A speech by John Key

May 11th, 2011 at 12:36 pm by David Farrar

’s speech is here. Key points:

  • , interest free loans and costing $5b a year, and why we now have a structural deficit, and all has to be borrowed from overseas
  • All changes will take place after election, so there is a mandate for them
  • KiwiSaver will be changed so that over time employees and employers contribute more, and the Government less
  • KS changes will lead to an improvement in the rate of national savings and reduce foreign debt by 2% of GDP over the decade
  • Will reduce amount spent on WFF, but target a greater proportion at the most vulnerable families
  • For every $100 of , taxpayers get only $55 back
  • Half of the overdue student debt is students living overseas – will make sure they live up to their responsibilities

The exact details will be in the . To me it looks like a good step in the right direction.

Tags: , , , ,

122 Responses to “A speech by John Key”

  1. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    Step in the right direction? What step? Interest free student loans? We’ll keep them. Borrowing $380 million? We’ll keep that. Abolish a few ministries? Nah, keep them all.

    This man is a disaster for our economy and should be replaced in November.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Mr Nobody NZ (397 comments) says:

    With who Berend?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. questlove (242 comments) says:

    “In difficult times like these the country needs good, responsible economic management.”

    Like borrowing $380 million per week? Or providing counterproductive tax relief to the wealthy as they don’t spend it?

    14billion on tax cuts which have had about zero stimulatory effect on the economy is not at all “good, responsible economic management”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. excusesofpuppets (134 comments) says:

    It’s not worth being here anymore.

    After the budget, I am going to have a sit down with my wife and we will work out our position after this glorious election year budget, then start making our move to join my family in Australia. I know that Australia isn’t sitting that pretty either but seriously.

    I tried. I really tried sticking it out here in NZ with my young family. But after being offered another job in Sydney paying over 40k more than I do here in Wellington…and with these WFF, Kiwisaver and as a new student studying part time, student loan changes…whats the point.

    National, what have you done. You’re going to turn me into a flaming drongo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “14billion on tax cuts which have had about zero stimulatory effect on the economy”

    Incorrect. The tax cuts have helped to maintain the economy when things could have been much worse.

    Berend:

    While I would prefer a more consistently Tory Conservative government the hard truth is that JK has to win elections. I cannot agree with the “all or nothing” approach advocated by some, especially ACT supporters. Nil progress is nil progress.

    The measures advocated by JK are at least some progress, and most importantly, progress that is achievable.

    The Nats need three election cycles to seriously shift the centre of the country firmly to the right, which is what I think JK’s strategy has been all along, and while it may seem piecemeal at the moment, the overall progress will be significant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. nasska (11,092 comments) says:

    A genuine question to which I can’t find a definitive answer. We are currently borrowing $300/$380 million each week.

    Can anyone tell me approximately how much of this is rolling over previous debt & how much is new borrowing?

    [DPF: It is basically all new debt]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Ryan Sproull (7,093 comments) says:

    With who Berend?

    Therein lies the real problem.

    Everything that National does to our country in the next four years is the fault of Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party.

    Get your shit together, Opposition. We don’t care about little sarky snipes at how much the PM’s underpants cost, we don’t care about your little internal factions and time-bidings. We don’t. You do. We don’t. Get your fucking shit together, realise what matters, and start doing your fucking jobs. (All of you. Some of you are doing your jobs. That’s nice. Now all of you, please.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,873 comments) says:

    excuses, you might find you need all of that extra $40k just to survive in Sydney.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. KH (694 comments) says:

    Not inspiring policy from Mr Key. My overall reaction is he needs to do a lot more. Enough of the whiffling around.
    For example there is a concrete approach I heard the other day. “People overseas with student loans. Refuse to renew their New Zealand passports until they pay up.”
    That won’t deal with those with both New Zealand passports and other passports who have taken the loans, the education, and departed with no intention of ever returning. But it was dumb to give them the money and we lost way back when we first handed it over. Just another example of New Zealand innocence in dealing intenationally.
    This country needs to be more realistic about the situation it is in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    In defence of John Key commentators say:

    Mr Nobody NZ: “He is irreplacable”; eh, really?

    Lee01: “JK has a secret master plan!”; eh, really??

    Keep ‘m coming guys. This man has borrowed more then any PM before him, probably combined.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    Mr Nobody NZ

    He means Don Brash. It seems he wants another nine year Liabore government wef 2014.

    Key says it over and over and over again and the shouters just don’t get. The only thing they want to get is the satisfaction of getting even first, and then spending nine years shouting at the same bunch of arseholes that got us to where we are. For fucks sake shouters, READ KEYS SPEECH AND THEN EXPLAIN WHY IF HE DID WHAT YOU WANT HIM TO DO NOW, THERE WOULD NOT BE A PINKO FUCK FEST GOVERNMENT NEXT YEAR. ARE YOU REALLY THAT FUCKING STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????

    EEEEERRRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    excusesofpuppets

    If you want to leave, then just fuck off and don’t come here bleating about. Or is it just that you’re intending to leave anyway in 2014?

    PS

    HTFU pussey.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. kevin_mcm (152 comments) says:

    berend

    Supposedly the deficit is about $15bn so about $300M per week to cover that. The problem is governments do not use GAAP so their results are a bit of cash deficit and capital – they talk about OBEGAL as the nett cashflow deficit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    excuses, you might find you need all of that extra $40k just to survive in Sydney.

    A two bedroom renovated place across from me just sold for $1.6 million. However if you aren’t buying it’s not too shabby really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    thedavincimode, excuse me but I believe under the pinko government we had budget surpluses and were not borrowing $380 million a week.

    What is John Key doing that is really better?

    Ah, it’s all Labour’s fault!! Defence number 3. Bit stale by now.

    Mr Davinci, we currently have a pinko government run by a pinkos.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    stephen

    No problem him buying it. With his extra $40k a year, he can pay the principal off in 40 years if he fiddles his taxes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    berend

    I didn’t actually ever think you were that stupid. Its nothing to do with what the other guys did. Its about the self-interested fuckwits who are used to a life on the tit and will vote those other cunts in before you can say: “well pull my plonker, I’ve just come up with a cunning plan to save the country.” You know the ones, for example, the ones that think that breeding is performing a public service.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. questlove (242 comments) says:

    “Incorrect. The tax cuts have helped to maintain the economy when things could have been much worse.”

    The eighties called, they want their Reaganomics/Rogernomics/Voodoo economics back.

    “no empirical evidence has ever demonstrated or supported that they do
    no historical evidence has ever demonstrated or supported that they do”

    http://www.mea.org/tef/pdf/2toptenreasonswhytaxdontgroweconomy.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. smttc (725 comments) says:

    Berend, under Labour we had 9 years of the best economic conditions in a generation and Labour still managed to piss the surpluses all up the wall.

    Davinci, well said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. slightlyrighty (2,506 comments) says:

    Berend.

    Any politician who proposes what you advocate would never get elected in this country. It”s a sad indictment on the country but it’s hardly John Key’s fault that we had 3 terms of “third way” politics where the electorate was bribed with it’s own money to elect and re-elect a labour government who had no idea how to stimulate an economy to grow in a productive way.

    Now you may know what needs to be done. Personally I think Middle Class Welfare and Interest Free Student Loans are patently ridiculous. They were not needed, not required, and served no purpose other than to keep Labour in power. The fact is, it worked, and has kept a fairly large portion of the public somewhat dependant on it.

    National has recognised that. Key knows that cutting off that support, even though it’s not really needed by many who enjoy it, would be electoral suicide. Middle NZ needs to be weaned of the public tit, not summarily cut off from it. To do as you suggest would doom National to a one term government and land NZ back in the hands of the very party that got us into the shit to begin with.

    Key needs to take a long view. He does not have the luxury of doing as you suggest, and I wish you would take a more realistic viewpoint. Politics is the art of the possible. For a party to do as you suggest would be impossible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. alex Masterley (1,507 comments) says:

    If i recall correctly, those nice surplus’s we had in ooo’s were spent by the last government.
    Nothing, nada, zip, zilch was put away for a rainy day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. annie (540 comments) says:

    The speech suggests changes that are sensible and reasonable. Looks good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    If there was ever a succinct summary of what those arseholes did, it is in Key’s speech. Some of you shouters can read can’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Rick Rowling (825 comments) says:

    questlove (143) Says: “The eighties called”

    Did you warn them about 9/11? The boxing day tsunami? Any of the earthquakes?

    No?

    Bastard.

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

    hmm They said the GST/Tax cut switch would be neutral. Now we know where the missing money was to come from.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. lofty (1,305 comments) says:

    Berend, you may not like or approve of what the present Govt is doing, and sometimes neither do I, but I know one thing for sure, the alternatives do not bear thinking about.

    I suspect you know that though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. questlove (242 comments) says:

    “If i recall correctly, those nice surplus’s we had in ooo’s were spent by the last government.
    Nothing, nada, zip, zilch was put away for a rainy day.”

    That not what Bill English publicly stated:

    “Having condemned his predecessor for many years for paying off debt too quickly, English said: “I want to stress that New Zealand starts from a reasonable position in dealing with the uncertainty of our economic outlook.”
    “In New Zealand we have room to respond. This is the rainy day that Government has been saving up for,” he told reporters at the Treasury briefing on the state of the economy and forecasts.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Rick Rowling (825 comments) says:

    I reckon Key could keep his promise about not affecting students’ loans.

    But how about graduates start paying their own f*@#ing interest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Two and a half years later, the handling of the economy by English and Key reeks of passivity and incompetence. Both have wasted invaluable time in a complete state of inaction thinking the whole thing will remedy itself. It hasn’t turned out that way, and this pair have now run out of excuses.

    C’mon National Party leaders, gird your loins and get into action reforming the NZ economy. It’s long overdue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. freedom101 (491 comments) says:

    I know that blaming the previous administration is the standard modus operandi in politics but on this occasion it is well justified. National have been far too soft on Labour. Labour vasstly increased spending in areas which mainly consisted of middle class welfare bribes. The spending and taxing left us vulnerable to a downturn. A downturn, for what ever reason, was always going to happen as no economy is permanently on the up.

    I suspect that the reason that National has been so namby pamby about attacking Labour is because that would lead them to precisely where they don’t want to go – in other words, questions about what they are going to do about it.

    National has effectively adopted Labour’s loony spending as National Party policy. This is a disaster for the country and exhibits spineless leadership. There is really no difference between Labour and National, which is why ACT and Don Brash are set to do very well this year. As other commentators have pointed out, Don’s 2025 Taskforce Policies are almost in line with Gillard’s in Australia, meaning that the entire NZ political spectrum is positioned to the left of Labour in Australia.

    National must take a good deal of responsibility for this situation. Key and English have demonstrated a gutless problem-avoidance mentality. If they won’t lead they should resign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    Now, I really am getting pissed off and it isn’t just the residual effects of inhaling two double downs yesterday (purely for research purposes, of course).

    I wonder how many shouters have been quite happily sucking on WFF and spending the proceeds on the cost of living in suburbs and houses or cars and boats that they wouldn’t otherwise have been able to afford. I wonder how many of them have kids at ‘varsity flatting instead of living at home and who took out student loans and then fucked off without making any effort to repay them. I wonder how many of them had a nice little rental loss on the side that let them get WFF. I wonder how many of them justify their behaviour on the basis that it was OK because Labour’s taxes were too high; conveniently ignoring of course, that some other poor prick had to subsidise them. I wonder how many of them justify their behaviour on the basis of some other purely self-interested basis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    FFS Manolo.

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. swan (659 comments) says:

    “…all has to be borrowed from overseas”?

    So there is not one person or institution in NZ willing to lend money to the government? If I were a foreign lender I would be worrying about what NZers know that I don’t

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Pete George (23,422 comments) says:

    Ah, it’s all Labour’s fault!! Defence number 3. Bit stale by now.

    Unfortunately it’s not stale yet. National inherited policies off Labour that are aa major ongoing burden on finances, the end of a run of huge property inflation, and they also inherited the effects of one of the worst international economic downturns for a long time. Then they had inflicted a major mess upon a major mess in Christchurch.

    They couldn’t just ditch things like student loans, WFF and KiwiSaver, in good times it would have a major impact on many people and on the country, in very bad times it would have been disastrous.

    To minimise significant adverse effects major change has to be incremental.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    Not quite PG. They also inherited an inter-generational mindset.

    BTW, where is he – do you think he stayed over there to go after the no. 2 (the new no. 1)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Psycho Milt (2,404 comments) says:

    WFF, interest free loans and KiwiSaver costing $5b a year, and why we now have a structural deficit, and all has to be borrowed from overseas

    Oh, if only, if only, there’d been mechanisms in place back in 2008 to warn the govt of the cost of these policies and show that the recession would make them a hideous drain on the nation’s finances! If they’d just known about this, perhaps they’d have been in a position to do something about it – them being the govt an’ all. I guess it’s just nobody’s fault we kept spending that money we didn’t have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. lofty (1,305 comments) says:

    For once I agree with you Pete, well actually it has been more than once lately.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Cunningham (836 comments) says:

    It always cracks me up when people say ‘stop blaming the previous government’. Well what the fuck are we supposed to do? They completely bent this country over (by implementing horrendously expensive policy) in their last term as a big fuck you to the incoming government. At the same time they let the export sector fall to pieces so when things did turn to shit we were incapable of handling it how we should have. In 3 years time you can say this but for now Labor is fair game.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    FFS…
    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Any serious health problems, davincimode? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    Come off it Milt.

    You know they blew it out in 05 just to buy the election. Look at the numbers. And the public service stats. How much of their spend actually went somehwere that you would accept as doing some real good as distinct from priming the pump?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    Fuckwit exposure syndrome Manolo. Face has now gone purple and fingers seem engorged.

    Damn, it can’t just be those bloody double downs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. lofty (1,305 comments) says:

    It has become increasingly obvious that the Labour party is devoid of ideas, as much as they were while in power.

    For 9 long years they threw away our dosh to buy votes, and they are not articulating any other plan were they to make the Govt benches.

    Incremental change as described by PG is by it’s nature a slower process than one would like, but it is necessary so as to not frighten the horses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. freedom101 (491 comments) says:

    We haven’t got time to worry about the horses Lofty. We are borrowing $380m a week. We are in a state of emergency here. Let’s all have a cup of tea while the fire alarm sounds. I don’t buy it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. s.russell (1,589 comments) says:

    I vote for the sane approach:

    Despite very difficult circumstances, this Government has actually made significant changes since coming into office, but we have done so steadily, progressively, and by taking people with us.

    That is in contrast to the point of view that says economic reform should happen all at once, involve a lot of noise and conflict, and follow a strict adherence to ideology rather than what works.

    Needless to say, I don’t agree with that view.

    I believe sustainable change happens over time, building on itself year after year, with the general support of the public.

    The tortoise wins the race. The hare becomes roadkill. We may not like it, but this is the way politics works. I respect what Don Brash has to say, but the side effect of his prescription is a Labour Government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. slightlyrighty (2,506 comments) says:

    Freedom101.

    You don’t get it, do you. If you frighten the horses (ie:voters), they’ll vote for the arsonists that set the fire in the first place (ie: Labour).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Berend: “Keep ‘m coming guys. This man has borrowed more then any PM before him, probably combined.”

    And as others have pointed out, he had little choice. It was either that, or keep the country in the hands of Clark. I know some purists would have prefered that, but the country does not have the luxury of indulging that kind of infantile politics. Leave that to the Greens.

    “Lee01: “JK has a secret master plan!”; eh, really??”

    I said he had a startegy to shift the country to the right for the long term, and its working. That is the only way the Right will ever be able to make deep and long term changes. JK is right about to say you MUST take the people with you. Going all out for one election cycle, only to have everything reversed when your tossed out and Labour returns, makes no sense. The first term of the National government under Bulger proved that. They made far too radical changes too quickly and got punished for it. Even though they clung to power they were deeply unpopular and opened the door to Clarks three terms.

    Purist principles that want all or nothing are fine for libertarians and Marxists, sitting in their cafe’s, sipping their lattes and dreaming of the coming Marxist/Randian revolution.

    They are useless in the real world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. axeman (251 comments) says:

    PM Key on fire in the House. Giving Phil-in the Goof a right royal reaming over the savings issue! This is just after Bill English gave that detached liberal elite hypocritical twat, Silent T, a good slapping.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. lofty (1,305 comments) says:

    freedom101.. I am not saying lets have a cup of tea and a wee think.

    If you want to use the fire alarm analogy it goes something like this I reckon…

    Alarm sounds, Firemen rush to the fire truck…then drive with haste but not great unsafe speed to the incident, after all it is most important that they actually get there to deal with the incident and not crash & burn themselves.

    After all the firemen did not light the fire, did they? Someone else did that, the firemen are there to deal with the problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. BeaB (2,104 comments) says:

    Labour will have to change their focus in Question Time. John Key has made mincemeat of them all. Bill English got some excellent shots in too. Labour are looking pathetic.
    A great parliamentary performance!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. KevinH (1,192 comments) says:

    Well thats the big three knocked off, WFF, KS and interest free loans, all of those combined were strangling the economy and despite what Labour says were not sustainable. Labour of course would not have a plan of action to the problems they created and quite possibly are grateful that John Key and Bill English are having to deal with it.
    The economy will eventually improve due to demand for protein, but the halcyon days are gone. Our recovering economy will be different to the past, and thats what we have to prepare for.
    Australia is clearly a good option for the semi skilled to skilled, don’t hesitate, go and make the most of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. KiwiGreg (3,246 comments) says:

    “Well thats the big three knocked off, WFF, KS and interest free loans, all of those combined were strangling the economy ”

    But he hasn’t actually touched any of them meaningfully.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. PaulL (6,015 comments) says:

    I liked my comment on the other thread. I’ll copy it here, since that’s an old (and nearly dead thread), and people here keep talking about $300 million per week.

    I think part of the problem is that it’s a number people don’t relate to. Sure, $300 million of borrowing. What’s the right number? It’s the govt, is $150 million OK? What can we afford?

    I reckon the right way to explain it is in personal terms. In rough terms, $300 million is $75 for every man, woman and child in NZ every week. That’s $4000 a year, for every man, woman and child. The government has no ability to pay that back other than by taxing citizens.

    So, the government is borrowing $4000 on your behalf every year. $16,000 for a family of four. They’re doing that to give you services. Are you getting incremental services that are worth $4,000 a year to you, $16,000 to your family? Are those services so important to you that you’d like the government to get $4,000 of debt in your name, $16,000 for your family, which the government will later have to come and get from you by taxes? Because either you or your children will eventually have to pay that bill – through taxes on you, or through taxes on the companies that sell you services (and therefore they’ll increase their prices). Or would you rather the government cut the lowest value $4,000 of spending for each person in NZ. What services would you lose, and were they worth $4,000 to you?

    When you put it in those terms, am I happy with carrying $4,000 of debt extra every year, $16,000 for my family, to pay for the NZSO? I like culture as much as the next guy, but not enough to have $4,000 of debt. Am I happy to pay for a plastic waka? Am I happy to pay for interest free loans for students?

    Any politician who fails to talk about it in these terms simply isn’t serious about fixing the problem. They’re hiding the problem, stopping citizens from knowing what’s really going on, because they don’t really want to fix it. They don’t really care – they think they can keep borrowing on our behalf, and that we won’t notice, and that it’s easier than having a hard discussion about why that borrowing is needed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. freedom101 (491 comments) says:

    slightlyrightly. The problem is that time is against us. By the time Key and English finally stick their toes in the water their support will have ebbed away, as happens to all governments, and they will be out of office. At that stage they will have squandered their opportunity.

    Their lack of resolve actually undermines public morale. A large percentage of the population realises we are in the pooh, and amongst those would be almost all the business leaders and wealth creators in the economy. Don’t underestimate how demoralising Key’s and English’s performance is for them. And they are the ones who lead investment and employment.

    Deciding how quickly to move is a political judgement. I happen to think that they are moving too slowly and are gutless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    freedom101

    A fair point, which is why I think that having a strong Brash led Act keeping the fire under the feet of Key and English is a good thing.

    At the same time if Key announced that they would be implementing the equivalant of ACT’s policies in these areas as soon as possible who do you think would be running the country in 2012?

    It is a sad fact that once sucking on the welfare tit it is very hard to convince people to get off, especially when they are already finding it hard to make ends meet.

    I agree they need to go further and more quickly than they are, but not so fast that they simply hand the country over to Goff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Viking2 (11,340 comments) says:

    PaulL; good summation of the reality.

    Mr Nobody NZ
    READ KEYS SPEECH AND THEN EXPLAIN WHY IF HE DID WHAT YOU WANT HIM TO DO NOW, THERE WOULD NOT BE A PINKO FUCK FEST GOVERNMENT NEXT YEAR

    But the problem here is that 3 years ago there were plenty of people warning what was coming, plenty who wanted change, plenty who warned you Nat voters that if you allowed the hori’s to get influential then this is what would happen. Plenty who said you need to support ACT to stop that BUT you couldn’t see the realityfor the power.

    Three years and worse than ever. Any other CEO’s and CFO’s would be shown the door for a effort like that,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. BeaB (2,104 comments) says:

    It’s just a pity that so many of us can’t stomach Brash – as a politician or a man.
    That fatal mixture of arrogance and naivety. I suspect he is somewhere on the autistic spectrum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. slightlyrighty (2,506 comments) says:

    Freedom.

    You talk about the support enjoyed by National. How did they get such support in the first place? If they move as quick as you would like, how much of that support will they lose? Would that loss of support result in a center left government with more of the policies that got us into this mess in the first place?

    Right now, Key is is election mode. He is asking for a mandate to do as you would like him to. I’d like to see more change quicker myself, but I am acutely aware that if Interest was slapped back on Student Loans, WFF canned and Kiwisaver subsidies stopped, then Labour would simply promise to re-instate these policies, and enough idiots will fall for it, or take the short term view and vote for it out of personal need, to effect a change in government.

    I know what you want. I want a country that invests in production capacity, not in government bereaucracy. I want the same things. But at the same time I knew what approach is most likley to get it, and it is not the one you advocate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. slightlyrighty (2,506 comments) says:

    Viking.

    You may well be correct that a CEO or CFO would be shown the door, and if this was a company answering to a board of directors your summation would be correct.

    But we are not talking about a company. We are talking about a job that is decided by the voting public of NZ, where the only requirement to having a say in who runs the country is being over the age of 18.

    The scary thing is, that half the country is below median intelligence, and they all get to vote. It doesn’t matter how well versed you may be in international macro-economics, there will always be more than enough functionally illiterate, innumerate or just plain dumb voters, or voters who vote out of misplaced ideology, or out of blatent self interest, rather than weigh up the full impact of the policies before voting for the ones that are best for the country, rather than the best for themselves.

    Working for Families, Interest Free Student Loans, Subsidised Kiwisaver. You and I know that the cost to NZ was more than we could afford, but the party that proposed them got elected, not once, but 3 times. Do you really think that the party that promises to quash them entirely would be as sucessful. I for one would love to see that because that would indicate the level of intelligence in the electorate is far more higher than I have assumed in the past.

    But I know that won’t happen. If such a change is to happen, It must be slow and incremental.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    The scary thing is, that half the country is below median intelligence, and they all get to vote.

    Therein lies the tragedy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Scott (1,761 comments) says:

    I think John Key’s speech was excellent. He is gradually going along the right track, reducing government spending and getting us to pay our own way in the world.

    Unfortunately we have had nine years of Labour basically buying the election through interest-free student loans and Working for Families which makes beneficiaries of people earning over $100,000 a year as long as they have enough children. Sadly the electorate has got used to such things and have to be weaned away from them gradually.

    Also I like the fact that John Key is basically saying, before the election, this is what we’re going to do. Now we have a clear choice come election time at the end of the year. Do we want sensible economic management or do we want the other team who will resume spending and borrowing New Zealand into bankruptcy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    These national party supporters are really pathetic. It was the fault of the previous government. It’s the fault of the voters, they’re stupid. John Key wants to do the good thing!

    If you were talking to a psychiatrist, you would be written down with a delusional disorder.

    The facts: John Key is borrowing $380 million a week. 10% of GDP. He has no plan to get out of that. He cannot convince the voters of any other way, because that would be electoral suicide.

    So we are stuck with borrowing $380 million a week.

    If you can’t make the case that borrowing $380 million a week is daft, you either believe it’s no problem, or you shouldn’t be PM.

    You guys are blaming the voters for John Key not even making any hard choice!!!!!!!!!!!

    Please guys, what meaningful steps has he made? We’re up from $200 million a week to $380 million and that in a year.

    Guys, not only can John Key not make the case that borrowing from your children is national suicide, he won’t. He’s just a pinko, running in a pinko party, doing the big government thing on a scale Helen Clark didn’t even dream off.

    Excuse while I say bring back Cullen. Are you national party bimbos not even realising that the National Party is supposedly in charge? And just look at the results!!

    John Key has a secret plan. Yeah right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    Scott: Do we want sensible economic management or do we want the other team who will resume spending and borrowing New Zealand into bankruptcy?

    Are you delusional? I really have to stop myself from shouting. What sensible economic management do we have now? Ah, only borrowing $380 million a week, 10% of GDP.

    The OTHER team will resume spending and borrowing?

    I say: please yes, because if what the National party is doing is called saving, I really hate to see when the National Party starts spending and borrowing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    Lee01: I said he had a startegy to shift the country to the right for the long term, and its working.

    Yep, from borrowing $0 to $200 to $380 million a week.

    PaulL: run for office please. But the Nat voters are so bewitched by John Key that no one is getting through to them. I have never seen such deluded people on the supposed right side of the political spectrum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Zapper (1,003 comments) says:

    thedavincimode at 1:29 pm

    Very well said

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Cunningham (836 comments) says:

    berend if the Labor party hadn’t fucked our export sector maybe we would be able to earn more money as a country and not borrow so much? Best period NZ had for a long time under Labor and our export sector went into recession from 2005 onwards. Try explaining that genius.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. KiwiGreg (3,246 comments) says:

    Total crown spending per Treasury was 31.5% of GDP in 2000 and 45.2% in 2009 and seems to have been dragged back to 42% in 2010. To go to deficit-free spending levels would seem to require merely a reduction to 2000 levels – sadly many of Labours initiatives to lock in spending during the lost decade are not reversible. But some are. Whether the electorate will swallow them is another matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    So Cunningham, what’s John Key’s plan to grow our export sector? Built a national cycleway?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    KiwiGreg: Whether the electorate will swallow them is another matter.

    Don’t depend on John Key to make the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Ruth (178 comments) says:

    Guys, not only can John Key not make the case that borrowing from your children is national suicide, he won’t.

    How long have we heard this “borrowing from your children”? The term was around when I was a kid. Personally I am quite happy for my kids to pick up the bill – they continue to get thousands from me and my family, let alone the govt….

    No one takes any notice of this sort of hyperbole because it is not like your usual borrowing – the money-go-round and international markets ensure that it more or less never has to be paid back. Just like those retards who go on about “printing money” – another total fallacy in the 2011 market.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Cunningham (836 comments) says:

    Haha yeah good on you for dodging the question. Just shows how full of BS you really are. Read the speech berend:

    “The terms of trade – a measure of export prices compared to import prices – are up 19 per cent since late 2009 and are expected to remain at high levels.

    Growth among our trading partners has remained strong, which means they will continue to want what we produce.

    We have been well served by our strong ties with Australia and our growing links with Asia.

    The Government has been increasing its efforts to foster trade with Asia. In 2010, for example, the Government took six trade missions to China. Exports to that country have increased 40 per cent in the past year alone.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Best period NZ had for a long time under Labor and our export sector went into recession from 2005 onwards. Try explaining that genius.

    Impossible. The damage socialist Labour has done to New Zealand is unforgivable. However, National doesn’t need to continue endorsing its absurd policies.

    It’s time for a clear break-up from the wasteful policies of the despicable comrades.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. KiwiGreg (3,246 comments) says:

    @ berend I dont. But he will win the election and so he will be running things for another 3 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Scott (1,761 comments) says:

    Berend- I agree that $380 million a week is a lot. However John Key is trying to move the country in the right direction. He is cutting back on entitlements such as working for families and interest-free student loans. He is also trying to make Kiwi saver more affordable.

    The alternative is to take a razor to the whole lot which quite frankly is electoral suicide.

    The other alternative is to ignore the problem and keep spending and borrowing which is what the other party is all about. So I think there is a clear difference. However those that think John Key has not gone far enough are welcome to vote for the Act party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. slightlyrighty (2,506 comments) says:

    Berend. The party that espoused the policies you back got 3.65% in the last election. If you can show me how 3.65% support will give you the ability to effect change in NZ then I might concede the point. Until then you have as much chance of getting a mandate with those policies as Hone has of getting a mandate with his.

    National, in all seriousness, probably want the same as you, but are a heck of a lot smarter in knowing how best to get the job done. To get the change you want, in the time frame you want, simply will not happen. The electorate simply will not allow it.

    If you cannot see that, then sir, you are the delusional one. I live in the real world. Borrowing 300 million per week is not ideal, but it is the price we have to pay to get the change we want. Relax. take the time to look at what you want to happen and ask if the voters of NZ will allow it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Scott (1,761 comments) says:

    Also I would say your comments are not making much sense. Presumably you are preferring labour’s economic management?

    I think John Key is at least on the right track and at least acknowledges the problem. I do not think Phil Goff gets it at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Pete George (23,422 comments) says:

    I do not think Phil Goff gets it at all.

    He may get it – that he’s on a hiding to nothing.

    He can’t promise to dish out more money when he’s attacking National on spending too much on piddly things. So all he can do is grizzle around the fringes hoping that it may claw back a bit of support for Labour this time, and there will be the perception there is more money available to hand out in 2014.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Not PC writes:

    “Finance Minister Bill English says the govt deficit for the year is likely to be about $16 billion to $17 billion – the largest deficit New Zealand has ever had.”

    And this government wants to run with Bill English’s handling of the economy as a “core” election issue! Unbelievable.

    Make no mistake, this economic disaster is not the result of a natural disaster. Things were already well out of control well before half of Christchurch was destroyed. It is not the result of things beyond this government’s control. It is precisely because this grossly irresponsible govt has made some very, very bad choices:
    To swallow the dead rats that have now come back to bite us.
    To smile and wave instead of knuckle down and do the right thing.

    http://pc.blogspot.com/2011/05/its-economy-stupid.html#c1078020635515305797

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. SPC (5,532 comments) says:

    It’s interesting that the government sees WFF tax credits as spending that needs to be pruned when they are just ways to reduce tax liability for families.

    The government is sending confused messages on the issue of restricting access to tertiary loans for those in their 50’s – whether the age for super increases above 65 or not in the near term, people are working longer and eventually the economy will need more people of that age in employment.

    Otherwise it has said nothing about a future 1% levy to pay for the CH earthquake rebuild costs and proposed nothing on the issue of a establishing a dedicated contribution to the Cullen Fund (such as 2% from employees and 2% from employers).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Ender (105 comments) says:

    “Things were already well out of control well before half of Christchurch was destroyed. It is not the result of things beyond this government’s control. It is precisely because this grossly irresponsible govt has made some very, very bad choices”

    What very very bad choices are we talking about here?

    And frankly, “out of control” is f-n bs if you ask me. Out of control is Ireland, Greece, Portugal etc… Considering we are sitting at ~30% of GDP debt and actually have a plan to get out of deficit and start repaying I think we’re doing bloody well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. SPC (5,532 comments) says:

    Ender, the government has to take come of the responsibility for the lack of economic growth – there was clear indication that new housing starts in Auckland were down and thus a need for some state funded investment here to keep construction activity levels up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    Scott: Berend- I agree that $380 million a week is a lot. However John Key is trying to move the country in the right direction.

    Right, from borrowing $200 million last year to $380 million this year? Remind me, what was the right direction again?

    Ah, the right direction was catching Australia by 2025. The task force’s proposals were dismissed by this same John Key. The man without a plan, without direction, well, except one, let’s give him that: to be popular.

    Your guy isn’t a leader. He can’t lead.

    Saying the voters are dumb or scared is pathetic.

    I remember a country that voted for Rogernomics.

    But John Key won’t be making that case. Because that’s not the direction he wants to go. Wake up people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    Ender, you are aware John Key is borrowing 10% of GDP this year are you?

    Three more years of John Key and we’ve caught up nicely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    Scott: I think John Key is at least on the right track

    So he borrowed $200 million last year, and is now up to $380 million a year, and runs a deficit of 17 billion, and that’s all the right track:

    Scott: Also I would say your comments are not making much sense. Presumably you are preferring labour’s economic management?

    Scott, you’re not making any sense. How can you defend John Key when he is DOING WORSE then Helen/Cullen ever did.

    I don’t prefer John Key. He is a proven disaster. Anyone else would be better frankly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. simpleton1 (184 comments) says:

    How much more time can we keep borrowing at these rates???
    Another election cycle?

    When if not already now, will the loose rope of “interest” and “refinancing” tangle around us and choke us?

    When will the lenders start to feel worried and start tightening those nooses? with interest rates and problems refinancing?

    Is there enough time to shift the thinking of this country, or will it come to a a jerking uncontrollable stop? What will trigger that? Then cuts may just have to be savage.

    A stop that will see superannuation being reduced and age limits lifted?
    Where free health will be more rationed and restrained by very tight budgets?
    Tertiary and varsity may have to be more fully financed by the student?

    Asset sales will be demanded, and probably no NZ entity will have the money to get it, so it will go overseas.
    Mining and drilling for oil (a deal for the privilaged) will be demanded.
    Ownership of farms, land, resorts will be demanded.
    Taxes will be increased, rejigged to increase government income as demanded by the lenders.

    It is like when I said at a local council meeting that I believe the rates are becoming extortionate and they were borrowing way too much, great for the library and swimming pool, and others ( I was shocked at quite a number) at the meeting told me to sell up, then I would not have to worry about making my rating payments. All they were concerned with was with the amenties, and I so figured they just rented.

    After all as I understand rates are to be paid for the benefit of all in society who are not so fortunate as per Henry George and more recent Rolland O’Regan as taught at varsity.
    Yet the council keeps on borrowing, and I believe with the intent that it will be to the value of bank interest that could be borne on my property. This is done not so much by the unwitting councillors, but by the trained university bureaucracy on nice income jobs.

    After this government borrowing as PaulL elegantly explains and others are so concerned, is that it seems as if the government is borrowing (enslaving) against us.

    At the moment our $NZ seems high and it looks like a good time to exit. Not easy and of course to be wary on not going from the frying pan into the fire, but there are places.

    Of course it is for the benefit of so many others in society so you would be considered a pariah to be against it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    simpleton1, it all doesn’t matter. John Key has a master plan. The voters are stupid. Can’t hear you nadanadanadanadanadanada.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. slightlyrighty (2,506 comments) says:

    Berend. Would you prefer Phil Goff? Another 3 years of Cullen and Clark? Really?

    What you propose cannot happen because the VOTERS WILL NOT LET IT!. This is not John Key’s fault. He has to play teh hand he is dealt and the electoral make up of NZ will not vote in the policies you want. Now if you read between the lines, Key is actually on the track you want, just not in the time frame you would like.

    I too want a productive NZ without the middle class welfare. The problem is that the party that publically advocates this in NZ at this point of time will never be in a position to put this into place, and I do not know what it would take to get you to see this. I thought ACT polling at 3.65% might give you a clue. The slow and incremental method is the only possible way to get the job done in NZ short of declaring a dictatorship. Is that what you want?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. ch123 (614 comments) says:

    You have to wonder though, with Labour polling so poorly if it would be worth a punt and going all out to cut spending as the campaign for the next election and hurry things along a bit. The only issue with that is it might just backfire and we’d see Labour back in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    berend

    Just read the bloody speech. Do you actually think that “building an economy” means that Key is going to nip down to Placemakers to pick up a wheelbarrow and a shovel? It isn’t a Modelair kit FFS. You can’t buy an export sector on Trademe. Do you think it is ONLY about government spending? How many fucking times do you have to be told that creating the right environment will let BUSINESS build an economy, which is the way it ought to be. Not the Government as was the case when Labour pigged out on a burgeoning public sector and primed the pump creating investment anomlies through the tax system, distorted the housing market, fueled interest rates, distorted relative returns on productive and non-productive investment and turned ‘ordinary hard-working’ people into beneficiaries with high tax rates and WFF.

    Have you noticed by the way, since the last election, that there have been a couple of earthquakes, the fucking trainset has to be fixed, ACC was fucked, South Canterbury is fucked, the US is fucked, Greece is fucked, Portugal is fucked, Ireland is fucked, which means that our dollar is decidedly unfucked, that farm commodity prices (you have heard of farming and its significance have you??) have been fucked and are only now becoming unfucked, that pulp prices are fucked, that fucking oil prices are through the fucking roof and are also decidely unfucked, the banks are fucked, the weather has been fucked (remember farming??) because there has been too much fucking rain and then not enough fucking rain and then even more rain so that by all accounts now all of fucking Hawke’s Bay has been fucked.

    Have you noticed that this government is trying to unclog redtape on the resource management front so that tree-hugging-crystal-wearing-hair-shirted-human-excrement-composting-unemployed-macrame-knitting-saline nasal inhalation devotee-pottery-making beneficaries can’t get in the way of intiatives just because they want to live in a mud fucking house in1376 AD. Have you notices any law changes around employment? Have you noticed that there are some changes in the wind on the regulatory front because the greedy old pricks that voted for the biggest slime in our political history were stupid enough to invest in a bunch of useless dodgy pricks. Have you noticed any changes to address structural deficiencies in our economy, like to encourage saving instead of pissing borrowed money up against the fucking wall on the real estate market? Have you noticed that the useless fucking seating-warming deadshit mates of the thieving fucking Labour party that were hired in the public service are getting chopped quicker than an Impreza in South Auckland? Have you noticed that less people are winging about the health system. Have you noticed that the Labour arse lickin pinko fucking teacher brigade are now being forced to confess that kids can’t even read and write. HAVE YOU NOTICED ANYTHING AT ALL???

    Has it ever occured to you that SOME OF THESE THINGS MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH PROVIDING THE RIGHT KIND OF ENVIRONMENT TO ALLOW THE PEOPLE THAT OUGHT TO BE BUILDING THE ECOMOMY TO GET ON AND DO IT, OR DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK THAT KEY SHOULD JUST BEND OVER AND PULL AN ECONOMY OUT OF HIS ARSE?

    No, no no. Of course not. Your solution is to ensure that Liabore gets back in and finally and completely fucks the whole fucking lot of us right up the arse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. tom hunter (4,665 comments) says:

    I guess this stuff does become repetitive as I can see from a Kiwiblog thread in 2009 where someone wrote that:

    Right now they are slowly making the public aware of what a mess Labour left us in.

    My response was as follows and included a reference to something I’d written even earlier:

    People have short memories and while they let Labour run this line for several years I doubt National will get more than two. After that the only thing people will notice is that we’re in the shit and National are in charge.

    That will then open up the argument by Labour that they can better manage the institutions of NZ society, that they’re more competent, a replay of the basic National argument through the 1950’s and 60’s. Worse, they will argue that the problems can be solved if only more money is spent on them, which the public will be receptive to after several years of “National hardship” (e.g. Restricting budget growth to 2% per annum).

    Those are losing arguments for National. Their focus should be on removing or reducing the areas those arguments play on. The alternative is something I pointed out in 2008, even as I voted for them:

    What is National going to do should it win this November beyond babysitting the institutions of Labour and the Left. Nursing those things along, tiring all the time and steadily losing votes simply by being in Government and getting blamed for the insanities of those self-same institutions. Until the day comes, one or two election cycles down the road, when a revitalised Labour gets back into power and gets to push forward some more. Ratchet Socialism at its best.

    I stand by those comments to this day. I certainly appreciate the arguments being made here about “not scaring the horses” and that attempting to rerun Labour’s top-down, like-it-or-lump-it approach would doom the whole effort.

    But here’s the thing. National and Key are not even really making the arguments that could provide the support for such changes. This speech is not that argument although it hints at what is truly required here by attempting to reach people on simple concepts such as spending and saving, with the focus on reducing the contribution the government makes in Kiwisaver, WFF and student loans.

    But the focus is still on government: what it has to do better in saving, borrowing, investing, etc. That’s fine as far as it goes – but it’s not pushing this argument into the broader areas that are needed to sustain these initiatives – the broader areas being the absolute need to enable people to become more independent of the government. If you get that going then you really do have something that is building on itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. KH (694 comments) says:

    Re Tom hunter at 6.09.
    Wrote a post well worth reading twice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    Tom H

    Your penultimate para, that message appears to have been starting this year and this speech, obviously is only part of that process. It is a moot point as to whether Key is too late in the process, but importantly, this message and today’s changes were set in a context of requiring electoral mandate for implementation. He has been very focussed on building electoral trust with the swinging votes and this does that. The judgement, right or wrong, appears to be that this term should largely be about that.

    Your final para – I think that is largely learned behaviour at the SME level (ignoring corporates). Just as a welfare mindset is learned behaviour and has to be ‘un-learned’. The former being much easier than the latter. I agree wholeheartedly about that “building on itself”. But I think that the paradigm shift needs to occur not only at the business level, but the social level also in order to maximise the momentum of change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    @slightlyrighty, haven’t you got some inclination how inept your defence of John Key sounds? Because you can’t point to a SINGLE thing John Key has done that is right wing. The voters won’t let him you scream. Well, the same voters voted for Rogernomics. So pardon me while I dismiss that argument.

    But let’s go over the things slowly:

    1. John Key did a deal with Helen to make smacking illegal, making most parents in this country criminals, if not that the police is usually to busy to persecute them.

    2. This John Key brought us the ETS which, as predicted, would give us slower economic growth. And some nice subsidies to certain National voters I presume.

    3. He hasn’t lowered any taxes, all his tax changes were supposedly budget neutral. They weren’t we have learned, he is borrowing for tax cuts. That’s insane.

    4. Catching up with Australia in 2025? He dismissed the task force.

    5. Youth unemployment? His government wouldn’t touch any policy that would make our youth a bit competitive in the market place (assuming they have no skills, they can only compete on wages, but are not allowed).

    I can continue.

    Now we have Helen/Cullen:

    1. they spent what we had, but didn’t borrow for their spending. John Key does.

    2. They didn’t give us any tax cuts, but John Key didn’t either: his package was budget neutral remember again? GST up, taxes down.

    On points, I’m sorry, Cullen and Clark did. Please do the math.

    Look at what John Key is ACTUALLY DOING. Close the eyes, dismiss the smile and wave, and look at THE RECORD.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    thedavincimode: berend, Just read the bloody speech.

    Brilliant advice. Let me quote the juicy bits you missed:

    The changes will be phased in over the best part of a decade and in fact most families will see increases in their Working for Families payments over this time.

    So eh, what does that mean? Increase in WWF for most families.

    Pardon me, need to find a bucket to puke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    @thedavincimode: How many ***** times do you have to be told that creating the right environment will let BUSINESS build an economy, which is the way it ought to be.

    Ah right, so that’s why GST is down, and AMI is being bailed out.

    From the speech: Interest rates are at historical lows

    Money printing at all time high.

    Government currently creating another monopoly with their fibre infrastructure scheme.

    Take that red pill davinci.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    @thedavincimode: Have you noticed that this government is trying to unclog redtape on the resource management front

    Ah, you mean the red tape bill ACT tried to get through parliament and which National neutered?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    tom hunter, your targeting the wrong party and the wrong voters here. Because they believe. In John Key. Whatever he does, it’s fine. Because he is. John Key.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. tom hunter (4,665 comments) says:

    Thanks KH, but I should clarify a little further what I think the approach should be.

    I agree with the davincimode (never seen him so pissed off actually) and others that the approach of berend and others to confront and tear down the public monstrosities would be a failure. I don’t advocate that confrontational approach.

    But I don’t agree with those who say that Key and company are doing the best they can given the political constraints of a left-wing NZ public or that the changes they are making will be permanent. In almost every example cited above I can see a future Labour government simply turning the dial back the other way and doing so in a equally soft manner (“Oh we’re just tightening the rules up a bit on the RMA to plug a few holes that opened up under that deregulating, hard-line, extremist right-wing National government…”).

    The approach I want to see is one where National focuses on setting up schemes that enable people to break free of dependence on government institutions, schemes that can be grown to compete with their public counterparts over time and I see only one area where that may be happening – Kiwisaver being sold as a top-up to National Superannuation.

    In light of that expectation, I think that National, with Key leading, should be laying out the arguments now, and repeating them endlessly in specific areas so the message is reinforced. That message is simple:

    – for their own sake, people cannot depend on government to the degree they do now.

    – if this continues then sooner or later government will fail them, as it failed them in the 1970’s and 1980’s, and they will actually be worse off, not better.

    – people must be given the chance and the incentives to begin supporting themselves and their loved ones, with the emphasis on making that support grow and strengthen steadily over time.

    All these points can be hammered home by focusing on four key aspects of people’s everyday lives:
    1 – retirement
    2 – education
    3 – healthcare (including work injuries)

    The focus in each case should be on four arguments.

    First, point out what has happened in these areas failing to live up to their socialist promises, and failing expensively. I think everyone, even the socialists (Kiwisaver was Cullen’s brainchild after all), now gets this with regard to National Super, but not with much else.

    Second, show how these areas will continue to degenerate if we keep doing what we’re doing now.

    Third, argue the changes that must be made, with the emphasis being less on “revolution” in the public institutions, than focusing on growing private institutions that people are already turning to from the public bodies that are failing them. Giving individuals the financial incentives and the legal defences that allow them to keep pushing in those directions.

    Fourth, Don’t ignore the privileges granted by government – just tie them to the changes – via tax credits for example. I’m not that keen on tax credits but any fiscal issues they create short-term are outweighed by their political strengths. They turn the Left’s primary electoral argument against them, in that voting for the Left will mean losing your tax credits for (health insurance, retirement investments, etc, etc). Sure, the argument will be made that such things “rob” the public institutions of money, but if that argument is engaged the whole process is stopped in it’s tracks right at the start, which is the intention of the Left anyway. Push it through and deal with the argument with actual spending and budget facts on the ground, rather then hypothetical, worst-case scenarios.

    Instead, the left will be forced into making a choice between the privileges they prefer – direct government benefits and support via government departments – or individualised privileges already locked in that people are using to support their own choices (or the usual fantasy land where endless amounts of money will feed both choices.) They will not be politically able to tear these new institutions down.

    In short, give people the means to at least start controlling their own solutions and their own lives, as they are already trying to do in these areas. Do that and the area that the left wish to play on will steadily shrink.

    Sadly I don’t think National will move in these directions and will find themselves polarised in bitter arguments over 1% tax cuts or 2% spending increases. Whatever moves to the private sector are being made now (i.e. Increased use of private hospitals) will have been made from the top down, via the public institutions: a change of government will simply mean the rules being changed again in the future. That’s a failure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. ch123 (614 comments) says:

    “1. they spent what we had, but didn’t borrow for their spending. John Key does.”

    You forget that we were in the biggest boom NZ has ever seen when Labour were in power, followed by a huge global recession which coincided with National coming to power. If Labour were still in power now, we’d be borrowing a lot more than what National is.

    No, I’m not apologizing for what the Nats are doing. I would like it if they slashed and burned and cut spending. But if they campaign on that I would think it’d be 50/50 over whether Labour or National would win the next election. Labour are polling badly, but if National came up with an ACT like package Labour would start polling better.

    And Labour’s only solution to anything seems to be increase spending to make more people dependent on the state (and therefore Labour) and increase taxing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    tom hunter: to confront and tear down the public monstrosities would be a failure

    ch123: if National came up with an ACT like package Labour would start polling better.

    National, with Don Brash, got within 17,000 of winning the election. Only Labour’s free student loan got them over the hurdle.

    But more importantly, this country voted for rogernomics. In 1987 Labour came back with an increased majority.

    The problem is John Key. He is not a right winger, and not a secret right winger. He doesn’t believe in what you guys believe in. That’s why he doesn’t do them, and doesn’t advocate them. Occam’s razor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. simpleton1 (184 comments) says:

    Berend,
    I simply asked a few rhetorical questions, that need real answers. Then I may understand John Keys master plan.

    At this stage it looks like a major liability and much too a close run thing time wise, with the earth quakes, finance/insurance companies, then the always droughts or floods next, world crisis oil, finance, war etc. and so as many are doing, shutting shop and packing their bags. Seems like John Keys master plan.

    Unlike Muldoons comment of raising Both IQ’s of NZ and Australia, I doubt that the voters left, will even be able to find the light switch.
    Right or Wrong, Muldoon became famous for his charts , explaining why he was trying to do what he was about.
    Sort of what we need now and much more of it. Perhaps that is Jon Keys plan

    Probably mis-edited the rates part of my comment.

    After all as I understand rates are to be paid for the benefit of all in societywho are not so fortunate as per Henry George and more recent Rolland O’Regan (author) as taught at varsity.

    I really meant that is how our bureacratic betters are taught and pracitise it on us. Not at all that I wish it to be.

    Rodger Douglas at the time said he did not count on incrementalness as he would have simply been derailed, so he just went for it. He knew if people slowed down and talked and questioned about it they would have gutted the changes that he felt were needed, and so little of changes would have been done. A bit like Anne Tolley pushing thru regardless with her changes.
    Sure I know he was still a devious politician in some other ways, but basically he got there at the time, and it basically has not been changed back.
    Just down right scary for many people that lost jobs, more than once, but set us up for a long time as we adapted then.

    Time is a worry as things can go more wrong and it does seem many people have no idea of economics except of distribution of social justice and all other nice sounding ways of putting it.

    Like I said in my earllier post of 5:26pm, the loose ropes of interest and refinance are around our necks and one sharp tug would have the Greek tradgedy played here too. Austerity campaigns will be to no avail, as we will pay the consequences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. ch123 (614 comments) says:

    WRT tom hunter’s 6:42 pm

    Good comments. I cannot for the life of me work out why National doesn’t continually point out in black and white what hasn’t worked in the past, how continuing on the path we are currently on will lead us all down the toilet, and what *has* to be done to fix the problems. But they seem to pussy foot around too much and if they have a long term master plan, aren’t sharing it with the rest of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. nasska (11,092 comments) says:

    thedavincimode 6.02pm

    Definitely the most unambiguous comment I have read on the blog this year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. ch123 (614 comments) says:

    “National, with Don Brash, got within 17,000 of winning the election. Only Labour’s free student loan got them over the hurdle.”

    Maybe so, but that was then and this is now. Many people have got used to their handouts from the govt. Never mind that it’s easier not to take it off them in the first place.

    “But more importantly, this country voted for rogernomics. In 1987 Labour came back with an increased majority.”

    I was under the impression before the 1984 election no one had any clue what Labour was going to get up to when they got into power. I was only 10 at the time so I don’t remember from then, just stuff I’ve read since then. But maybe my impression was wrong.

    But so what? They voted for Rogernomics again in 1987 but so many people these days seem to think Rogernomics was a bad thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    berend

    For the life of me I don’t understand why you can’t get it.

    At the margin, the people that voted in this government were beneficiaries eg WFF, student loans. They still are. Forget the arguments about chopping benefits of the genuinely disadvantaged so that they can increase the mud component of their diet by 50%. At the margin, the people that voted this government in are the same people that voted Labour back in in 2005 because of the gazillion dollar election bribe. At least, at the very, very least, please, please tell me that you understand that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. tom hunter (4,665 comments) says:

    But more importantly, this country voted for rogernomics. In 1987 Labour came back with an increased majority.

    In 1987 Labour could still appeal to it’s left-wing base in the unions, by allowing them to keep their privileges even as their members lost jobs in the government-owned businesses, and to the anti-nuclear crowd.

    Moreover they were still plugging SOE’s as simply making crappy old government departments run more like businesses – the whole asset-sale thing was only just getting underway so had not yet generated public angst.

    That plus pulling in a whole bunch of right-wingers. A classic bi-partisan vote but to be blunt one where most of the left-wing willingly allowed themselves to be duped: I lost track of the number of lifetime Labour voters I knew who continued the tradition even as they expressed concerns and reservations (“David won’t let that happen”). You should remember how quickly it all fell apart after the 1987 election when Roger and co attempted to push on.

    That’s not a scenario that National and ACT can rely on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. ch123 (614 comments) says:

    Right on the mark Tom. A lot of true blue national voters would have voted for labour in the 1987 election. I know I would have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. reid (16,181 comments) says:

    But so what? They voted for Rogernomics again in 1987 but so many people these days seem to think Rogernomics was a bad thing.

    That’s because Liarbore and the MSM continually since then and up to this day, paint it so, ch123, not because it actually is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Caleb (479 comments) says:

    National would have spent exactly the same as when labour where in government, bar the train set,

    labour would be borrowing a similar amount as National is now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. ch123 (614 comments) says:

    “National would have spent exactly the same as when labour where in government, bar the train set,”

    You don’t seriously think National would have set up a middle class welfare system, do you? The only reason Labour had to do that was to a) bribe the electorate and b) do something with their record surpluses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Caleb (479 comments) says:

    And National would never spend money in a surplus, with bribes to the electorate, to help stay in gov.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. reid (16,181 comments) says:

    And National would never spend money in a surplus, with bribes to the electorate, to help stay in gov.

    They may have Caleb but what they would not have done is done it in the scale Liarbore did it and to the extent the general taxpayer’s money (i.e. all of ours) benefited specifically Liarbore’s own electorate to the exclusion of the rest.

    Lefties don’t seem to see how very self-interested they are, compared to the people who aren’t lefty. They can’t seem to see that people who aren’t lefties, actually care about the whole population, not just those who vote or potentially vote lefty.

    Perhaps it’s because lefties are so wrapped up in “the cause” they can’t see that “the cause” isn’t the final arbiter of what is right and wrong. Equity and justice is. And that comes a distant second, in lefty decision-making.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. ch123 (614 comments) says:

    They may well have used the surplus to bribe the electorate, but it would have been in the form of lowering taxes instead of giving handouts with what was people’s money in the first place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Caleb (479 comments) says:

    true.

    still, tinkering with the new policys still does not solve the 15bn per year borrowing.

    the real issues are what we now see as core services, welfare, health and education.

    if the economy does not pick up, we will still need to borrow and service increasing debt levels.

    could be tight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. KevinH (1,192 comments) says:

    At the end of the day there really wasn’t a boom during Labours term, it was just an orgy of cheap credit that fuelled a huge property bubble that popped. The boom years were fake, and now we are stuck with a lag effect until the economy catches up and surpasses the debt level that accrued through unchecked speculation.(greed)
    Unless there is an unprecedented demand for our primary products, we are looking at a 5-10 year slog to achieve fiscal surplus again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. slightlyrighty (2,506 comments) says:

    Berend.

    1. The anti smacking law would have been passed with or without National Support. You forget that. What Key did was amend the legislation to make it less draconian. If he were to repeal that law then his opponents would lay the blame of any dead child at his feet. As it stands it’s not ideal but the amended legislation allowed for some interpretation. Again, politics is about the art of the possible, and what politician is going to campaign on the right to beat your kids? Do you want Key to commit electoral suicide?

    2. The ETS was brought in because NZ has to, for better or worse, comply with they Kyoto accord we signed up to. It is far less onerous that what Labour would have had us agree to but the results are such that Greenhouse Gases have reduced by 3%. A far better result than what labour achieved when they talked the talk but emissions increased under their watch. This is why when Key defends our clean green image overseas, he has more credibility than his predecessor.

    3. Budget neutral means that the government is taking the same amount in tax, but it is being structured differently. The last round of tax cuts actually benefitted those at the lowest level. They would have to have spend twice what they earned to end up paying more tax through GST. Those at the higher end of the scale had more money to save or invest, or should they chose to spend it, then they would be paying more, but that would be their choice, and secondary taxation is very hard to avoid.

    4. Catching up with Australia will always be an aspirational goal. You can snort at that if you you will, but if you to think about this with any dose of realism, you would understand why. The Australian economy, with its vast mining infrastructure, was always getting out of recession first. The Australian economy actually produce the things the world needs as it comes out of recession. We are not so lucky. To catch up to Australia, we would have to attain unprecedented growth and the Australian economy would have to crash. If the Australian economy tanks, so would ours. Australia have done it better. We should aspire to catch up with them, but it wont happen. Deal with it and worry about what we can do. Our econony will do better when the global economy has recovered. Theirs will do better while the global economy is recovering. Accept that REALITY. This government can no more catch up with Australia than ACT could if they had the chance. The gap was caused by 9 years of wasted economic growth. Guess when.

    5. Youth unemployment has been a problem since youth rates were abolished. Labour seemed to think that a school leaver with no skills was worth the same as an experienced adult. However, Nationals policy is to try and keep youth in education and training. However the number of young people in work has risen by 4200 in the last 12 months. In case you haven’t noticed. There has been a global recession, and jobs are harder to come by. Youth are having to deal with competing for jobs against far more experienced applicants. Better to stay in education rather than hunt for a job that isn’t there don’t you think? Better to require young people to engage in training rather than get the dole and study playstation 101?

    Now regarding Clark/Cullen.

    1. Not only ran up huge surpluses during
    their tenure, but did it by taking up to 8 billion dollars per annum out of the economy which could have been used by the private sector to save and or invest in the productive sector of NZ.

    2. Overtaxed us, and put in taxation regimes that encouraged investment in property to the point that the average wage can no longer buy the average house, even though banks were lending money to property developers to build houses that no one could afford to buy without the hefty mortgage, that were quite often given with no deposit and no savings record, while the economy was not producing the wealth to sustain the orgy of debt fuelled consumption. The may not have given us tax cuts, but WFF, Student Loans and Kiwisaver had the same effect. We were just being bribed with the same money they took of us to generate the surplus that made them look good and that they bribed us with so they would be re-elected.

    Oh, and who increasesd GST from 10% to 12.5%, without a corresponding income tax cut?

    Who caused the telecom share price to tumble with an off the cuff remark. Who caused the Auckland Airport share price to tumble? Who paid a frankly ridiculous price for Toll Rail? Who paid 800 million for 8 helicopters for the airforce that can’t even land on uneven terrain? Who paid for 3 times as many LAV’s that we could man for the Army? Who presided in the growth of the health bereaucracy to such a point that if all the back room staff in the health dept had to be hospitalised, there were not enough beds for them.

    Labour fucked this country, and the only saving grace is that is was not so fucked up we have had to take the Irish or Greek way out of the mess, which is frankly too painful. It will take time to gently un-fuck this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. reid (16,181 comments) says:

    The boom years were fake

    Boom years are always fake. e.g. The roaring twenties, the 80’s, the noughties.

    Unless there is an unprecedented demand for our primary products,

    Which there will be, continuing and increasing, as the third world grows more capable of buying our produce. However, we have structural deficits thanks to Liarbore and we have no ability to protect our lines of supply, thanks to both flavours of govt.

    It’s not all their fault, our domestic govt I mean, in that global forces have been operating for quite some decades, but our domestic govts of both flavours have done a more or less appalling job of positioning ourselves.

    The reason I hate Liarbore, is that when its in power, it does nothing whatsoever to position us, in favour of positioning themselves.

    Sometimes, conservatives aren’t so self-interested, but with the 5th National govt, the jury is still out, being as its the Key personality cult that seems to be the main determinant of “self-interest.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. SPC (5,532 comments) says:

    Actually paying down debt and using the Cullen Fund and Kiwi Saver to disperse the then surplus was doing something for us and not themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Nookin (3,257 comments) says:

    The supreme arrogance of the last labour government was its conviction that a disparate mob of socialists with no business experience could create value with the massive wealth that it extracted from those who could make it work. Instead, it squandered the opportunity, promoted mediocrity and dependance and fucked things up big time (to use a technical term).
    NZ has a huge problem with teenage unemployment – kids between 15 and 19. These kids went thru school during the labour era. Would we have had this problem if the government had set the bar higher — starting with performance pay for teachers?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. reid (16,181 comments) says:

    Actually paying down debt and using the Cullen Fund and Kiwi Saver to disperse the then surplus was doing something for us and not themselves. a political smokescreen.

    They could have paid down a fuckload more debt had Hulun not decided to launch an unpriced Student Loan policy at the last minute where it couldn’t be properly considered and debated by the electorate and which locked everyone in. It was aimed at the floating voter – who doesn’t think – and it fucked us and is still fucking us. The fact Key as leader of this conservative govt is too gutless to tackle it, doesn’t make the whole scheme correct.

    It was like if the Reserve Bank had said interest rates will be guaranteed to hold at 0.5% for the next five years forseeable future, go nuts.

    No difference, both in terms of cynicism from the offerer and gullibility from the takers.

    She didn’t have the power to order the RB to do that, but she had the power to order the Student Loan policy, which costs us about as much.

    WE as a country could have been debt free earlier than Aus was, had she devoted all the global-generated surpluses (incidentally not of Liabore’s making), to paying down debt.

    I agree the baby-boomer super issue is serious, and that’s the elephant in the room that politicians of all stripes are ignoring, and KiwiSaver was a start and so was the Cullen fund. But as a nation, just like a household, you have to rid yourself of the debt monkey and get yourself back to square zero before you start to consider that, and Hulun was too busy thinking about political self-enrichment schemes: i.e. those that helped her and/or Liarbore and fuck the rest of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. SPC (5,532 comments) says:

    Well I supported the interest free student debt scheme, though I would prefer it if the fees were set at higher levels to help afford it. The case for the scheme is that it provides an incentive to people to stay and work here and if they go overseas for the higher pay they pay interest on the debt while they are away (this requires improvement in collecting debt repayments from offshore).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. KH (694 comments) says:

    Kiwisaver is a great thing. But a huge problem to solve yet is that speedo Weldon and his gang get there paws on your money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (784 comments) says:

    “Prime Minister John Key said Government contributions currently made up half of all savings going into KiwiSaver ”
    so?
    The longer the scheme goes the smaller this percentage will get as the $1000 kick-starts will make up less of the totals

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. SPC (5,532 comments) says:

    He’s referring to the $1000 tax credits pa – many people only put in $1000 pa of their own to qualify for it.

    Then there is the lopophole to open accounts for those without jobs to get the $1000 start-up (that should end).

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.