of decades of Keynesian influence in politics and government. It was never going to work, and now its time to pay the price for yet another instance of left wing ignorance and stupidity.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
phonetically you have it right..but yr spelling is out….
..the word is ‘grate’….
(and..snigger..!…you have dotty-ronnie..mad-maggie…and the (failed) pig concentration camp owner..as yr ‘heros’(sic)…?
y’know..that’s kinda sad..eh..?
the biggest failure-figures of that politically-bankrupt /rand-ite/yesterdays-idea…
those who fucked the world..and new zealand…
..are your ‘heros’(sic)..
what does that make you…?
(and..are you still claiming to be an act-ite mp..?..or wd you rather i’d forget you claimed that little delusion/fantasy..eh..?..
..i’m picking the latter…eh..?
..you are just brimming over with bullshit…eh..?…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
If Labour and its sycophantic supporters wanted to write this budget they should have A: gotten more votes in the elction, B: spared the nation 9 years of Cullenomics.
Hows that train set looking mickey?
Meanwhile the biggest leech of all just sits there drugged off his face demanding more money in the finest example of why we need to get hard and change our entitlement culture into one with a work ethic.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
One thing Key has played smart is not doing a stimulous and just letting production turn around the economy as better not to get into debt as it won’t be the last recession we will ever have and you don’t want to end up like Greece with too much more debt as what do you do at the next crash then?
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
x love you too Phool
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Ed says:
“I think we’re very close to that point where the majority of voters will pay no effective taxes at all”
Ed, don’t the tax stats bandied around in recent times demonstrate that we are in fact at that point? Breeding is the best little tax haven going.
Falafulu Fisi says:
“David Cunliffe is a Keynesian worshiper.”
Wrong, wrong wrong. David Cunliffe is a David Cunliffe worshipper.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
“You’re not seriously trying to equate a 50% drop in the top rate 20 years ago to one of a few cents that is likely today are you? 66% was a punative rate, whereas 38% is not really, although I do think that the top threshold should be lifted to $100k if the rate stayed up at 38%.”
What I am trying to say is that a multitude of studies have proven that reducing tax rates actually increase revenue. What is so hard to understand about my post?
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
CJD (97) Says:
May 20th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Yeah sure LeftRightOut Douglas bad/Reagan bad/Thatcher bad…ironically they weren’t really were they, at all… In fact they were GREAT…where are your heros?
Up until this post, I thought that there could only be one idiot as big as redbirther, but you take the cake.
Reagan presided over the biggest growth in the US goverment and government debt ever seen.
Margaret Thatcher presided over the invention and growth of, and was the direct prime cause of, the global warming/climate change scam.
Douglas I’ve already said my piece.
If that’s your heroes, I’ll stick with mine any day.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
philu:
now..i am curious as to how yr fellow-righties view this..?
do they think/feel?:..’onya bob..!’
or..like me..do they consider you a duplicitous/hypocritical/two-faced/bastard/rip-off-merchant..?
What law is he breaking?
And what is wrong with claiming WFF if he is entitled to it? If I could I would, as it means more money for my family.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
LRO: If that’s your heroes, I’ll stick with mine any day.
Yet you dont seem to advertise who those heroes are. Care to enlighten us regarding them so we can critique them as well?
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
even if he was breaking the law (he clearly isn’t), you’re over your head acting as the moral police mr “put the cough medicine in the bag”.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Danyl got it right in the first reply – it’s not the level of spending that gets you into debt; it’s the deficit or surplus of spending to income.
So lambasting someone for suggesting that keeping tax rates as are but increasing spending because it inflates borrowing means you have to do the same to someone that wants to keep spending as is but cut tax income to fund it.
Not rocket science.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Leftrightout wants to excoriate the Douglas led reforms of 1984 – 1990, because they led to “destruction of manufacturing, corporatisation of profits, socialization of losses, theft of public assets and leading the global race to the bottom” (Spelling corrections made btw). So LRO wants the policies that Douglas overturned, LRO is a Muldoonist ! Pretty obvious that Muldoonism led NZ to the heights of prosperity, fairness, and equality, didn’t it LRO ?
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
@ nickb
“What I am trying to say is that a multitude of studies have proven that reducing tax rates actually increase revenue. What is so hard to understand about my post?”
Show us one then.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
“So LRO wants the policies that Douglas overturned, LRO is a Muldoonist !”
^^^Fallacy.
A is not necessarily the only alternative to B.
We don’t know from that post what alternative LRO wants.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
You are so right LeftOutRight and Phool I am so ashamed I think I will submit to a lobotomy and join the Left…then I will have really heroes with fantastic economic policy….kindly old Lenin and Gentle Joe, or Mao (the Chairman, not the condiment) and Kim Jong Il…Pol Pot. You’all must be proud as punch…
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
We do know what LRO wants; anything suggested by the red team. The red team are good, the blue team are bad. Welcome to the thinking of tribal animals with very little brains.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
“Show us one then.”
Typical. You commies never know fuck all. Have never looked at the other side of the coin. Blind blinkered ignoramuses.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Jinpy I mentioned it in my first post.
Seeing as you are to lazy to do the most elementary of research yourself, here is a link:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/06/The-Laffer-Curve-Past-Present-and-Future
There you go.
Vote:Now can you please provide us with a link of how taxing the fuck out of us and spending like crazy somehow can magically bring prosperity?
May 20th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Danyl got it right in the first reply – it’s not the level of spending that gets you into debt; it’s the deficit or surplus of spending to income.
So lambasting someone for suggesting that keeping tax rates as are but increasing spending because it inflates borrowing means you have to do the same to someone that wants to keep spending as is but cut tax income to fund it.
Ummmm garethw, you’ll find most righties want the gov to reduce taxes AND spending at the same time.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
“Now can you please provide us with a link of how taxing the fuck out of us and spending like crazy somehow can magically bring prosperity?”
Its easy- any good commie will tell you that they can put both their feet in a bucket, and then grasp the handles of the buckets, and lift themselves into the air. That’s always been how socialism works.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Bevan I’m not having a “righty”/”lefty” argument (sorry, I realise that is 87% of the posts on here) – just saying it applies both ways. If National want to maintain spending levels but cut tax, then that is exactly the same borrowing outcome as raising spending levels but maintaining tax (which seems to be Labour’s take on it). Yet apparently English doing that makes him a saint, where as Cunliffe’s version makes him a retard…
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
tan..are you that wanker who was a green for awhile..?..and then became an act-ite…?
kinda like rats boarding the sinking ship…eh…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
y’see..cjd..i never have..and never would…claim them as ‘heros’(sic)
..whereas you….
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
All this discussion about debt (with the constant bleats Greece..Greece..Greece..) merely covers up this governments total paucity of ideas, imagination and dare I say it- talent.
Why the obsession with debt? Our Government debt to GDP ratio is 27%. Britain’s is 68%, Germany’s 70%, the US 54%, Canada 72%, India 60%, Norway (hardly an economy in distress) 60%. Aren’t there other things we should be worried about?
We see no discussion from this government about value-added wealth creation, all they seem capable of thinking about is the lowest common denominator ie how to tinker with the tax take- which miraculously is supposed to set us on the path to prosperity.
BTW- I wouldn’t get overly excited about the growth forecasts- they are totally dependent upon growth in Australia and Asia.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
I *love* seeing socialist heap their scorn upon those who pay to make the socialist pipe dream a reality. One day hopefully natural selection will bite them back and as they realise that all those people they’ve been bitching at who are now gone were the ones that paid for everything.
It just reinforces how utterly brilliant the Restaurant taxation example is. One day the rich man is going to leave boys. And then you’ll all be out of your meal tickets.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Viking2, thanks for that comment. I too own a business. We’re about 3.5 years and still trying to get into the black zone. These last 3 weeks have been extremely quiet. I have been talking to other vendors and they say the same. I do not think the recession is over, far from it. A mate who owns a retail store cut the hours down on his helper. He has been in business about 12 years. He also thinks people are holding on to their money to see what is happening with this new budget that will be announced in 30 minutes. We’ll see.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Bevan (2276) Says:
May 20th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
LRO: If that’s your heroes, I’ll stick with mine any day.
Yet you dont seem to advertise who those heroes are. Care to enlighten us regarding them so we can critique them as well?
Typical of the brainwashed fools and victims of right wing idealogues that infest our education system like vermin.
In other words, Bevan has no arguments, so wants to set up strawmen for him to ad hom.
We need a revolution in education to drag these right wing brainwashers from our schools and universities and to reintroduce critical thinking skills to our youth.
is it any wonder these people find Sarah Bjelke-Palin so appealing when they have been taught so poorly?
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
garethw: If National want to maintain spending levels but cut tax, then that is exactly the same borrowing outcome as raising spending levels but maintaining tax (which seems to be Labour’s take on it).
And you will find the majority would prefer there was no borrowing and NZ was living within its means. Alot will look at it as being better than what was happening, but not yet good enough.
Yet apparently English doing that makes him a saint, where as Cunliffe’s version makes him a retard…
Cunliffe is a retard because he contradicts himself in the same press release! English, quite frankly is wearing my patience as far as I’m concerned, I understand that this budget is more out of political neccessity (as much as I hate that phrase) than prudent economics, and if the government doesnt get its shit together, I’d say a fair number of voters will direct their vote elsewhere in the next election – hopefully enough to pull them right again! But to be honest, I’m not sure if Act deserve’s the vote.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
LRO:
Typical of the brainwashed fools and victims of right wing idealogues that infest our education system like vermin.
In other words, Bevan has no arguments, so wants to set up strawmen for him to ad hom.
You mean like your straw men arguement regarding Thatcher, Reagan and Douglas? Grow a fucken spine and state a position you gutless wimp! You’ve mentioned you have heroes, but refuse to name them.
LRO: We need a revolution in education to drag these right wing brainwashers from our schools and universities and to reintroduce critical thinking skills to our youth.
is it any wonder these people find Sarah Bjelke-Palin so appealing when they have been taught so poorly?
Wow accuse me of straw men and ad hom arguements, then launch straight into one yourself. A+ for hypocrisy chump!
Oh and hey, thought you were ignoring my posts? PLINK!
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Care to share with us a few of your “heroes”? I think CJD nailed it and you’re in denial.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Why the obsession with debt? Our Government debt to GDP ratio is 27%. Britain’s is 68%, Germany’s 70%, the US 54%, Canada 72%, India 60%, Norway (hardly an economy in distress) 60%. Aren’t there other things we should be worried about?
And in all these examples, what is their ability to SERVICE the debt? I’m not sure about the others, but in Norway’s case with all of their oil wealth – I’d think pretty good. UK, now that “there is no money left”, probably not so much.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
“..But to be honest, I’m not sure if Act deserve’s the vote…”
didyahear that..?..(pretend) act-ite-mp cjd..?
whaddayareckon….?
(that 0.8% poll rating must have been like a cold reality-bath..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
philu: didyahear that..?..(pretend) act-ite-mp cjd..?
whaddayareckon….?
Its called an opinion mate, everyone is allowed one and that is mine, but I doubt what I say in the comments section of a blog page is going to influence any votes at the next election. If I had that much power, I’d be using it for far more evil things than getting Act into government.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Philu I find it amusing that you use the word bath when you have patently never been near one, it is a bit like your understanding of economics…you’ve hear the word
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
This old biddy rings up newstalk zb complaining about national and mining plans.
Danny asks her how else we are supposed to pay for the $250 million a week we are borrowing at the moment.
She says, the borrowing only started when national came in so it’s nationals fault . Labour never had to borrow so they were better.
Danny explains to her, a reason we must borrow now, is because Labour increased the size of government by 30%.
She then starts blaming national for cutting government employees, and states that there are less doctors and nurses becauase they’ve been made redundant by national.
THis is a typical labour supporter. THey support a scorched earth policy when it comes to spending. Spend until you are broke then spend some more.
Stupid stupid stupid!!!!
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Bevan (2280) Says:
May 20th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
LRO:
Typical of the brainwashed fools and victims of right wing idealogues that infest our education system like vermin.
In other words, Bevan has no arguments, so wants to set up strawmen for him to ad hom.
You mean like your straw men arguement regarding Thatcher, Reagan and Douglas? Grow a fucken spine and state a position you gutless wimp! You’ve mentioned you have heroes, but refuse to name them.
Bevan, I know its hard for the right when the truth is pointed out, but do please stop frothing at the mouth.
Where’s my “straw men arguement regarding Thatcher, Reagan and Douglas?”
REAGAN
In 1980, Jimmy Caner’s last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of “national income” (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of “national income.”
Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan’s 3%—in the government’s take of “national income.” And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan’s requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.
The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn’t count the recently signed $4 billion “drought-relief” measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.
Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. “contribution” to the International Monetary Fund.
His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, “We’re not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have.”
The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488
Vote:Read more: The Free Market: The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488#ixzz0oQmGzOlC
May 20th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
“..CJD (99) Says:
May 20th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Philu I find it amusing that you use the word bath when you have patently never been near one..”
classy…!..a ‘noted-debater’ in act-ite/rand-ite circles….are ya…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Heartless capitalist bastard that he was …
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
@ Phool: Hey what can I say-I’m a classy chick!
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Great, $14000 annual income tax reduction.
Disappointed that the thresholds did not shift. Surely 70k is way too low.
This budget is still just tinkering. Not sure why anyone would say this is the biggest budget in years.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
And, those who complain the poor get nothing, are stupid. The poor pay very very little tax as it is. Many of these poor receive more in welfare than they pay in tax.
So, how can you give such people tax cuts?
Fact is , the rich (70k+??) are the ones who pay this countries bills, and we should be greatful to them.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
I agree LeftOutRight Reagan was far too soft…maybe he should have applied Marxist economic theory. Then he could have just made up the statistics as he went along
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
LRO: Bevan, I know its hard for the right when the truth is pointed out, but do please stop frothing at the mouth.
You’ve confused frothing, with laughing at you..
LRO: Where’s my “straw men arguement regarding Thatcher, Reagan and Douglas?”
Ahem: these people find Sarah Bjelke-Palin so appealing
Dude, I’d call you a retard, but I think I’d be insulting retards…
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
LRO, you seem not to detect contradiction in what you’ve just posted. You say that free-market is nonsense and quoted an article that criticized Reagan. Can’t you add 1 + 2 = 3 ? Reagan’s action is counter to what free market is. Didn’t you pick that up? Try to learn before you post because you didn’t even know that contradiction that you just made here.
Anyway, here is a useful article from a contemporary economist in his criticism of leftist economic theories because of the chaos they have caused today.
The Creative Destruction of G8 Economics
Anyway, Prof. Keen is talking about how our Universities all around the world are still teaching leftist bullshit economic theories. So we should clean out leftists who have infested our Universities in which they’re currently teaching bullshit economic theories.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Anyway, Prof. Keen is talking about how our Universities all around the world are still teaching leftist bullshit economic theories.
If you TRULY believe that, then you ARE full of shit.
Jakarta is coming.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Fella Fulla Shit, I am well aware of regans’s legend and the trth.
I posted in response to this retarded comment
CJD (102) Says:
May 20th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Vote:Yeah sure LeftRightOut Douglas bad/Reagan bad/Thatcher bad…ironically they weren’t really were they, at all… In fact they were GREAT
May 20th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
LRO, what’s free market in what Reagan was doing? List a few down here.
BTW, did you read that article? I bet you didn’t because it is simply too hard for your wee brain to understand anything of what Prof. Keen was talking about? Do you need some help there, LRO? It shows that your neurons are filled with shit.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
LRO is trolling for his own entertainment.
The post above is him mimicking Redbaiter.
The rest is playing the-perfect-is-the-enemy-of-the-good for laughs, as well as being a diversion from his own unargued desires You did it too (but I’d do it even more).
Same with the failures of his own political philosophy.
I’d only waste time on him if he actually tries to explain what he thinks should be done and why. Until then it’s Philu taunting – but with Caps and no ……………
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
LRO is that buget on the brain or just budget brain…methinks the latter…eh!! …eh!
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
LRO: The world’s first living brain donor.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Philu-”…!..a ‘noted-debater’ in act-ite/rand-ite circles….are ya…?”
Not a MASTER-debater like you…oh Lord did I just quote Austin Powers?? See what you do to us Phool-you reduce us all to your level, when we should be engaging in sensible Rightest debate within our own exclusive and erudite circles
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
@ NickB
Thanks for the link — from the guy himself I see… I’ll have a read when I’ve got more time. Did you note the important qualification in the text: “The Laffer Curve itself does not say whether a tax cut will raise or lower revenues”? Doesn’t seem like the proof you were going on about earlier…
>Now can you please provide us with a link of how taxing the fuck out of us and spending like crazy somehow can magically bring prosperity?
I never suggested this claim, I was simply asking you to back up your claim. I’m not against changes to the tax system, I just object to people who think they have the ultimate answers to complex problems. Economics is a ‘soft’ science, and arguments around it are inevitably political in nature — I get frustrated when people purport to have all the answers, particularly when they are suggesting changes that are so obviously in their own self-interest.
A lot of the arguments are just imported from the US debate. I showed you some of the analysis on how ridiculous some of the ‘economic’ arguments around the Laffer curve are in an earlier link — check it out. I am afraid you might be blinkered because of your political views however.
For the record, I am undecided about the current tax cuts — the stimulus effect of these tax cuts on long term growth will remain to be seen. I think they could be inflationary, create a balance of payments deficit, and lead to further hikes in property prices. I am pleased that tax sheltering will no longer be an option, but could never understand why we couldn’t have made such shelters illegal previously. I’m actually pretty happy with the tax cuts overall, but wouldn’t have lowered the top rate as much.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
“..when we should be engaging in sensible Rightest debate within our own exclusive and erudite circles..”
now..that is comedy-gold..!
can i suggest sticking yr head up yr own arse..?
..you talk shit..and should find more there…eh..?
..an/your very own… ‘exclusive-circle’..as it were…
..eh..?
so many oxymorons..so little time…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Feeling the pressure Phool?
Have WINZ called you already?
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
CJD, nickb, Bevan, Pascal, – everybody – I know this has been requested many times before and I know it’s tempting to jump on them but really:
stop feeding the useless, narcissistic trolls!
I’d much rather exchange talk and views with people who are actually doing things in their lives like running businesses, making decisions about schools for your kids, healthcare, and so forth. And no – jinpy is not a troll.
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
LRO: Jakarta is coming.
Ahh, the poker sign – you always pull this one out when you get flustered, calm down, two deep breaths…
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
tom hunter-I see your point…this is the last time I PROMISE…
Phool I always considered myself pro-life, but in your case and early termination should have been allowed
There…that feels better…aaah!!
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
How’s the Alliance Party doing LRO? D’ya reckon they’ll get more than 0.08% of the vote next year?
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
“How’s the Alliance Party doing LRO? D’ya reckon they’ll get more than 0.08% of the vote next year?”
Not very likely. Especially when they have a co-leader who offers up such indecorous musings about people of xtian faith. [ and asians]
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
The word xtian is the source of some amusement.
Folks dislike the word ‘Christ’ so much they’re afraid to write it, and so substitute ‘x’ – the unknown factor.
But drop a brick on their toe and there’s no trouble verbalising it
Vote:May 20th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
@ Angus – you mean the co-leader of the Alliance lurks around places like this slagging people off? Surely not! I thought only low-lifes like Billy Borker, My Name is Jack and LeftRightOut did things like that, not political party leaders
Vote:May 21st, 2010 at 8:46 am
To (mis)quote the Dhalai Lama “I quite like the concept of Christianity-Chrsitians I am not sure about…” Now that is paraphrased but I am sure I captures the intent. The point being that the practitioners may be difficult to warm to but the philosophy is a winner…a bit like a local liberal politcal party
Vote:May 21st, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Talking of David Cunliffe, would it be off-topic to ask if he still hates Asians?
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 9:05 pm
This is now a stale post, but just for the record:
Vote:“If Labour were writing today’s Budget, it would spend more than National to ensure the recovery from recession remained on track, says finance spokesman David Cunliffe” is not a quote but an inference drawn by the Herald subeditor that dodes not line up with the actual quotes in the article. In the article i make clear that Labour would be fiscally prudent and that limitations on state sector spending would likely remain. Cheers DC
June 1st, 2010 at 9:10 pm
David, I find it amazing that you can use the words “fiscally Prudent”
In case you hadnt noticed, Labour wouldnt know what fiscally prudent meant if it slapped them in the face…….
Why would you now limit state sector spending?
Vote: