Spending restraint

March 22nd, 2011 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

The Government has sensibly announced there will be even tighter spending restraint in this year’s budget, due to the impact of the earthquake. It’s not going to be slash and burn, just very tight fiscal discipline.

This should be no surprise. But what is interesting is that Labour still are 1000% opposed to any spending restraint. You have to wonder what could cause them to actually adopt fiscal restraint.

The 2008 recession wasn’t enough.

The global credit crisis wasn’t enough

The first earthquake wasn’t enough

The double dip recession wasn’t enough

The second earthquake wasn’t enough

I have this vision of a meteor hitting New Zealand and wiping out 90% of NZ, and still Labour’s response will be you can’t cut spending.

Even worse is Labour’s preferred coalition partner – Winston. He’s just come out promising it will cost no more than $10 to visit the doctor for oldies. National has ruled Winston out, but Labour would be forced to agree to his demands as the price of forming a Government. So you can add hundreds of millions of extra spending to the deficit.

Tags:

108 Responses to “Spending restraint”

  1. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Contrasting slogans – “spending restraint” versus “slash and burn”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    So you can add hundreds of millions of extra spending to the deficit.

    Deficit spending isn’t the only option.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    When is the darn media going to sit down and ask Phil Goff what his plan is? Their reporting on this is crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    National’s plan is hardly “spending restraint”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    National aren’t cutting spending. They are not adding any new spending to the budget. There is a huge difference.

    WRT to Winston’s $10 doctors visits – it costs me nothing to visit the doctor in Australia, and it hasn’t done for several years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    I also think it’s wrong that somebody gets subsidised doctor’s visits if they live in Otaki but not Paraparaumu (they’re only 20 minutes apart from one another). It should be for everyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. lofty (1,310 comments) says:

    It is easy to be irresponsible in the quest for power from the oppostion benches.

    Promise nothing by way of responsibility, fiscally or socially, keep the entitlements coming, pander to the lowest common denominator, never ask the populace to take any responsibility for themselves, never try to encourage or foster acheivement in life, or even God forbid independance from the state.

    Slag off and rubbish, on a party and personal basis every effort to try to improve the lot of NZ’rs generally. Use the old adage of throw enough shit and some will stick.

    Prostitute yourselves in the quest for power above all else, by forging alliances with proven liars and theives.

    Again promise nothing responsible, only ensure that the populace understands you will not reduce their “entitlements”.

    That should do it. Election in the bag!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    National aren’t cutting spending. They are not adding any new spending to the budget. There is a huge difference.

    Yes and no.

    National aren’t cutting overall spending, but it seems they are going to spend an extra $800m on health and education. Instead of this being new spending (which was the plan), it will come from cutting ~$800m from other budgets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    Anyone see Goff this morning on Breakfast? He was saying how Labor would grow the economy to get us out of the problems we are in. I almost threw up. Considering they fucked the export sector and let NZ ‘grow’ by going on a debt fueled binge its laughable that they would even consider themselves an expert in this area. If people actually made an effort to understand what Labor actually did to our economy when they were in power they would never get in again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. YesWeDid (1,048 comments) says:

    ‘When is the darn media going to sit down and ask Phil Goff what his plan is? Their reporting on this is crap.’

    Message to all you National fan boys (including DPF), your lot are in charge, we don’t have two prime ministers we have one, the only thing that matters is what National are going to do, stop looking over your shoulder and get on with the job at hand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. berend (1,708 comments) says:

    Now the earthquake is responsible for John Key’s stimulus not working. And his $300 million a week borrowing will shortly be attributed to the earthquake as well.

    The simple fact is that the only thing that has grown in the past two years is the government and The National Party’s appetite for power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Whats your plan Pete, piss borrowed money away even harder?

    Must be great to not have to acttualy come up with any answers when you’re on the outside pissing in but here in big boy land reality plays a part in the decision making process.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Meanwhile yeshesadick thinks we should all vote for Phool Goof based on his complete abscence of an alternate policy.

    Today we redefine the phrase full of shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Judging from Cunliffe’s interview on National Radio this morning, their policy is the same thing, but they’re going to loudly pretend it’s morally superior.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. lofty (1,310 comments) says:

    Labour have no plan other than the stated redistribution of wealth.
    It seems that NZ has enough money to go around it is merely enevenly distributed.
    The growth comes when the “rich pricks” surrender more of their hard earned cash to the state, who then increases the mean income of those who are truely entitled to it. (I mean will vote Labour)

    Easy.
    Election in the bag!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Linda Reid (415 comments) says:

    Be reasonable David. They have nothing else to offer. If bribing people with other people’s money does not work, then their trick box is empty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Murray, my plan is to keep marvelling at how you assume all sorts of crap from what I’ve posted. I don’t have any answers to why you do that.

    “Spending restraint” is mild poliwaffle with a soft responsible tone.
    “Slash and burn” is an over the top election type slogan totally devoid of common sense or responsibility.

    I’d go with “we have to cut some costs so we can pay for other more important ones”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. GPT1 (2,121 comments) says:

    More money for old people because they don’t cost enough already.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Lance (2,655 comments) says:

    Cunningham wrote;
    “If people actually made an effort to understand what Labor actually did to our economy when they were in power they would never get in again.”

    Unfortunately that is not the case. There are some Labour supporters I know that would still mindlessly vote for Labour even if they made sex illegal.
    I like a good political debate but these people cannot use such reasoning.
    Any discussion usually deteriorates into “Tories ruin the lives of the working classes”, yes they use those words, “John Key is evil”; I ask “why do you think this” but no reason is ever given and finally the capstone is “all Americans are wicked and want to rule the world”. I try to fathom why this statement regularly gets inserted into political discussions about NZ but I fail to find the logical progression.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Nick R (507 comments) says:

    I want to know who decided Winston was “Labour’s preferred coalition partner”. I thought Labour hadn’t ruled him in or out. So – is this a secret Labour policy which has been leaked to DPF? Or is it one more example of him producing insights from his Mighty Orifice?

    As regards spending cuts etc – I expect the budget will include new spending whatever English says now. National fudged the cost of the tax cuts – claiming they would be revenue neutral when they weren’t – and it will do the same again come budget time. Steven Joyce won’t give up the holiday highway. Judith Collins won’t stop building prisons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. YesWeDid (1,048 comments) says:

    Murray you seem to live in this parallel universe where people say things they haven’t.

    I don’t mind being criticized for saying things that I have actually said, but not for things I haven’t.

    Comprende?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. kaya (1,360 comments) says:

    I know, let’s adopt the US and Japanese economic management model. Instead of borrowing we can just create another couple of hundred billion/trillion dollars and pump it into the economy, that should get it moving again!

    Waddya mean “creating money out of thin air will only cause inflation”? Not according to the Yanks and the Japs! Fiscal stimulus in perpetuity, the new economics for the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. wreck1080 (3,906 comments) says:

    the $10 doc visits would attract the oldies.

    Firstly, they need a lot more doctor visits due to age related diseases. Secondly, they don’t really care about the state of the country in 20 years, after all, they’ll be dead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Will de Cleene (485 comments) says:

    I have this vision of a meteor hitting New Zealand and wiping out 90% of NZ, and still Labour’s response will be you can’t cut spending.

    I too have had this vision of a meteorite landing on Ken Ring and wiping out 90% of NZ, and still National’s response will be you must not consider a land or capital gains tax.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Winston has to appeal to the elderly and infirm. Short term memory loss = votes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. backster (2,171 comments) says:

    What policies won the Super City election/////////Spending restraint or extravagant promises?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Spam (588 comments) says:

    “The Government’s response here, which is a zero budget, is an extremely radical and very dangerous thing,” Mr Cunliffe told Radio New Zealand.

    Dial down the drama, Cunners. If I didn’t get a pay rise this year and therefore decided that I wasn’t going to buy a new car, would that be considered an “extremely radical and very dangerous thing”? Goodness knows what he would think if I lost my job. I guess he’d consider that a great time to buy a new house.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    If people actually made an effort to understand what Labor actually did to our economy when they were in power they would never get in again.

    Yeah, but people are morons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Backster, that’s what scares me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. nickb (3,687 comments) says:

    The 2008 recession wasn’t enough.

    The global credit crisis wasn’t enough

    The first earthquake wasn’t enough

    The double dip recession wasn’t enough

    The second earthquake wasn’t enough

    It doesn’t appear to be enough for National, either. Isn’t this more important, seeing as they are the ones in charge of the public purse?

    We are still borrowing $300 million a week (and rising) despite all of the above factors. And when that fantastic, visionary, classical liberal, small government PM says things like

    “None of the recommendations I’ve seen from ministers so far would I put anywhere in the camp of radical.”

    You really have to laugh at even attempting to paint National as fiscally responsible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. somewhatthoughtful (465 comments) says:

    Good to see you guys yet again advocating that we catch Australia by doing the exact opposite. Notice that they have a flood levy? Yeah shit happens and people have to pay for it. How fucking hard is that to understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. BeaB (2,123 comments) says:

    Whatever happens, whatever government is in power, however many utterly stupid people prattle on about levies and taxing the rich, however many talk about restraint – I just know everything is going to cost me more, we’ll always be spending way beyond our income and the hands in my wallet will keep on increasing.

    Which is the month now when we have finished with the taxman? April? May? June?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Komata (1,191 comments) says:

    Fascinating to hear Mr Goff this morning, so perhaps one of his supporters can help me out with an explanation:

    As I understand it, the New Zealand ‘Cupboard’ is bare – zilch, nothinhg left, the money has all gone. (and no, I’m not going to apportion blame, tempting though it is).

    BUT to keep ‘New Zealand (that’s us) in (metaphorical) food and living, we are BORROWING $300 million a week from ‘somewhere.’

    We are living beyond our means.

    Now, ifIi run that sort of domestic budget I get into trouble – from the bank, from my wife, from all those I owe money to, and I am urged (stridently) to ‘pull my head in, and live within my budget’ – or else dire things can happen.

    I am also reminded, (sometimes) of Mr. McCawber’s Dictum (modified for decimal currency)

    Annual Income: $20.00 = HAPPINESS

    Annual Expenditure: $19.95 = ”

    Annual Income: $20.00

    Annual Expenditure: $20.10 = UNHAPPINESS

    Now, if I am required to conform to this Dictum and live within my Budget, why is it that Phil, who (being University educated and presumably intelligent and knowledgable about such things) and also has to presumably keep his own Domestic Budget (for reasons outlined above) throws it all away and encourages (nay, ‘demands’) everyone to both live beyond their means and eschew any indication of either responsibility or maturity?

    Surely, as we live in exceedingly difficult economic times (and again, I won’t apportion blame) he should be ENCOURAGING svaings and ‘fiscal responsibility’ in the same ways that his (supposedly) esteemed predecessors MJ Savage, Walter Nash and Arnold Nordmeyer did, rather than compounding the problem by extravagant boasting (and said it seems, with great pride as well) that he will borrow and borrow again.

    As I said, perhaps one of his supporters (Trevor?) can explain – but keep it simple please – it makes things so much easier.

    Thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. bchapman (649 comments) says:

    Given that Education, Health, Police, Defence, Superannuation, 90% of WFF are Social Security quarantined and its unlikely that NFF will allow the MAF sacred cow to be cut down and we are still building Roads of national Significance and we will be creating a new ministry and we have ETS obligations and there will be no new revenue (probably less given the GDP drop from the earthquake) our debt isn’t going to go away soon.

    Better question- what is left to cut?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. marcw (247 comments) says:

    @ bchapman :”Better question- what is left to cut?”

    Well for a start, lets look at Working For Families. In NZ we have a high number of unemployed, including a large number of young people and older people genuinely looking hard for a job. Yet we give a tax benefit to those who have a job. Why would you do this, and how much borrowing can we save by axing the handback?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. bchapman (649 comments) says:

    marcw

    The problem is that we have combined our welfare and tax systems so that a reduction in WFF is seen as a de facto increase in taxation. But I agree those earning 70-100K should pay more tax or as you put it lose their WFF rebates.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Will de Cleene (485 comments) says:

    How much more money will be put aside this budget for new ministerial vehicles?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. ben (2,379 comments) says:

    On other pressing matters, anyone notice Goff is back to grey on the hair front? So all that distraction on Phil’s new hairdo was for nothing? Or is Phil just throwing enough mud out there hoping something sticks?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. hj (6,996 comments) says:

    Even worse is Labour’s preferred coalition partner – Winston. He’s just come out promising it will cost no more than $10 to visit the doctor for oldies. National has ruled Winston out, but Labour would be forced to agree to his demands as the price of forming a Government. So you can add hundreds of millions of extra spending to the deficit
    …..
    That sounds like pork barrell politics.

    The IMF says NZ needs a land tax and CGT but National wont adopt that due to patronage by the Property Council .
    http://www.interest.co.nz/news/52737/imf-recommends-govt-broaden-capital-gains-tax-base-and-introduce-land-tax-your-view

    And The Savings working group are blamming immigration for high house prices and saying that there was little evidence that immigration boosted local incomes. In fact, the need to build roads and schools meant that net migration contributed to the national deficit.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/4622459/Government-policies-blamed-for-house-prices

    But National will ignore that for the same reasons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Inky_the_Red (759 comments) says:

    NZ is lucky the last government saved money so this Government can borrow for our country.

    However the deficit is higher so we could let the wealthy 15% have large tax cuts. I do see evidence that these people have invested in NZ. Instead they have holiday homes in Sydney, Fiji and other economies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. bchapman (649 comments) says:

    But Inky- don’t you see the tax cuts won’t cost us a cent. We just need to do what they did in Ireland- halve the wages of public servants, doctors and teachers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Inky_the_Red (759 comments) says:

    I wonder what happened to that Irish Government. As I recall one coalition party lost all their seat while the other got the least number of seats in their history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. bchapman (649 comments) says:

    Inky- I think the governor of Minnesota is about to experience the same thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    Inky how fucking hard is it for you Labor supporters to understand? Labor taxed the **** out of NZers for 9 years. We all borrowed and spent like the end of the world was coming and got more and more in debt. In the mean time Labor implemented expensive and inefficient policies like WFF, int free loans etc while letting our export sector crumble. Then the recession hit and we are left with hugely expensive policies and an export sector that is fucked. So now thanks to those wankers from the left we get less revenue from our export sector, higher debt and expensive policies that are very hard to reverse (although I wish they would try duismantling them). How fucking hard is it to understand? Seriously?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Inky_the_Red (759 comments) says:

    http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/economic_indicators/NationalAccounts/InstitutionalSectorAccounts_HOTP99-08.aspx
    see table 8 row 100 of the main tables

    Capital account
    Central government saving $10.7 billion (2008) 11.5 billion (2007) compared to $1b in 1999

    it is not the government that was borrowing last decade they were saving

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    NZ is lucky the last government saved money…

    False. Government’s don’t “save” money any more than they “earn” money. Any government can instantly generate massive surpluses by putting taxes up – say to 75%. If they did, would you then pat them on the back for their brilliant financial management?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Christopher Thomson (376 comments) says:

    If they were saving all this money – where the heck is it now then?

    How about we make a withdrawal and pay off all these debts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    National is going to end up with blood on its hands if it keeps up with the cuts on its hands. The unfettered market is an eloquent theory, but it’s two dimensional. it should be used as a heuristic device, not an absolute.

    Youth suicide rates nearly tripled between 1990 and 1996, last time National had its way with the social services. How does the market account for all those thousands of dead kiwi youths?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    Inky you didn’t mention the export sector I see. Yeah they saved money by taxing us more. Then they used that money to hand out bribes just before election time. Just face it Inky we are in this position largely because of them. We can’t (and couldn’t before the recession) afford policies like WFF, int free loans. This country needs to increase its wealth first and foremost yet we hand out money like we have some endless pile of cash. You can never win this argument Inky because anyone with half a brain can see how reckless they were with OUR (i.e. the taxpayer) money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Christopher Thomson (376 comments) says:

    Yes, you need less than half a brain to support labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. bchapman (649 comments) says:

    “Inky you didn’t mention the export sector I see. Yeah they saved money by taxing us more. Then they used that money to hand out bribes just before election time. Just face it Inky we are in this position largely because of them. We can’t (and couldn’t before the recession) afford policies like WFF, int free loans.”

    OK given that WFF is essentially a tax cut by another name you are saying that Cullen bribed the working middle class with a tax cut after slugging them with increased taxes.

    Or are you saying we need to get rid of WFF to pay for last years tax cut which is essentially the same thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    “National is going to end up with blood on its hands if it keeps up with the cuts on its hands. The unfettered market is an eloquent theory, but it’s two dimensional. it should be used as a heuristic device, not an absolute.”

    Proof that the ability to type words is not the same as the ability to either communicate or reason.

    Either that or labour has a room full of monkeys with typewroters and everytime they put something together something that looks like words they randomly post it here or adopt it as policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    It’s really very simple. During the lsot decade Labour rode the boom. In order to prevent surpluses (and therefore an obvious demand for our moeny back) they spent like a drunk in a brewery, locking in systemic spending (WFF, “Free” doctors visits, “free” student loans, “Free” child care) as well as huge increases in pay for members of supportive state unions. At the end even the dumbest could see the massive increase in the size of the state was hurting and Cullen reluctantly, oh so reluctantly, yielded the smallest fraction of our money back to us. But most of their spending they embedded with special interest groups making it hard to eliminate.

    There’s a lot to detest about Clark and Cullen, the social engineering, the vile evilness of the pair, but the economic damage of that decade we may never recover from.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Cullen only bribed some – and some of them now effectively pay no income tax.

    And he also aided many people who are able to “arrange their finances” to minimise their tax liability.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    Right wingers do not want to be taxed, fair enough will Key have the balls to cut national super by at least half ?
    Or will he keep on getting 300 million a week from overseas so those who do not need it still keep their tax cuts ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    So KG thinks that cuts to social services have no social cost. Interesting.

    Also, the market does not allocate resources according to need. But achieving a market clearing rate clears more than goods and services, it clears children, who it drives to the margins of society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    hori

    “Or will he keep on getting 300 million a week from overseas so those who do not need it still keep their tax cuts ?”

    Or..he could slash social welfare, get rid of WFF and interest free student loans.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Robboy (49 comments) says:

    Well Big Bruv they’ve been in Govt for over 2 years, presented 2 budgets so they’ve had plenty of time to do so. If WFF and interest-free loans were so bad for the country, why are we still waiting for them to be undone?

    “But most of their spending they embedded with special interest groups making it hard to eliminate.”

    Bullshit. If you have principles, act by them. Otherwise you’re no better than the lot you replaced.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Inky_the_Red (759 comments) says:

    I think it is clear that unlike Labour, National kept nothimg for a rainy day. Now it’s flooding and English and Key have an empty cupboard. Tax cuts are not saving this country

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    No matter how desperate the situation it’s never a good time to exercise spending restraint, but it’s always a great time to tax the shit out of the people creating the recovery. Labour in a nutshell…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. wreck1080 (3,906 comments) says:

    inky ha ha ha, yes, the economy bombed as soon as national took over.

    had nothing to do with the government enlargement of the previous govt.

    And Inky, you are right, the ACC blowout is nationals fault because national discovered that labour had not been paying the bills. So that must be nationals fault too.

    also, the global recession was also nationals fault, inky, you are a brain surgeon, did you ever think about designing rockets for nasa?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    For two and a half years now some of us have been saying this was necessary and that waste needed pruning along with nice to haves etc. The Big Bear has finally scratched the polish on the shinny arses desk.

    Govt. spends what 60 billion and they couldn’t find 1 being wasted.
    Let us at it. All the businesses that have survived have had to.
    Wer’e good at it now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Richard Hurst (857 comments) says:

    The govt wants to cut around $800 million which is roughly around 1% of govt spending. Not that much in the larger scheme of things. Trimming Kiwisaver, working for families and tightening up access to student loans would produce this saving. It will mean shutting higher income families out of these schemes but really- Cullens middle class bribery is just as unaffordable now as it was when Labour was in power.

    I am amazed Goff is opposed to cutting benefits to the rich. It just shows how lost he is when it comes to fiance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    You’re right Richard – WFF and super-superannuation for the already well off are both market distortions with no pay off in terms of better outcomes for people, and society as a whole.

    What i don’t understand is, why don’t National and Labour agree to not tax the first $30, 000, of personal income, then we could do away with middle -class welfare, and there would be more incentive for parents in poorer families to work, whilst leaving more cash in thier pockets to provide opportunities for thier children..

    Can’t we on the left and right agree that these would be good outcomes?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    Wouldn’t it be amazing if we all just stopped trying to score political points, and just agree to do right by the people who are really suffering during these hard times?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    Watching Key, English and the IMF there appears to be some differences of opinion between Key and Double Dip. Not publicly but looking at the words and the body language all is not peace and harmony there.
    And now of course we now longer need to catch Australia apparently. We are doomed to mediocrity. National Policy apparently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Fisiani (1,039 comments) says:

    Labour opposes every single efficiency gain in government spending. The voting public want efficiency gains
    A 1% shaving they call slash and burn. The voting public calls it common sense.
    Will National have to have 70-80 candidates on the Party List to accomodate the likely outcome in November.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. reid (16,447 comments) says:

    We are doomed to mediocrity. National Policy apparently.

    Hulun doomed us to mediocrity during the biggest economic boom the world has ever seen Maggie.

    Imagine what we’d be going through now if she and Key had historically swapped places. Of course, Key wouldn’t have doomed us to mediocrity, so we’d be a hell of a lot better off but imagine what Hulun would have doomed us to in 2-5 years time, had she been in charge, now. Shudder.

    BTW, how do you feel about those interest-free student loans. Supporting that group of parents who can most afford it to get the state to pay for the uni eduction. How come they aren’t rich pricks? Everyone else seems to be, to Liarbore.

    Also, how’s that broken femur coming along? Get well soon, “Maggie.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    Since when did Key axe welfare for the privileged and leave it there for those in need? He may have done something along those lines, but i can’t think of one example.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. reid (16,447 comments) says:

    Since when did Key axe welfare for the privileged and leave it there for those in need? He may have done something along those lines, but i can’t think of one example.

    I agree magic bullet. As soon as he got in, he should have axed WFF for all families on combined incomes over say 100k, destroyed interest-free student loans, NOT given any tax cuts to anyone, started compulsory drug-testing for beneficiaries (you fail, no benefit), announced the sale of the following SOEs:
    New Zealand Post Limited
    Kiwibank
    Meteorological Service of New Zealand Limited (MetService)
    Transpower New Zealand Limited
    Kordia (formerly Broadcast Communications Limited or BCL)
    Orcon Internet Limited
    Mighty River Power Limited
    Meridian Energy Limited
    Powershop
    Genesis Power Limited
    Landcorp
    Learning Media Limited
    New Zealand Railways Corporation
    ONTRACK
    KiwiRail
    Solid Energy
    Crown Fibre Holdings

    Imagine if he’d done all that in his first week, and we were now halfway through the sale process for all of those “assets.”

    This is why some call him and his govt “Liarbore Lite.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    wow – you certainly have some decisive ideas there reid. Drug testing would just result in boom for the people who make drug masking products. Anyhow – heaps of those hi-flying execs you righites so love are in to recreational drug use. Maybe you should get out more. New Zealand has a cultural tradition of getting wasted.

    Selling SOEs in a country the size of NZ results in monopolies and oligopolies forming. If you can’t have a competitive market, don’t sell – it’s not worth it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. reid (16,447 comments) says:

    Drug testing would just result in boom for the people who make drug masking products. Anyhow – heaps of those hi-flying execs you righites so love are in to recreational drug use. Maybe you should get out more. New Zealand has a cultural tradition of getting wasted.

    Yes but “hi-flying execs” aren’t often on the dole: i.e. being paid for by you and I magic bullet. Even if you’re happy to pay for people to do nothing and take drugs, aren’t the rest of us who also pay for them also allowed a say? Why don’t we put this particular policy to the country and let US decide, rather than a few policy wonks and a few bleeding hearts who happened to luck into a list seat? What’s the matter? Isn’t that democracy? What? You don’t hate freedom, do you?

    Selling SOEs in a country the size of NZ results in monopolies and oligopolies forming. If you can’t have a competitive market, don’t sell – it’s not worth it.

    Selling SOEs has many aspects magic bullet, both good and bad. Why did you mention only two of the bad things amongst the many both good and bad? Are you biased? (BTW, in the commercial world the two things you mention are called a risk and there are things called “risk mitigation plans” which can prevent aforesaid problems arising: i.e. they don’t have to happen, if you act wisely.)

    Anyway, if you think that’s decisive (as opposed to simple common sense), wait till you hear what else he should have done, in his first week.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Inventory2 (10,337 comments) says:

    Discerning readers will be delighted to learn that Robert (Greenfly, Village Idiot) Guyton, Green Party activist and blogger has held his nose, and decreed that Winston is the only way that there will be a centre-left government.

    The Greens of course voted to censure Winston Peters for knowingly misleading Parliament just before the 2008 election, but it seems that this is the price that they are prepared to pay for a sniff of power.

    So much for Green Party principles…

    http://robertguyton.blogspot.com/2011/03/winstons-winning-ways.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. mattyroo (1,027 comments) says:

    magic bullet said:

    What i don’t understand is, why don’t National and Labour agree to not tax the first $30, 000, of personal income, then we could do away with middle -class welfare, and there would be more incentive for parents in poorer families to work, whilst leaving more cash in thier pockets to provide opportunities for thier children..

    Hold the phone….. I agree with magic bullet!

    Doing something like this, but in other means, such as a guaranteed minimum income as espoused by Gareth Morgan, would do so much for everybody, and the big thing, is that it can remove so much inefficiency from IRD. Meaning we can place all those IRD employees where the rightfully belong, on the dole queue. Damn site cheaper for us to have them on the dole queue than paying their inflated salaries.

    Labour would never agree to it though, because, not only would the poor benefit from this, but the rich would too, and we simply cannot have that, can we?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    Look reid – like it or not, the market system you love so much has unemployment hard-wired in to it, if only because employers prefer to shed labour to capital, at times of low demand,Basically, junking labour it just a whole lot cheaper.

    So – if you love the system, you’ve got to take the bad with the good. There just aren’t enough jobs for everyone – and the fantasy that scrapping the minimum wage would lead to an ideal clearing rate and no unemployment is plain idealism. It only has ever existed in some dudes head. Anyhow don’t blame the minimum wage – it was about 56% of the average wage when there was no significant unemployment i.e. the sixties.

    Basically an efficient market has social costs associated with it, but those may be mitigated, Then it’s just down to whether you give a damn or not.

    Many rightists i’ve met don’t seem to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. mattyroo (1,027 comments) says:

    So bullet, Singapore has an unemployment rate of 2.2%, GDP growth of >14% in the last quarter and average monthly household incomes of >$5200.

    All with no minimum wage and a top tax rate of 20% that doesn’t kick in until >$320k.

    Yes, I know there are efficiencies in Singapore due to its geographical size, but that does not account for all of that. In fact, one could argue that because NZ has a larger geographical size, our employment rates could be higher.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    mattyroo – Labour don’t mind benefiting rich people with policy – look at WFF. Labour has suggested a $10, 000 tax free threshold, which would benefit everyone. It’s not enough though. $20 per week if you’re full time min wage from memory.

    Another point is that people who have an annual income of below $30,000, pay maybe 10% of all tax in NZ. i.e. It means comparatively little to govt revenue and it would benefit so many lower to middle income earners in a big way.

    Imagine if Key Was to reach across the floor to Goff, and have another “statesman” moment. National cares for the “underclass”, does Labour etc …

    I doubt it though. Key’s too mean.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. reid (16,447 comments) says:

    Basically an efficient market has social costs associated with it, but those may be mitigated, Then it’s just down to whether you give a damn or not.

    Oh I give a damn magic bullet. I’d make a guess over the years I’ve given more resources and put more effort and emotion into helping people than you and any other ten lefties combined. See the thing lefties don’t get is lefties don’t have a monopoly on human kindness, on compassion, on sharing, on giving, or on anything else which reflects the human condition on this earth and to think otherwise, which many of your lefty mates give every impression of doing, is arrogance in the highest hubristic sense.

    Possibly the conservatives you’ve met were behaving like they were because they could see an arrogant hubris-filled a-hole approaching so they thought they’d have him on. FWIW, many leftists I’VE met don’t seem to have any fucking idea whatsoever of what sacrifice for others and compassion really means. They’re too busy trying to impose their particularly naive, warped perspective of life upon others and it shows, for when anyone in the crowd disagrees with them, they get all defensive as in: “how dare you, don’t you know I weally weally care about people and that makes everything I say correct cause it comes from my heart.”

    You see it all the time and fuck it makes me laugh with a big bwahaha because you see magic bullet, what counts is results, and if you count the amount that conservative voters give to charity vs what people who vote left do, you’d be fucking surprised and that doesn’t even count all the thousands and thousands of hours that conservatives put in behind the phones of innumerable charity phone appeals, the thousands and thousands of hours that conservative clubs put in all round the country every single weekend, helping others and doing the right thing.

    Of course, a lefty’s world would collapse were they to actually recognise this for the truth it in fact is, since they sustain themselves through the massively deluded and selfish belief that they are the only ones who care, they are the only ones who really know what’s going on, and they are the only ones with the answer.

    Do you EVER listen to yourselves and does it EVER occur that just maybe, you’re completely totally fucking wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    Also – Singapore has been enriched by its position as a major port along one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes.

    Trust you to neglect mentioning that it’s 80% state housing over there. If we had that here, you righties would be screaming tyranny.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    “Youth suicide rates nearly tripled between 1990 and 1996, last time National had its way with the social services. How does the market account for all those thousands of dead kiwi youths?”

    Source? And correlation is not causation.

    “Or.. he could slash interest free student loans.”

    Oh yes, that’s a fantastic idea! Let’s solve New Zealand’s debt by… putting our young people into debt!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    hardhell – real income for the bottom quintile when back drastically over that period. It was a very depressive time. Some people are insular to the stress Involved here. Many went from being poor to significantly poorer gradually over six years. Parents relationship sufferes often, and parents takes the stress out on the kids – kids start to see know way out seeing as they’ve never known anything different. Reality is hell. You decide suicide might not be that bad an option.

    Do you understand now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. mattyroo (1,027 comments) says:

    Where did you get the 80% figure for HDB housing in Singas from bullet?

    A lot of the locals rent out their HDB housing to immigrant workers and then live in big houses or other private residences, such as very plush apartments. Thereby making money on their HDB housing.

    The HDB housing is also traded on the open market, effectively HDB houses are only a subsidised way into the property market, and rents set at closer to commercial rates than HNZ rental rates for instance.

    Whilst I don’t agree with the HDB model wholeheartedy, I would be more keen for something like that, than what we currently suffer under HNZ.

    The bollocks of Singapore being on a major trading route is not the driver of their economy, but the manufacturing industry, the same as in South Korea, which is not on a major trading route.

    Lefties would have a fit if we implemented all the shipbuilding and repair in NZ that they have in Singapore – which is predominantly undertaken by low wage, low skilled immigrants, but the revenue to the state is massive. Where Singapore benefits, is the foreign earnings and the high end skilled positions that are created for Singapore nationals.

    Now go away and educate yourself on Singapore, before cherry picking the bits to suit your agenda.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    Here’s a link to that info you wanted.

    http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/0/…/suicideratesinnewzealand.doc

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. reid (16,447 comments) says:

    Many went from being poor to significantly poorer gradually over six years. Parents relationship sufferes often, and parents takes the stress out on the kids – kids start to see know way out seeing as they’ve never known anything different. Reality is hell. You decide suicide might not be that bad an option.

    It’s a shame this doesn’t happen to more lefty politicians. The world would be a much better place.

    Seriously magic bullet, you think poverty is bad here, why not visit most of the 192 nations and find out how their poor are treated, then come back and let us know how badly off those people are?

    You won’t, will you, because leftists don’t do that, do they. They don’t sheet home reality, they sheet home fantasy. They tell people they are poor and downtrodden so the poor people believe it. If they didn’t do that, they couldn’t sell themselves as “battling for the people” so they wouldn’t get any votes, would they.

    If you think about it, lefties are the biggest exploiters of the poor on earth, because if they didn’t have the huddled masses, they wouldn’t have a base, which they perpetuate, don’t they.

    What does that make lefties, magic bullet?

    Whereas conservatives tell people, stand on your own two feet, be men and women of the world. We’ll give you a hand up, but we won’t help you to be helpless, because that’s not what real men and women are, and that’s not what will help you.

    So who, precisely, is helping and who, precisely is hindering those poor people, magic bullet?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    Also – it should have been “male youth suicide rates”. Males account for the vast majority of suicides in NZ anyway.

    Admittedly, some of it may be because Kiwi males are role modeled to not talk about emotional issues, as we have silly ideas like only someone with vagina who should talk about the emotions they struggle with. Stiff upper lip and all that Colin Meeds, Hillary, Peter Blakaue, etc. With no release valve, there is often an explosion (NPI). Not to cause offense, but we kiwi guys often are a little hard on themselves. No complaining! Suck it up! You here it all the time. It’s too Spartan for 21st century NZ if you ask me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    Cheers for the link.. it leads to ‘page not found’ though. Is this a problem unique to me? I don’t doubt your information or anything, I just wanted to double-check. It wouldn’t really surprise me.. male youth suicides are really sad… I think the current policy of not reporting them so that people don’t copycat is really wrong. But that’s offtopic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. reid (16,447 comments) says:

    So much for Green Party principles…

    What I don’t understand I2 is how come the Greens don’t have any supporters other than Winston?

    Is it because they hope he’ll bring another gajillionaire on board so they can buy the election?

    Are they really that bereft of humanity they invite a racist on board?

    Ye shall know them by their fruits.

    Who would have thought that around 7-10% of the population are racist?

    Who would have thought that 100% of Green voters are racists?

    I wonder what will happen when people point that out to them during their election campaign meetings?

    I imagine all the lefties there might get quite mad about it, until one points out the inexorable logic behind the whole thing. I mean, they might be racist, but they’re not stupid, are they?

    it should have been “male youth suicide rates”

    That’s a relief magic bullet for I think Jacinda’s quite hot and that would have been a shame. What do you think about my other above points, or did you stop talking to me since I out-argued you on all fronts?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    I’ve considered voting for Winston, not because I particularly love his policies, but because he’s so fucking funny. And because I’m disillusioned with political parties in general and have nobody else to vote for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. reid (16,447 comments) says:

    Oh yes, that’s a fantastic idea! Let’s solve New Zealand’s debt by… putting our young people into debt!

    Aredhel this thread is about finding ways to save money. Now tell me, do you really think that rich parents with degrees and professional high-paying jobs (who are the class of parents whose children predominantly attend university) should be excused from providing for their children’s course fees etc whilst placing the burden onto the South Auckland factory worker?

    If so, this is an interesting take on the usual lefty meme, and I’d be most interested in your reasoning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. mattyroo (1,027 comments) says:

    No, its not a phenomenon unique to you aredhel, I wonder why…

    I suspect it may be the same reason why bullet cannot give me a link to his claim of 80% of the housing in Singapore being HDB.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    Getting rid of interest-free student loans wouldn’t mean that rich parents end up paying for everything. In reality it would create tremendous problems for your typical South Auckland factory worker who wants to send their kid to university, because they’d pay interest on top of fees. This is…. pretty obvious. Alternatively (and this is much more likely) the kid would take out a loan and spent a decade or two paying it back. Hence my comment about putting the next generation into debt to solve our problems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. mattyroo (1,027 comments) says:

    it would create tremendous problems for your typical South Auckland factory worker who wants to send their kid to university.

    Why?????

    The student loan will still be required, whether the kid goes to university under an interest free student loan program or not. It will not make one iota of difference to the parent, or their desire to send there kid to uni.

    Why not scrap interest free student loans, but cut tax rates commensurately, so that when the kid graduates, they can actually pay off their loan faster by having more take home pay. Roger Douglas put out a paper on this some time ago, I can’t be assed finding it now, but it was based on the financially positive difference to the earner, having interest on their loan and a tax rate of 25%, as opposed to the current regimen. It was much more beneficial in the longer term, and of course much less complicated to the whole tax system – therefore being more efficient, saving all that money wasted on the most hopeless of bureaucracies, IRD.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. reid (16,447 comments) says:

    Getting rid of interest-free student loans wouldn’t mean that rich parents end up paying for everything.

    I wasn’t saying it would, Aredhel.

    This is…. pretty obvious.

    What I was saying was, why should all taxpayers subsidise those particular parents when they are perfectly capable of looking after their own university-aged children?

    Why?

    Yet, this is what Liarbore foisted upon us with interest-free student loans.

    Normally, Liarbore themselves would be screaming blue murder if National had done something like this. Instead, they claim it as their own policy, and scream blue-murder whenever National makes noises about possibli even thinking about slightly relaxing the policy. And what’s more interesting is that Liarbore’s own voters go along with this.

    Why?

    That’s my point.

    BTW, it’s a rhetorical question, I know the answer and it’s not pretty. I’m wondering if you or any other Liarbore supporters on here tonight also know. That’s why I’m asking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    Good God, you can’t be really be serious, mattyroo? Are you seriously trying to argue that getting rid of interest-free student loans will *benefit* the poor? Generally the political right just come out and say that they don’t give a damn about the working class and simply assert that they should have the right to keep their own money.

    If you cut taxes, there’s a corresponding rise in the cost of living and everything else, so ultimately it only benefits the wealthy. Sure the student loan will still be required (much to my chagrin, I miss the times of days past when university was free) but the introduction of interest logically means that your average poor worker will end up paying more money to attend university, rather than having taxes pay for that interest, the majority of which come from the wealthier people, as the wealthy pay higher taxes than the poor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. reid (16,447 comments) says:

    .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. mattyroo (1,027 comments) says:

    Of course it can benefit the poor, if you cut the inefficiency from the process, thereby allowing taxes to be cut. Ultimately the people paying interest on their student loans are paying for it and the inefficiency of the whole process, through their taxes anyway. Why can you not comprehend this?

    Why is there a corresponding rise in the cost of living by cutting taxes? If this were true, then surely the cost of living would be much lower in Oz, where taxes are much higher. Which is most definitely not the case.

    Not everyone can and should attend uni, some are simply not bright enough, and some are jsut doing waste of time courses, so these “poor” people you speak of attending university are most likely doing low value courses anyway, and would be better off engaging in a trade, which will give them a much better appreciation of working life, and better earning potential, than 20 years of doing endless useless courses.

    And now you really nail your true colours to the mast, when you advocate for free tertiary education for everyone! What programs do you suggest we cut first to pay for that? Or would you just prefer to tax me any my friends more?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. reid (16,447 comments) says:

    Aredhel, let’s not discuss tax rates, for I wasn’t. I was discussing free loans given to children of rich professional parents who have a combined household income of multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    Do you, as a Liarbore voter, REALLY think their children need interest-free loans?

    That’s what Liarbore gave them, isn’t it.

    Why do you think this is a good policy, in times like this?

    P.S. Before you answer, bear in mind that while there is a proportion of uni students who DON’T have rich parents, most do. Walk round any campus. Ask them. What does mum do? She’s an accountant. What does dad do? He’s a lawyer. What does mum do? She owns a shop in the high street and employs five staff. What does dad do? He’s a self-employed builder with an income over $100k.

    This, Aredhel, if you haven’t realised yet, is who interest-free student loans is aimed at. Liarbore, bless them, pretended it was to help children of poor downtrodden factory workers get a job, but walk round any campus, and try to find students who fit that bill.

    You fucking idiot. If YOU think this policy is aimed at helping poor people get a break, you’re a fucking moron. Have some guts and some common sense FFS.

    This policy is and always has been a rort, and we can’t afford it, not when it was introduced and especially not now. Liarbore love it because (a) the power brokers in Liarbore are all ex-university lecturers and (b) it screws the conservative vote (they think).

    It actually doesn’t screw the conservative vote cause all of us have a uni education and we worked it out in 5 secs flat, but if you’re too fucking stupid to understand you moron that interest-free student loans isn’t the biggest worker-funded-rort-for-the-rich-ever-wrought then you’re a fucking moron.

    And guess who you have to thank for that? That’s right.

    “The greatest PM NZ has even seen…”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. mattyroo (1,027 comments) says:

    Well said Reid at 11.28.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    I didn’t suggest we re-introduce free tertiary education for everyone at this particular moment in time. We’re in difficult economic straits and we have to spend a lot on rebuilding from the Christchurch earthquake. I suspect we’ll encounter many more earthquakes in times to come, as for some reason earthquake numbers have soared since the mid 1990s, and there’s no evidence that’s likely to change.

    Quite frankly people who have an annual income of several hundred thousand dollars don’t use or need interest-free student loans anyway, so I’m not sure what you’re playing at. They just pull $5000 out of their back pocket, it’s just a drop in the ocean to them. Interest-free loans are used by people who need them, or they wouldn’t get them in the first place. Thus we need to keep them in order to enable the rest of us to attend university [the rest of us being the vast majority of New Zealanders. The average annual income is what, $20k?]

    And I said earlier in this thread that I’m not a Labour supporter. I’m not an anything supporter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. double d (225 comments) says:

    you are on fire tonite Reid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. reid (16,447 comments) says:

    I didn’t suggest we re-introduce free tertiary education for everyone at this particular moment in time.

    Well neither is anyone else Aredhel.

    What we’ve been talking about, strange you’ve missed the point, is “the biggest worker-funded-rort-for-the-rich-ever-wrought”

    a.k.a interest-free student loans.

    Lest you misunderstand. This is a loan, which has to be repaid, but doesn’t accrue interest, granted to all people who attend university, the vast majority of whom have parents wealthy enough to fund their education, themselves.

    And I said earlier in this thread that I’m not a Labour supporter. I’m not an anything supporter.

    That’s good to hear Aredhel for since you’ve now heard and understood what interest-free student loans is all about (and feel free to disagree if you can), one assumes you’ll sure as hell not be voting for any of the parties which has ever supported it, which includes I believe everyone but ACT.

    This may be a step too far Aredhel, but bear in mind, your next best choice is National. One assumes you would never ever vote for those who introduced it, they’re clearly liars…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    “you’ve now heard and understood what interest-free student loans is all about (and feel free to disagree if you can)”

    If you can’t handle a person’s post, you just ignore most of it, is that the strategy here Reid?

    “Well neither is anyone else Aredhel.”

    That was in response to your implied assertion that I supported reinstating free tertiary education, so what other people think is irrelevant.

    Stop being a dick and actually address my arguments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. reid (16,447 comments) says:

    Stop being a dick and actually address my arguments.

    OK.

    Quite frankly people who have an annual income of several hundred thousand dollars don’t use or need interest-free student loans anyway, so I’m not sure what you’re playing at.

    Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.

    Er…..

    Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.

    Aredhel, if you were rich and you had access to money for awhile which you could draw down and invest in whatever then repay by due date but keep the returns you gained in the meantime, which could add up to a considerable sum, all tax-free and above-board, why would you not do it?

    Come to think about it, even were you not rich, why would you not do that?

    This is what Liarbore opened up to the general public Aredhel when they announced the scheme and enacted the law which actually enabled real humans to perform this legal feat within NZ.

    Given that at the time there was so much more needy stuff going on upon which money could be spent, was this a wise thing to do?

    Interest-free loans are used by people who need them, or they wouldn’t get them in the first place.

    Yes Aredhel but since universities are 90% populated with smart people and young people whatever discipline they’re studying, don’t you somehow think the risk vis-a-vis aforesaid people claiming they needed the loan but they didn’t really then investing it and reaping the dividends for themselves and not for the benefit of the poor downtrodden factory worker from whom they took the money in the first place, is rather high?

    They just pull $5000 out of their back pocket, it’s just a drop in the ocean to them.

    Indeed they would have if they needed to Aredhel for what parent wants their young adult children not to succeed at university for lack of money. However the point is: parents of children at uni know how many beans make five and if it makes more sense to use OPM to fund their child’s education rather than their own, even if they could, what parent is going to opt for OPM? (Other People’s Money).

    Interest-free loans are used by people who need them, or they wouldn’t get them in the first place.

    Yes in the naive world of the first year pol studies students this is indeed how the world works. Everyone loves each other and everyone gets along and no-one rips anyone off ever because that’s bad.

    Interest-free loans are used by people who need them, or they wouldn’t get them in the first place.

    However, in the second year, even pol studies students get a wake-up call with how life works and it seems to me, only lefties are absent in that critical second year…

    For it’s in the second year, one learns that sometimes, people don’t do the right thing. Sometimes, people if they are given an offer, will take it, even if that means the downtrodden factory worker suffers…

    Thus we need to keep them in order to enable the rest of us to attend university [the rest of us being the vast majority of New Zealanders. The average annual income is what, $20k?]

    I agree Aredhel we need to keep avenues open for those who otherwise could not afford a university education and that is a critical, number one priority, no matter what, period. However, that doesn’t mean we need to keep the same avenue open for the child of someone who is perfectly capable of funding their own child through, and that is precisely the issue.

    And yet, start whispering student loans, and the hysteria starts, from Liarbore. Note that it doesn’t start first from those most affected, it starts first, from Liarbore. That should tell you volumes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. mattyroo (1,027 comments) says:

    Interest-free loans are used by people who need them, or they wouldn’t get them in the first place.

    The loans may well be needed, but the interest free component of the loan is not so needed. As Reid has pointed out to you many times in this thread, why not take up the participation in the loan, when there is absolutely no urgency to pay the loan back, implied or otherwise.

    And as I have said a number of times to you, there are much more efficient ways of dealing with loans than removing interest, which will also have wider benefits for the loanee. The fact you cannot see this, or refuse to see this, says to me you are opposing this on purely ideological grounds, hence I can only assume you’re a Green voter. If you could see this concept and understood it (or wanted to understand it), then you may very well vote ACT.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. reid (16,447 comments) says:

    Correction: “what parent is going to opt for OPM?” what parent is not going to opt for OPM…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. mattyroo (1,027 comments) says:

    Read this Aredhel: http://www.rogerdouglas.org.nz/?p=968

    It is not the article which I mentioned before, but it outlines exactly what Reid & I have been saying to you all night. I searched for the article that I mentioned earlier, but I cannot find it unfortunately. It was a fully costed cost/benefit plan for someone who undertakes tertiary study under the currrent regimen, as opposed to taking a scenario where they would pay interest on their student loan, but have significantly lower taxes once they started working.

    I’m not sure about this, but I suspect that student allowances are taxed? How fucking wrong headed and inefficient is that???? Just taxing the allowance for no other purpose than the significance of it. So, let me get this straight – Money comes from a pool of taxed money and then is paid out to the beneficiary, with some of that money returned back to the pool of taxes, as taxes. It is the same with all benefits etc. You only have to think about that for a nano second to realise how inefficient it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    “If you cut taxes, there’s a corresponding rise in the cost of living and everything else, so ultimately it only benefits the wealthy.”

    Just when I thought magic bullet had the village idiot title sewn up, here comes Aredhel. Proof again (as if it were needed) that access to, and apparent ability to use, a computer is not the same as being capable of using a brain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Maggie (672 comments) says:

    reid’s effort on March 22 @ 11.14 was the most intelligent comment he has ever posted on this blog.

    It is conservative mantra to cut spending in hard times. In the 1929 slump they cut everything including wages. The result was a stagnant economy, thousands out of work and rioting in the streets. The recovery began with the election of Mickey Savage and Labour, who spent money on items such as state housing and roading projects. This wasn’t the only reason for the recovery, monetary policy also helped, but it had a major impact.

    Compare Australia today with NZ. By careful priming of the pump Australia avoided a recession and its unemployment rate is now well below that of NZ.

    There’s a lesson there somewhere. Fail to learn from history and you are condemned to relive it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote