Not comparing apples with apples
May 13th, 2010 at 9:46 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
The average New Zealand earner’s total tax burden is second-lowest in the OECD when superannuation and other compulsory taxes are counted, according to a new report.
This is not a measure of the overall level of taxation in the economy. It is a measure of the difference between gross pay and net pay. There is a huge difference.
The report also said that New Zealand had the smallest tax wedge for one-earner married couples with two children earning the average wage, at 0.6 per cent.
The OECD report includes welfare payments made through the IRD (working for families) as negative tax.
This does not mean NZ has low levels of tax. It means we have high levels of welfare delivered to families with children.
Many countries had lower tax rates than New Zealand, but had compulsory superannuation and social security payments that increased their tax wedges.
Indeed, so again not apples and apples. KiwiSaver is near de facto compulsory but not included. The Australian compulsory super is included as part of the “tax wedge” even though the amount deducted goes to you personally, not the Government.
The other aspect not included in the tax wedge is indirect taxes such as GST are not included in the tax wedge:
Green Party co-leader Dr Russel Norman said the report showed the Government was misleading people that New Zealand had high taxes, to justify tax cuts for the highest-earners.
This just shows Russel is trying to misled people, or does not understand what a tax wedge is. It is purely a measure of how much the Govt takes out of your pay. It is NOT a measure of the overall level of taxation in the economy.
Again for those who are really really stupid, the tax wedge:
- does not include indirect taxes (those with GST are shown to be lower)
- includes deductions made by the Govt, even though they are going to your own personal super account (ie those without compulsory super are shown to be lower)
- includes welfare payments made through tax system (tax wedge would be much higher if they were done through WINZ)
So if anyone carries on claiming that a low tax wedge means a low level of overall taxation, they are lying.
The better measure to use is the OECD study of the ratio of overall tax revenue to GDP. Now this does have us (thankfully) in the lower half of the OECD, but not second to bottom. In 2007 tax was 35.7% of GDP and the OECD average was 35.8%. Note however that amongst OECD pacific countries the average is 30.4%. Australia is 30.8%.
Again comparisons can be difficult as state government revenue should be featured also.
May 13th, 2010 at 9:52 am
And of course NZ has one of the more comprehensive GST systems, and a higher rate of GST than most countries. Not that I’m suggesting reducing that – reviews like the Henry review in Australia clearly state that indirect taxes are a better approach than taxing income.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 9:53 am
Youre a champion DPF. skimmed through the herald article last night. i knew the repost was total BS. thought to myself “i could research this”.. or just wait for DPF!
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 10:04 am
This explains why New Zealand ranks very poorly in the OECD, we give far too much to welfare and we don’t follow up with insisted employment or tougher penalties for longer-term dependence.
Our economy would be in a better shape if we followed the system of other OECD members.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 10:09 am
From the Report:
Betweeen 2009 & 2009?
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 10:09 am
What I found interesting was (looking at the stats on the OECD site at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/57/45167478.xls), that the figure of 0.6% for 1 earner married couples with 2 kids, is the lowest in the table, the next being Iceland on 8.6%. We not only have the lowest tax burden for such families, we have it by a factor of 14 below the next country, who happens to be bankrupt!
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 10:11 am
Red Russel doesn’t want to increase the tax take, the commie bastard wants the whole lot.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 10:13 am
I note that this has been pushed on Morning Report for the last couple of days, first in the main section of news, then in the business section. I assume it will be a topic of discussion at some stage this week during Nine To Noon, Chris Laidlaw’s Sunday show, and probably even Kim Hill.
Key phrase I heard was:
that New Zealand had the smallest tax wedge for one-earner married couples with two children earning the average wage
……
that New Zealand had the smallest tax wedge for one-earner married couples with two children earning the average wage
…..
that New Zealand had the smallest tax wedge for one-earner married couples with two children earning the average wage
…..
Message: taxes are low in NZ, they can be raised. This message is brought to you by a tax-funded news network currently undergoing budget cuts.
I heard a brief comment from Norman, with no rebuttals from anybody, though I only catch them briefly during the drive to work.
Are there any plans for the National-led government to sell National Radio – or will the former simply allow themselves to be bled to death by a thousand such propaganda cuts from the latter over the next few years?
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 10:17 am
And of course we have a Universal pension that is not means teated. Non-existent in other countries (inc. Australia).
Vote:We have a situation where 10% of earners are paying 70% of the tax. The labour party seems hell bent on scewing the ‘rich pricks’ by increasing top tax rates. Not only does this reduce reinvestment by high earners it also drives the entreprenuerial and highly skilled overseas. In case no one has noticed the overall tax take is going down – this may be attributed to the recession but there are other underlying causes; a withering manufacturing industry, and over bearing government regulation, and outward migration of the skilled. There is an argument for giving tax payers extra votes so they at least have some say in how their money should used rather than leaving decisions to those who pay no tax but live off the state tit.
May 13th, 2010 at 10:23 am
# side show bob (2363) Says:
May 13th, 2010 at 10:11 am
“Red Russel doesn’t want to increase the tax take, the commie bastard wants the whole lot.”
Perhaps it is more accurate to write:
:”Red Russel doesn’t want to increase the tax take, the AUSTRALIAN commie bastard wants the whole lot.”
SAY NO TO THE FOREIGN CONTROL OF NEW ZEALAND BY AUSTRALIANS!
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 10:27 am
SAY NO TO THE FOREIGN CONTROL OF NEW ZEALAND BY AUSTRALIANS!
HAHAHA
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 10:31 am
NZ maths are always enjoyable, eg,
NZ average pay $40,000 taxed at 20%
Other OECD country average pay $50,000 taxed at 25%
Clearly you are better off in NZ because you pay less tax!
JC
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 10:33 am
When Brownlee says “Mine!”, he’s talking about holes in the ground.
When Russel says “Mine!”, he’s talking about the money you earn each week.
Looks as if “mine” is the new black!
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 10:35 am
Good one Aardvark.
Kiwis can’t say they haven’t been forewarned about the next Labour administration if they vote them in.
Vote:Give your party vote to ACT next time
May 13th, 2010 at 10:36 am
It is not the tax; it is the way the government (mis)spends it! I am in a bracket where I pay a fair whack of tax. My reward is a super-crappy health system, no dental, poor eduction for the kids and no real hope of a comfortable retirement. Flatten the tax and give me a chance to use my own money to ensure I get the best medical and retirement benefits possible. Now I can just hear the commies going nuts…but you know what, tough shit!!! I am trired of being ripped off by an indifferent and inefficient system whether it is one run by National or by Labour (seems to be the same animal these days).
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 10:53 am
MikeNZ you are right-day by day it becomes more and more obvious that the outmoded “winner-takes-all” mentality of the two big parties is no good for any of us. The country really needs ACT to have 10 to 15 MP’s in place to bring the focus back on what is best for the New Zealand nation as a whole-not the factions or the racial power blocks, but the whole lot of us that make up this crazy little country we all love to be part of. I appeal to National voters-there is no compromise in giving you party vote to ACT in the next election-you know we have the policies to drive the improvements needed to bring prosperity and saftety to ALL in New Zealand.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 10:55 am
In the old Soviet Union nobody paid any tax so they would have had no tax wedge
Vote:I suppose back then we would of had the stupid watermelon dipshit complaining that they weren’t left wing enough
May 13th, 2010 at 11:47 am
I’m looking forward to election night, & a disappointed Red Russel having to explain why his party only got 4.7% of the vote.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 11:54 am
So WFF is included in taxes, and Russel is saying that taxes can be increased?
Sounds like he’s saying that WFF can be decreased. Someone should point that out to him
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
coge “Red Russel having to explain why his party only got 4.7%” …and sailing off to Australia to retire hemp-clad and sandle-shod on a commune of similarty deluded commies. I HATE these guys-they pretend to support the environment and sucker the gullible into believing that they somehow have a special knowledge of environmental issues. They sell a seductive gospel which is both false and dangerous.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
So the demographic that gets the most benefit from WFF has become the poster boy for all taxation in NZ. What a joke, this just highlights how distorted our tax system is.
I wait for the standard to tell us that we need to increase taxes on rich pricks because that won’t change this one indicator….
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
There are very few “rick pricks” in New Zealand by world standards and with things the way they are they are fast becoming an endangered species. I had a laugh during the last election-I happened to say during one of my speeches that New Zealand was not a particularly wealthy country. I was roundly criticised by a Labour list MP that informed me the NZ was very rich compared to the Pacific Islands (?? great logic). This same person was strolling along in Wellington with me one morning after briefing and informed me that there was no way he could survive on the paltry income he got as an MP. Are these people for real?? Just another example of what Sir Roger calls “Chardonay Socialists” keen for us to live in grinding poverty while troughing along in the lap of luxury themselves. This person is lucky I haven’t named him-I do have a bit of compassion. Sadly it is the sort of comment I have heard from both National and Labour MP’s
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Agreed, doesn’t seem consistent — how is anybody supposed to compare countries on this basis? Is there enough information I wonder to rejig the data to include near-universal voluntary social security payments and GST for the different countries…
I don’t understand point 2? Do they take working for families income as an effective reduced tax payment for people that receive it — isn’t this fair, I mean the people that receive that money are effectively paying less tax, or have I got this 180 degrees wrong…
Dime, finally a mindless groupie that’s honest about it… No sense in forming your own view when you’ve got the prophet to tell you eh mate!
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Right. So David Farrar is right and the OECD is wrong. That’s unlikely. But don’t let facts get in your way. Continue your self-interested assult on the poor. I can always move to Australia where the Government actually governs in the interests of everyone, not just the rich.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
This is bullcrap.
I’d like to see a global survey, on the percentage of people who pay 80% of the tax.
Surely in NZ, the tax burden falls disproportionately on those earning over 70k per year.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
And yet Robert Ashe we who work for a living get the shitty health service and no hope pensions for the privilege of being taxed to death. Face it mate-Socialism doesn’t work, it is a parasite that can sustain a few terms of poor goverment (a recent nine-year stint springs to mind) after having sucked dry the reserves built by capitlist ventures. It doesn’t work here and it doesn’t work anywhere else, including Oz.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
jinpy, that’s a vacuous aspersion to cast on Dime, and clearly shows your own lack of comprehension.
Vote:Robert Ashe, you also seem to lack capacity for comprehension. Can you show us where DPF has said the OECD is wrong?
May 13th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Thanks for posting this DPF, I found this really informative. Especially those 3 numbered bullet points (which I guess means I’m really really stupid.)
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
wreck1080 – Yes beacuse all your income belongs to the state. They lovingly choose to give back enough for you to live on, while blowing the rest on get-me-re-elected policies.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Robert Ashe
Yes it is funny isn’t it. Under Labour we had higher taxes on low earners than Aussie and lower taxes on high earners than Aussie yet our dim-bulb lefty supporters called the Aussie govt Tory’s.
The key here is Robert, single average income with two children pays virtually no tax in NZ, as illustrated by the OECD comparisons. How do you think the same single earner with the same salary would stack up if they didn’t have two kids? How would you expect low income earners to save to provide for the family they may have one day or is that a historic concept of self responsibility and paying to support your family is the responsibility of other rich pricks who pay way more tax than the OECD average ?
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
“..The country really needs ACT to have 10 to 15 MP’s in place…….(not)..’ the racial power blocks,..”
shit..and there i was thinking act are a ‘racial power block’…’y'know..!..white..?..rich..?
the rich-whites ‘racial power block’..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
RightNow, There’s no need for Dime to take it personally–obviously I don’t actually know him/her. Just pointing out as an aside that I think there are a number of yes-men on this blog, those that just seem to regurgitate the gospel as if it’s a fact that doesn’t need argument.
I think Robert Ashe’s point is valid to a point– while David doesn’t say the OECD is ‘wrong’ as such but merely points out some faults in what is included/excluded, most people in the comments seem to have taken this as proof that in fact NZ has a high tax burden. Finding out that conclusion A is inconclusive does not mean that conclusion B is correct. Think of the myriad of other taxes that aren’t necessarily included for other countries like land, capital gains, financial transaction tax etc.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Philu you may not be rich but you’re still a prick in anyone’s books. ACT as you well know is certainly not an exclusively white group (but you never let the facts get in the way do you?) and as for rich-we’d like everyone in New Zealand to be richer, even you (well maybe not you). Anyway you make a habit of being wrong on this site so why not continue being wrong in your current comments. There is absolutely nothing wrong with ACT wanting the best for all in New Zealand. But Philu your mob don’t want people to get ahead do you. You couldn’t exist without the fear factor that keeps your voters tied to nanny’s apron could you. You may be consistently wrong, but in an entertaining sort of way so keep the abuse comming, we love it.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
The real question is really not how much tax we collectively pay, but whether we collectively get good value for money for the tax we do pay.
A growth in government spending can therefore either be good (if it is used effectively and efficiently, and taken in a way which shapes the economy appropriately) or bad (if it is wasteful, inefficient, or creates perverse incentives or increases inequality).
Russel’s press release was actually headlined as “borrowing for tax cuts reckless in light of OECD report”. So the real point of Russel’s report was not that ‘more taxes are always good’ like David seems to be implying, but that we shouldn’t be creating a government deficit to fund tax cuts for the rich. That is wasteful because we will have to pay it back – with interest – in the future.
Ideological right-wingers like to criticise the Greens for criticising their cuts to sensible government services, and ideological left-wingers like to criticise the Greens for not supporting wasteful uses of government resources, but the truth is that the Greens are neither automatically in favour of, or automatically against government spending; instead, they are in favour of spending which is appropriate. Most New Zealanders would agree with this more than any of the ideological positions, and the only reason that the Greens aren’t the majority in parliament is that they don’t yet have the profile or exposure.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
jinpy, I see this post as a critique of the Herald article first and foremost. The deeper analysis of the actual tax paid by certain demographics is quite different from the impression many readers would have received from reading the article alone. I saw Dime’s comment as being ‘I don’t think the news article was telling the whole story but I don’t feel like digging deeper into it myself, so thanks DPF for saving me the hassle’. It doesn’t sound like a ‘yes-man’ comment so much as a ‘saved me the trouble’ comment.
Vote:Robert Ashe is a “political and media advisor in New Zealand’s Parliament for the Green Party” – and is simply parrotting Russssl Norml.
May 13th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
wreck1080 > Surely in NZ, the tax burden falls disproportionately on those earning over 70k per year.
The benefit of living in a NZ also falls disproportionately on those earning over 70k per year. People earning over 70k can afford luxuries that the poor who work 50 hours a week for minimum wage could only dream of. Do you really think you could sustainably make 70k worth of resources in an anarchy, on your own with no help from anyone, without using any land (and therefore excluding other people from it) or public resources? No? Then you benefit from other people and from being able to have things to the exclusion of others, and so shouldn’t complain about paying to support the system you do so well by.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
A1kmm “the only reason that the Greens aren’t the majority in parliament is that they don’t yet have the profile or exposure” ?? there was obviously a big push profile-wise from someone with deep pockets during the last election. Those billboards and pamphlets cost a pretty penny I’m sure. You seem like a sensible person, but really…the reason why the Greens aren’t the majority is because the economic ideology that underpins your very existence has failed abysmally world-wide. And also because few New Zealanders want to be micro-managed in their daily lives. It is that simple! And while we are talking, why don’t you get the Greens to concentrate on the real environmental issues and move away from climate change pseudo science and the related world socialism supoer tax in the form of an ETS?
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
” but the truth is that the Greens are neither automatically in favour of, or automatically against government spending; instead, they are in favour of spending which is appropriate”
Thank god most Kiwis do not share the Green view on what is appropriate.
Giving money to bludgers is NEVER appropriate, despite this, the Greens are always wanting to hand out more of my money to the parasites and those who claim that colonisation is the reason they have never had a job.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
And P.S. the Greens are the “ideological left-wingers” A1kmm
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Think back to the Bill Clinton administration:
By raising taxes across the board, and supported by spending cuts he literally destroyed the American deficit and left office with a $236 billion dollar suplus in 2000.
Lets not forget that by doing this unemployment declined significantly as the private sector grew confidence to expand again…
If this economic leadership was followed right across the globe, I’m confident that this international recession will be long behind us.
Instead we have the European Union, America, Australia and New Zealand borrowing like crazy to pay for government spending and tax cuts – this won’t work, and may even lead to another world war.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
big bruv > Giving money to bludgers is NEVER appropriate
Reading between the lines, it seems to be unofficial National and ACT policy to increase unemployment so that labour prices fall and they can claim they need to reduce the minimum wage. If the Green New Deal had been fully implemented, unemployment would have dropped, and instead of collecting a benefit, people would have been working New Zealand to make New Zealand need less energy to accomplish the same things.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Overall we are over taxed… Personally we are not… so reports can spin it anyway they like.
Vote:But when we are borrowing $250.000.000 a week to keep afloat it is not the tax rate that is the problem.
May 13th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
I guess that all depends on your perspective of being over-taxed.
The Scandanavian economies have always been some of the best, and yet income tax alone is literally 50 percent.
These countries dominate in living standards, education, economic growth, health care, infrastructure, etc, etc.
It pays to use case studies to support your arguments, without them they come across as mere speculation.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
RKBee
I would put it another way;
Overall we are over taxed… The demographic used to derive that particular OECD indicator are under taxed.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
And of course we have a Universal pension that is not means teated. Non-existent in other countries (inc. Australia).
And in a thread titled, “Not comparing Apples with Apples” you go and compare an Apple with an Orange.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
CJD > “economic ideology that underpins your very existence has failed abysmally world-wide”
Green Parties worldwide do need to improve their economics policies; however, it would be hard to say that Green economics has really ever been tried, let alone that it has failed! Some Scandinavian countries are doing a lot better at it than us (but still not perfectly) – so it would be hard to say that they have failed.
The real underpinning of green economics is IMHO to move from producing as much as possible (maximising GDP) to minimising irreversible (unsustainable) changes to our planet, but subject to the constraint that we produce enough for everyone to live comfortably.
One fundamental problem humanity faces is that we are getting more efficient at producing things in terms of production per unit labour – while the labour force is concurrently growing. Keynesian and neo-classical economics generally suggests that we deal with this problem by producing more and more (economic growth), even at the cost of irreversibly damaging the environment and using up finite reserves.
On the other hand Green economics tells us that we can’t keep wastefully producing more – instead, the unused labour can be put into scientific, social, and artistic, and cultural development (and by far the most efficient way of doing many of these things is by direct government funding). These things are all incredibly valuable to society and everyone’s future but undervalued economically due to the fact that they benefit everyone and are often difficult to commercialise (at least not without crossing moral boundaries or losing a lot of efficiency).
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
“If the Green New Deal had been fully implemented, unemployment would have dropped, and instead of collecting a benefit, people would have been working New Zealand to make New Zealand need less energy to accomplish the same things.”
Oh really….and you have proof of this do you?
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
CJD> And also because few New Zealanders want to be micro-managed in their daily lives
Businesses are a lot worse at micro-managing people’s lives outside of work than government, especially when they have undue influence over workers (such as ‘fire at will’ without needing to justify why – meaning they can say ‘if you do this in your private life, we’ll fire you’). However, it was National who supported the 90 day fire-at-will bill, and the Greens who opposed it.
Or perhaps you are talking about the Green policies not to criminalise cannabis users (only suppliers), and allow medical marijuana (voted down by National)?
Or the Green’s policy to more closely scrutinise what information government departments share about us?
Or the Green’s policy to ensure media companies can’t use the law to stop you from using a legally obtained CD or DVD in a different zone on or on your computer? Or their policy that ISPs must provide censorship free services for people who don’t want censorship? (c.f. the National government who are working on putting up a filter).
Or the Green’s human rights policies which aim to give people more protection from government interference in their rights?
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
big bruv > Oh really….and you have proof of this do you?
Vote:While I don’t have two universes to try each option in, surely you must accept that employing people reduces unemployment?
May 13th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
“On the other hand Green economics tells us that we can’t keep wastefully producing more” your confused A1kmm this is a Capitalist, market-related principle. And as for “it would be hard to say that Green economics has really ever been tried” I as do most others on this site see very little difference between what Red Norm sprouts and what was tried in the Soviet Union. Your economic policy platform is incredibly left wing. And we don’t need the Greens to tell us that we can’t continue to rape the planet’s resources without destroying ourselves in the process. The reality is that vast majority of modern businesses have all grasped the very fundamental issues of “sustainability.” I can’t believe I just used that ridiculous word-but it works for this discussion. I would be more sympathetic to your cause if you distanced yourself entirely from the red faction. However you can’t because the global Greens movement has far less to do with the environment and much more to do with a red agenda to use whatever means possible (polar bears being so much more seductive than supply and demand curves) to capture the hearts and minds of a gullible type of voter that has no idea of your real aims.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
I’m very suspicious of anything with Green in the title, and especially when it comes to reported economic benefits.
Vote:If Spain is anything to go by, then 2.2 jobs were lost for every ‘green’ job created. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0
May 13th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
A1kmm
I am not the one who claimed that the Greens could cure the unemployment problem overnight by turning them all into one big kapa haka group.
You made the claim so you need to provide the proof, come on, I would be fascinated to see how you think it would work and how fast our economy would sink to third world levels
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
AK1mm”Or the Green’s human rights policies which aim to give people more protection from government interference in their rights?” The only human right you have is to be able to work hard to imprive your lot in life without being impeded in any way by anyone else-that is your only inalienable human right. All the other mumbo jumbo the Greens and the UN (sociialist world government) propose amounts to nothing more than nanny state micro managemet of our lives.
Vote:And as for “employing people reduces unemployment?” where do you get this stuff? the sort of subsidised employment you people propose is totally unsustainable (this is the correct use of this word!!). There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, or did you study physics at the same degree mill where you studied economics??
May 13th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
CJD, you referred to your speech before – were you an ACT candidate?
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
CJD > I as do most others on this site see very little difference between what Red Norm sprouts and what was tried in the Soviet
> Union.
Communism focuses on the state owning all means of production – this is most certainly not Green policy! Green policy does call for state investment in major strategic areas (and hence the state ownership of some means of production, but within a market economy in which private players can also develop their own competing means of production).
Right wing ideologues like to point to any state ownership of capital and call it communism to evoke feeling amongst their followers. However, what made communism fail in most countries where it was tried is not the economic aspect, it is the authoritarian and undemocratic aspects (e.g. the prohibition on private ownership of capital – which gives an unaccountable bureaucracy a monopoly on developing new methods, and is a bad thing given how unaccountable bureaucracies are often inefficient).
Communism was also focused on increasing production, not on setting appropriate levels of production, or protecting the environment (Chernobyl being one very famous example).
It is therefore, in almost all aspects, ideologically opposed to Green economics.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Stephen “CJD, you referred to your speech before – were you an ACT candidate?” Proudly I was/am
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
A1kmm what we’re getting at is that you have not invented a profoundly new form of “Green” economic theory. You lean heavilly to the left in your reliance upon subsidy and government intervention. These are tools of socilaist everywhere-you are deluded if you think you’ve developed some miraculous “third way”.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
The Greens have consistently shown that they completely mis-understand and are possibly willfully ignorant of basic economics. Pardon us if we arent sadastic, or masochistic, enough to give these economic toddlers the proverbial nail-gun.
“The real underpinning of green economics is IMHO to move from producing as much as possible (maximising GDP) to minimising irreversible (unsustainable) changes to our planet, but subject to the constraint that we produce enough for everyone to live comfortably.”
Non-green economics is not about producing as much as possible. This is a fundamental failing of your understanding and almost immediately nullifies your conclusions. This view of “non-Green” economics is formed by looking at the world through a Green prism. But for enterntainments sake we will ignore this absurd assumption.
Inherent in Green “economics” is the implausable assumption that the Greens KNOW what it would take for everyone to live comfortably. The even more implausable assumption of Green “economics” is that the Greens reckon they can design a system that will achieve this (fantastical) outcome.
The truly abhorrent implication of Green “economics” is the control on the economy that must be exerted to make sure we dont produce more than we need to live “comfortably”.
Your simple, touchy-feely statement has, through logic, been boiled down to a command economy, with production and consumption dictated and controlled by the Greens.
The Greens think they know what Utopia is, and that they can get us there. This makes them dangerously arrogant.
“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they IMAGINE they can design.” – F A Hayek, The Fatal Conceit
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
“Communism was also focused on increasing production, not on setting appropriate levels of production,…”
An appropriate level of production was set, its just that, with the benefit of hindsight, you dont agree with what it was.
Hang on a sec. This argument could be much clearer if you answer one question.
A1kmm, do you believe that parecon is a viable economic structure?
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
There was a deconstruction of sorts of a post on Frog Blog at The Visible Hand in Economics a while back:
Vote:http://www.tvhe.co.nz/2008/11/20/frog-next-attack-on-economics/
May 13th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Red-faced now. Having read a couple of my posts, my spelling leaves much to be desired in places. Off to the optometrist in the morning for me!!!
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
A Green lamenting ‘authoritarian and undemocratic aspects’ of communism. Yes, were to start. Just as well they didn’t force me to buy particular light bulbs, or change my shower rose. Let’s not dredge up the EFB and s59. No sign of ‘authoritarian and undemocratic’ intent from the Greens in there. No sir-eee.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
“..ACT as you well know is certainly not an exclusively white group..”
oh..!..you’ve got a couple of ‘tokens’..eh..
but don’t get too carried away..eh..?
there is..after all..only 1.6% of you…
..eh..?
and rodney is fast losing epsom..eh..?
oo-err..!
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
“..Red-faced now..”
really..!
what caused that sudden ideological switch…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
RightNow, perhaps you’re right, I’ll give dime the benefit of the doubt, goodness knows I myself don’t have the time to analyze issues in detail so it’s good that someone does-dime has earned a worthy supporter in you… It’s just a shame that it is pretty much impossible to debate the facts around tax because of the highly polarized left-right views.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
based on your predictions phlu, I will happily back Rodney to win Epsom (assuming he stands) again. Any picks for the rugby this weekend?
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Haha Silly-filly such a wit!! We all know how good your predictions are. Don’t take up gambling or you will be more than just morally and intellectually bankrupt.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
P.S. what is with the “..eh” are you Canadian or just and idiot. And who says “oo-err..!” other than a refugee from Beano
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Piss off phule, and stop being such a racist bigot. How dare you demean non-white people in ACT as mere “tokens”, as if they are there only at the behest of their white superiors/owners. You are saying that these poor non-white members of ACT have been duped by the other members.
You have to realise that you are effectively calling them Uncle Tom niggers, so you cannot escape the label of racist. Maybe thats why you cant get a job; you are too racist to be employable.
Its a good thing that DPF is so tolerant, otherwise you would be insta-racist-bigot-banned-for-life.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Sunds like Kimble would like to Philu with buck shot…he’d have to compete with the crap that already Phils-U
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
“..Any picks for the rugby this weekend?..”
sorry..!..had a rugby bye-pass at birth…
it works very well..
..i hardly notice…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
And therein lies a tale of what each human thinks is ‘appropriate’ and the tyranny of the majority.
The right to own a V8 car? The right to have a heated swimming pool? The right to drink imported champagne? I’d be fascinated to see the Greens reconciling their attitudes towards these ‘rights’, with more protection from government interference
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Philu We all think your father should have bye-passed your mother…it wasn’t even legalised in those days, the dirty bugger!
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
“..these poor non-white members..”
get outta here..
you wouldn’t let ‘ poor non-whitees’ into yr randite-cult… !
eh..?
at the very least..they have to be rich…eh..?
to be a rand-ite..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
‘racism’-checklist..
“..and how do you feel about the prospect of returning the ureweras to tuhoe..?
phil:..’i totally support any return of confiscated lands..and especially so in this case..
kimble:..cue rant about ‘tyranny of maori/separatists’..etc..etc..
who’s the ‘racist’..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
You are the racist phule.
You have a view on what each race should believe in and how each race should act. Then you criticise certain people in each race for not adhering to your preconceived notions.
Your labelling of non-white people in ACT as “tokens” is as offensive as an old Southern politician complaining about those pesky educated “uppity niggers”.
It isnt ACT that is describing what the ideal Maori or Asian is, and how they should act; it is you.
ACT is open to all people regardless of race, but you think non-white people in ACT should be derided.
The ideals of ACT transcend race. It is you, phule, that makes the race of people in ACT an issue.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Philu-we’d like to return you to your ancestral land; no literally, like actually plough you in…how about that..eh?
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
astonishing..the author of racist rants…over a period of five years..
coming out for ‘people of colour’..eh..?
wha’ happened..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
I have never been racist phule.
While you obviously regard it is the be all and end all, I dont think the race of a person is important or relevant.
You are a dirty, disgusting racist, phule, and you should be banned from Kiwiblog for your consistent, nauseating racism.
The only difference between your beliefs and those of the KKK is the colour coding.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Philu “people of colour” my that is kind of you to describe my people in such a pleasant and PC terms
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Green policies are great until they run out of other people’s money.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
a1kmm:
The benefit of living in a NZ also falls disproportionately on those earning over 70k per year. People earning over 70k can afford luxuries that the poor who work 50 hours a week for minimum wage could only dream of.
I imagine, the ‘poor’ are also the ones who fucked around at school while I worked hard and studied.
People like you make me sick. You think you can cruise your way through life, letting others pick up the pieces when you cry destitute and make poor life decisions.
I wonder what the ‘poor’ were doing while I was working 80 hours a week in my earlier days? Holding their hands out whining for more and complaining I don’t pay enough.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Kimble
Don’t you just love the way the left are quick to point out how so many of their mates are ‘people of colour’, it is almost as if they have to be seen to be one who have pals of all races and nationalities.
That is not for me, I have mates, they are people I care deeply about, the colour of their skin or their nationality is not something that matters.
The left are the real racists.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
An interesting comparison springs to mind.
On the one hand we have Tuhoe, the undisputed indigenous occupiers of the Ureweras, with proven uninterrupted habitation of the land since humans first set foot in the area, wrongfully dispossessed of their land by European colonisers but who never deserted their land, who offer to enshrine forever right of access even to the colonisers descendants and live in peace, who will kill or dispossess not one person, and who ask only for a largely symbolic vesting of “ownership” of their ancestral lands.
And we say no.
On the other hand we have another bunch of European colonisers, who claim ownership of a tiny sliver of land far, far away from their own ancestral lands, who killed and terrorised the existing indigenous population, and continue to do so to this day, built up a fearsome war machine with which to terrorise the neighbouring countries and many more, who qualify in every way for the tag of rogue state, and ask for all this to be legitimised on the basis of a proven myth (ie fiction) of occupation 2000 years ago.
And we say yes.
One may ask, how are these examples of clear injustice and hypocrisy and ongoing dispossession and oppression and casual murder justified?
The answer, I’m afraid is simple, and is exhibited on this blog and many similar others every day – racism.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
The ideals of ACT
Anyone else sense an oxymoron?
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Luc, if you wankers insist on deriding the members of ACT as “idealogues” and insist that they are driven by ideology, then you must agree that they do in fact HAVE ideals.
LDO moron.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
“The answer, I’m afraid is simple, and is exhibited on this blog and many similar others every day – racism.”
Ha ha, this from the webs biggest anti Semite.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Luc your own racism is clearly showing-the word “colonist” is offensive to people who have lived on this land for generations. You imply that all white people living here are colonists and thus unwelcome. My ancestors conquered large tracts of southern England centuries ago. And some of my people have lived there ever since, and now own title to sections within the confines of the laws of a modern state. Are you saying I should go back and claim all of the land?? Give me a break stop concentrating upon the differences and work with the similarities between the people of this land. On the other hand your sort of rhetric actually frightens people away who may otherwise have sympathy for legitimate claims.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
“On the one hand we have Tuhoe, the undisputed indigenous occupiers of the Ureweras,”
Fail!
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
wreck1080 > I imagine, the ‘poor’ are also the ones who fucked around at school while I worked hard and studied.
You seem to think we live in a meritocratic world. In reality, many people can’t even afford to stay in school after they turn 15 – and even if they do, at the best they will probably be stuck working for someone else for the rest of their life.
Mobility of wealth is very poor in most Western societies; if you aren’t born into wealth, you are set up to fail all your life. The poor can’t afford an education, and get stuck in a dead-end job for their life. The wealthy have money to invest, and have a better chance of getting over the hurdles that big businesses have succeeded in putting up against small competitors.
wreck1080 > I wonder what the ‘poor’ were doing while I was working 80 hours a week in my earlier days? Holding their hands out
wreck1080 > whining for more and complaining I don’t pay enough.
Probably working just as hard as you, but for less reward, and depending on what you were spending those 80 hours doing, possibly acheiving more for society than you did.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
ACT is an inclusive party that support the rights of all people to succeed on their own merits. This is not so of another party which has a name which lables it as the exclusive preserve of one race. This is the real racism…
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Yup, classic Phool logic at work – he, as a white man, is able to judge and determine what choices are acceptable for other races. But that’s not racist. It’s just that they should know their place – live their lives in futile welfare dependency and keep voting for the left forever. For god’s sake don’t try anything different to get out of poverty !!! YOU TRAITOROUS BASTARDS !!!!!
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
“This message cannot be viewed because A1kmm is on your ignore list”.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
And here is Luc; another racist who thinks all white people stole land from the Tuhoe.
A racist is someone who divides people into groups defined by their “race”. Luc and phule think a racist is a person who doesnt think the right racist thoughts.
Tell us, Luc, of all the examples of ongoing casual murder. You must have quite a list, as “ongoing” is a pretty long time.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
CJD (58) Says:
May 13th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
well said.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
big bruv (6199) Says:
May 13th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Excellent BB. Bullseye.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Put it away-your last post absolutely gets it! Labour is happy to keep less fortunate Maori and Islander communities in poverty. It is far easier to control people when you can keep them on a measley handout rather than exercising policy designed to lift communities out of poverty. Poor and down trodden people are far more likely to vote for a Labour party that feeds them lies and encourages them to believe that if it wasn’t for the “rich pricks” they would be living a life of luxury. It was Cullen that made the “rich prick” terminology so popular. You know you are in trouble when a finance minister uses the term “rich” as an insult!!!
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
“Mobility of wealth is very poor in most Western societies; if you aren’t born into wealth, you are set up to fail all your life.”
Observably false.
“The poor can’t afford an education, and get stuck in a dead-end job for their life.”
Again, observably false.
You may think you are breaking new ground in economic thought, but it is fairly obvious that your basic ideas boil down to:
1. economic interaction is a zero sum game
2. the government (or sufficiently large benevolent power) should DO something
Typical cookie cutter, lefty, wishy-washy “economics”.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Missed one.
3. “We” know better whats good for you, so we should be in charge of you.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
So right let’s review what we all learned today:
Vote:1. ACT is the party of the future
2. ACT will be an increasingly important part of a stable and effective centre-right coallition
3. ACT is an inclusive party for all New Zealanders
4. Greenies are deluded
5. Philu is a dick
6. What was the topic of the original thread again?
May 13th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
OECD reports show that NZ has one of the lowest levels of social mobility in the OECD. It has to do with us having high levels of wealth inequality.
Also – why not return confiscated lands? They were taken by force. Aren’t rightists usually against the nationalisation of private property by force?
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Yes Kimble – Rodney Hide sure showed how principled ACT is when he dipped into the public purse to take his girlfriend on an overseas trip. ACT to me seems to have only two things driving it – money and power.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Curia Pigeon-the funds Rodney used were funds that were put aside for use by MP’s and their spouses/partners. He broke no rules at all by using a perk that all your Labour buddies exploited to the full, and all expoenditure was signed of by his boss John Key.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Big Bruv – as usual, a fact-free zone.
CJD – entirely different circumstances and irrelevant comparison. The colonisation of New Zealand was never completed to the degree that the claims of the indigenous population are extinguished either by extinction or swamping. If a wrong can be easily atoned for, then it should be so. All over the world, surviving indigenous populations subject to colonisation have reasserted their rights, which are now enshrined in international law. Even NZ has signed up to what will now be increasingly assertive claims by Maori.
I descend from colonists. it’s a fact of life. It doesn’t upset me or make me feel guilty, and I am not going to up stakes to England. And I can clearly remember the inherent and seemingly natural racism I grew up with as a country boy. And I don’t care how offensive you find the truth to be, it’s not as offensive as it has been and is for generations of oppressed people.
Kimble – here is a list to get you started http://www.btselem.org/english/Testimonies/index.asp Big Bruv may care to note this is a site run by Israelis against the occupation and oppression, ongoing at the hands of European Jews since the 1930s.
Kimble again – your definition of racism is self serving falsehood. Do some research and take off your prejudiced blinkers.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
I am not surprised at that stat, curia pigeon. Though I am generally skeptical about such studies. If it is talking about lowest decile moving to highest decile then the study is facile at best.
A high degree of social movement like that will generally only happen when the rich become poor. There can be quite a lot of perfectly legitimate reasons why this doesnt happen, and most authors dont investigate it. They have their story to push, and they are perfectly willing for their audience to ASSUME that the rich stay rich by screwing over the poor.
The rich in NZ may simply be more risk averse than over seas. Lower risk means fewer negative changes in their wealth. Or it could be that the wealthy in NZ are land owners, and their prosperity is built upon a decades long asset bubble and so is little more than an illusion.
Low mobility in the lower decile in NZ shouldnt surprise anyone. It is what my side of the debate has been arguing for decades. NZ has fostered a generation or more of welfare dependents. It is hard to move off welfare, to start working for a little more than what you get by doing nothing. Unfortunately the Labour government worked very hard to increase the number of people recieving welfare. Nothing like a captured audience I suppose. Obviously a safety net is important, but as some point that net could become a trap.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
“..Holding their hands out whining for more and complaining I don’t pay enough…”
pay minimum wage..?..d’ya..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Everything Luc and phule write shines a brighter spotlight on their racism.
It is pretty obvious that this is their racial arithmetic:
Maori > Maori’s in ACT
Vote:Asians > Asians in ACT
Islanders > Islanders in ACT
White people who complain about “token” non-whites in ACT > rich people
May 13th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
“.. if you wankers insist on deriding the members of ACT as “idealogues” and insist that they are driven by ideology, then you must agree that they do in fact HAVE ideals…”
of course..!..you are a randite-cult…after all..?
all cults have their ‘ideals’..?
my favourite vegan-cult has ‘ideals’..mainly around/involving the interaction of humans with animals..
..whereas your rand-ite cult has ‘ideals’ built around personal-greed being ‘good’…
…..and fuck everyone else…eh..?
it’s just that your ‘ideals’ are particularly fascist/twisted..
(ahem..!..).b.t.w…how was she on..y’know..’people of color’…?..that rand…?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Yes Kimble – Rodney Hide sure showed how principled ACT is when he dipped into the public purse to take his girlfriend on an overseas trip
hmm… Koru club Carter and his sidekick Kaiser…now theres principled…
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Not my ideals phule, I am not a Randian. So, fail.
I am also not an ACTian. Double fail.
You also dont get that the “greed” you talk about Randians loving, is evident in your own militantly vegan behaviour. Or that it shines through in your “decision” to laze around enjoying the fruits of other peoples labour. Turbo fail.
You are also a racist. Epic fail.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
‘vegans are greedy’..eh..?
who knew..?
eh..?
(good tshirt-slogan for you there kumble…
do they make tshirts in yr size..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
‘vegans are greedy’
Indeed phool, they take what they need when they need a fix. Wonder how the people in the chemist shop felt when you fronted up with a robbers shotgun? Grow a braincell you turnip sucker.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Yep. Vegans are greedy. Didnt I just say that you didnt get it? Hint: Rand didn’t mean greed as you obviously think she did. Further hint: Rand was not an advocate of greed for greeds sake. Last hint: Neither was she an advocate of greed at all costs.
I am not even a Randian and yet I seem to know and understand more about the subject than you, a person who has a very large personal stake in it. Ignorance may be bliss, but it still is not excuseable.
And I see that you tried to make a joke about my weight. It didnt really hit the mark, again. But it does show that you see large people as “evil”. Once again, defining a person by their physical appearance. Tsk tsk.
How can you say you arent a racist when almost everything you say denigrates others based upon their physical characteristics?
Gone on, phule, call me a bald, fat, four-eyed, bow-legged nigger. I know you want to.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
@ A1kmm at 2.42pm “what made communism fail in most countries where it was tried is not the economic aspect, it is the authoritarian and undemocratic aspects ” One need only look at China to shoot that argument to hell, were that the case North Korea would have ceased to exist long ago.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
that t-shirt thing was a total guess..
but..all in yr own words…
..eh..?
can i suggest yoga..?..and a vegan diet…?
it works a treat..!
and seeing you are a rightie..and the core of rightie-belief is personal-greed…
..and you think vegans are greedy..
..well..it’s a perfect fit..isn’t it..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 14th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
And seeing you are a leftie… the core leftie-belief is personal self satisfaction…
…as long as you feel good about something… then it doesnt… matter what the real outcome is…. or who gets hurt
… you are a vegan because you like the feeling of superiority over others…. you live for the self claimed moral high ground…
… thats where your racism comes from…. you denigrate others based on physical appearance… so you can feel good about your own
…i fyou could.. you would make the entire world vegan…. and if you had the power to do so …. you would stop at nothing to make it happen…
people can starve… for all you care… they deserve to die….
Vote:May 14th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
If we were to consider general government outlays (capital and current, central and local government) as a percentage of GDP it would now be almost 45 percent of GDP.
Vote: