Campbell on Goff

November 3rd, 2011 at 12:12 pm by David Farrar

I think it is safe to say that is not a right wing commentator or a former staffer for Jenny Shipley. He may of course be a member of the VRWNLLWC, but isn’t everyone. Here’s his opening lines today:

Any points may have won in the television debate a few days ago went west during last night’s public debate in Christchurch – which, as Vernon Small says, had turned into something close to a rout by night’s end.

The centre-left can feel justifiably furious at Goff and his minders for going into this debate without a narrative (much less a credible defence) for Labour’s election costings. Sorry, but “We’ll have them for you by the end of the week” doesn’t really cut it.

The problem with Labour is their tax cuts for everyone policy. It will require borrowing for the next six to seven years unless they cut spending elsewhere to pay for it.

Did you know under Labour’s tax policy, 40 out of the 43 Labour MPs will get an income tax cut? Yes, seriously. They are promising to borrow money for tax cuts. And this is based on their own costings.

My prediction on how Labour will suddenly balance their books? Look for them to find a way to get businesses to pay for it. For example, with some tweaking you can make money out of the ETS, so that businesses and hence consumers will pay for Labour’s tax cuts and spending promises.

The other way they might try and make their books balance is to assign their spending promises to the “future contingency” allowances in the Budget. Now this is legitimate to do to a point. But it loses credibility if you assign too high a proportion of the contingency allowance in advance, as that is saying there will be no room for any other spending in the next x years, such as public sector payrises.

 

Tags: ,

36 Responses to “Campbell on Goff”

  1. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    Did you know under Labour’s tax policy, 40 out of the 43 Labour MPs will get an income tax cut?

    And how many nactional pollies got a tax cut from Key’s last big give away to the already rich and not needy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Brad (75 comments) says:

    So just like National borrowed for tax cuts for themselves and their mates?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    As tom hunter said in another thread, “a really extreme right-winger would actually vote left-wing. It’s the surest way to end the insanity – and they won’t even be able to blame the right as they’ll have burnt the institutions down themselves.”

    In Labour’s case, raising the minimum wage to $15/hour and cutting taxes across the board would have to be funded by businesses, and consequently cause a rise in inflation as the costs are passed on to consumers. Then of course the minimum wage would have to rise to keep up, the $5,000 tax-free threshold wouldn’t be enough, and more costs would have to be passed on to businesses and thus on to consumers.

    It’s a death spiral since none of this makes NZ more competitive on a global scale, so eventually we’ll be importing more and exporting less (except jobs).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Cutting the Nats’ ETS carbon credit subsidies to greenhouse gas polluting businesses is a good idea, regardless of how else the money saved from this is spent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. BeaB (2,147 comments) says:

    So what do you two mean? Tax cuts for the rich are only bad when National does it? Or Labour have been lying for three years in opposition? Or they don’t know what they are doing? All of the above?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. burt (8,316 comments) says:

    BeaB

    The real story is that Labour policies are not exempt from the laws of maths, physics and reality. Having a progressive tax system as we do… when tax rates are increased that increase has a bigger impact on large earners… when tax rates are reduced that reduction has a bigger impact on large earners… The exception here is having a zero rated threshold but you could also say that effects higher earners more EG: First $5,000 tax free has a bigger impact for a person earning $10,000 than a person earning $3,000.

    So, all this “tax cuts for the rich” from Labour is complete BS – they are trying to tell us porkies and sadly some people don’t understand enough about tax systems to see through it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. burt (8,316 comments) says:

    BeaB

    Let me know if you would like to discuss the incentives to avoid tax with “rich prick” taxes… I can talk at length about that but don’t have time right now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. David Farrar (1,902 comments) says:

    MINJ and Brad miss the point. Neither National nor ACT are promising tax cuts until we are back in surplus. Labour is promising to borrow for tax cuts so 40 of its 43 MPs will get a tax cut.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. burt (8,316 comments) says:

    BeaB

    Oh sorry one more thing… You may recall Cullen was against tax cuts in part because he couldn’t reduce taxes on low earners without giving bigger reductions to high earners. So he did nothing and fiscal drag gave us a surplus. Translated… Wage inflation was used to overtax NZ workers making them poorer while the govt got richer. Faux surplus as Cullen use to call it, he just never told us what it really was – over taxation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. burt (8,316 comments) says:

    I can’t believe that Labour policies rely on a lack of understanding in the voters to look like good policies… well actually they are socialists – why am I surprised they use deception to gain popularity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    MNIJ continues with his purile, nah nah, na nah nah argument in his very first comment.
    Quite pathetic really.

    Jack. Please try harder. You are embarrasing your own team.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. burt (8,316 comments) says:

    When will socialists learn that tax is govt revenue and tax cuts are a reduction in revenue not an increase in expenses. IE: The govt is not spending to reduce taxation.

    Perhaps it’s all too complicated for slogan repeaters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Nookin (3,465 comments) says:

    Bereal
    MNIJ does not have an argument – just the occasional belligerent belch followed by a recovery period to allow the bile to settle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    “Labour is promising to borrow for tax cuts so 40 of its 43 MPs will get a tax cut.”

    David, you’re about as honest as John Key when he says there’s been no cuts to front line health services. I think you’ll find that Labour didn’t propose the $5000 tax free policy to enrich themselves but to benefit the low paid. You probably already knew that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. burt (8,316 comments) says:

    ross

    It’s Labour constantly distorting the reality of having a progressive tax system by repeating the slogan that “National gave tax cuts to the rich”. Unfortunately for Labour they can’t change the laws of physics, maths or reality and their tax cuts have the same effect. I suspect DPF is just pointing this out and sadly people like you seem to dim to get the point he is making.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. burt (8,316 comments) says:

    What I want to know is why only 40 out of 43 will get a “tax cuts for the rich” from Labour – what happened to the other 3 ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    The young people in CHCh , are now saying that John Key is a bully. He is bringing back memories of school days for some of them. Previously, he has tried to cultivate a nice guy image..This seems to be going out the window in the debates. Smart alec behaviour is not attractive to many voters..Of course , those who have watched parliamentary TV have seen the real Key before so are unsurprised.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. ROBBO (14 comments) says:

    Oh dear Joana,

    Its a shame the poor dears are too young to remember Aunty Helen then…. still, Trevor Mallard is still around if they want to see exemplary behaviour from politicians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. BeaB (2,147 comments) says:

    joana Not the young people I know who see Key as the key to their future while Goff makes them want to run screaming to Australia.

    And those of us who have met Key know he’s the real thing while you never know which Goff is going to turn up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    ross, you keep telling us that there have been cuts to front-line health services. Where’s your proof?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. tvb (4,508 comments) says:

    Key did one important thing in this debate and that is place Labour on the defensive regarding their figures. I think Labour were hoping to put Key on the defensive and sneak through this election without revealing their figures. Goff has now committed them to revealing them. All the Government needs to do is trash Labour’s figures which should not be difficult. We all know the revenue increases Labour has announced are well in the future. The gap has to be filled by more borrowing. But we are at the extremes of borrowing now with a credit downgrade to remind us. On CHCH we have to hope there will not be a similar event in the next 50-60 years. The compensation for CHCH cannot be afforded in another city for a very long time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    joana
    i assume you are talking about BOTH the young people in Christchurch that you know and their parents are both school teachers.
    You need to get out more babe.
    Broaden your circle.
    Open your mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    Off topic, but I learnt last night that the principal at my kids primary school receives (‘earns’ would be the wrong word) over $110k p/a, for a school with a roll of 200.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. leftyliberal (651 comments) says:

    @burt: Just use the law of maths. Labour are proposing to raise the tax rate on those earning over $150k by 6% whilst introducing a tax-free rate at the bottom end up to 5k (with the current 10.5% rate kicking in above that), thus anyone earning around (5000 * 0.105) / 0.06 = 8750 more than $150k will be paying more tax, anyone less than that less tax. We may thus conclude that 40 out of 43 Labour MPs are earning less than $158,750.

    No idea where the laws of physics come into it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    I learnt last night that the principal at my kids primary school receives (‘earns’ would be the wrong word) over $110k p/a

    > Haha sounds like you are envious of the rich prick.

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

    Goff cannot possibly deliver “truthful” numbers either this week, or the next.

    Go back to when he announced a CGT, and what $$$ were involved… he didn’t know the “exact” figures and was going to appoint a panel to look at it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. BeaB (2,147 comments) says:

    RightNow
    Principals and teachers are very well paid and also enjoy a short year (39 weeks) and a short day (5-6 hours) and plenty of discretionary time for preparation, marking, meetings, sports etc. That was a great attraction for me to enter teaching where I stayed happily for 32 year as teacher and then high school principal. A priceless boon to be able to spend every school holiday at home with the family.

    It’s a great job, generously rewarded and that’s why we are entitled to expect that every kid should be reading and writing at their chronological age after EIGHT years of primary school.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    > ross, you keep telling us that there have been cuts to front-line health services. Where’s your proof?

    Don’t you read the papers? If not, google is your friend.

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

    Using Treasury estimates to defend your policies- LOL John.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    ross, despite what the LIAR Michael Cullen said, $110k is nowhere near ‘rich prick’ level. And rather than being envious, I’m disappointed in the principal for the way she runs the school, and she is unlikely to retain her job for long since we’ve proven she isn’t abiding by MoE regulations for filing financial reports.

    And I’ve proven in other threads that YOU ARE A LIAR.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Nothing wrong with my mind bereal. Rude is rude in most people books,..The young ones fond of Key are mainly following him because their parents are..the issue is the capital gains tax..Their parents are property investors. Not too much original or deep thinking going on..The brighter young ones are talking about selfish voting as opposed to voting for the good of the country. They consider the above voting to be selfish voting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    joana, if their parents are property investors then they’re already paying tax on capital gains. But don’t let the facts get in the way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. trout (944 comments) says:

    What is it with the Education industry? Canty University is losing 20,000 students because of the e/q so they go running to the Government for $120mill. so they can continue as if nothing has changed. No mention of restructuring to suit circumstances, or realigning services to suit demand. (There are too many Unis duplicating degrees in NZ anyway). It would be great if business could run to the Govt. every time there is a downturn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. adze (2,129 comments) says:

    Trout
    I think something has to change fundamentally with tertiary education. Degrees are becoming just too expensive (and domestic students don’t pay the full cost in spite of this). They take too long and due to their ubiquity lose their competitive value in the workforce.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. jaba (2,146 comments) says:

    “So just like National borrowed for tax cuts for themselves and their mates?” I love how people like Brad above refer to John Key AND HIS MATES .. such a boring statement
    Petrol tax will be increased, the ETS will have money siphoned off and goodness knows what else the “Expert Tax Panel” can dream up

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Matthew Hooton (131 comments) says:

    DPF: You’re right, yes, Gordon is part of the VRWNLLWC. I recently apologised to him for having previously called him evil: see http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2011/10/10/gordon-campbell-on-rnz%E2%80%99s-banning-of-bomber-bradbury As Clare Curran knows, with these non-labour-left lefties, that’s enough for them to join up to the cabal.

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