About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

April 3, 2006 8:04am by David Farrar

TV3 Poll

The TV3 poll, like most post-election, is not showing much change with Labour 3% ahead of National.

Share this:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment33

Uncategorised
Polls

Related Stories

NZ Herald Poll
TV 3 Poll
TV polls concur on Labour’s plight

Comments (33)

Login to comment or vote

tincanman

But, statistically something like 52% of Kiwis also support banning of tobacco. (Last night) I have to laugh at the silliness that some people come up with.
0 0
Report
April 3, 2006 8:10am
tim barclay

The Labour polling is probably an overstatement but National still has a huge hurdle to mount. Taking in the Greens the Labour Party could easily form a red-green centre-left Government for a fourth term.
0 0
Report
April 3, 2006 8:45am
Paul W

Actually, I’d be a little disappointed with this result if I was National. They’ve had their best run in Opposition for a long while and not significantly dented Labour’s support. I’m sure there’ll be howls of protest, but it’s now time to change leader.
0 0
Report
April 3, 2006 8:48am
David Farrar

I always find former staffers of Helen Clark are the best people to advise National on who should be leader. Yeah right.

The poll simply shows that the situation is unchanged from the election. People are tuned out of politics for now but that will change.
0 0
Report
April 3, 2006 8:55am
Paul W

By this analysis, you’d be unable, unwilling or unqualified to comment on Labour party issues?

So when am I permitted to make such comments, it’s been 9 years since I worked for Labour – that’s half a lifetime for most of the correspondence to this blog!

Regardless, it’s hardly a major insight – I’m simply re-stating what appears to be a well supported view about Brash’s leadership (well supported that is by the evil left wing media…)
0 0
Report
April 3, 2006 11:58am
David Farrar

Paul – I think people should give just as much weight to my recommendations on whom Labour should elect leader, as National would give to you.
0 0
Report
April 3, 2006 12:15pm
Paul W

David, it’s a pretty unsophisticed point you’re making – that someone’s previous employment disqualifies their views.

Like you, I’ve been in and around politics for sometime and, like you, I have views across the spectrum. I’ll stick to my view that National ought to have made greater in-roads on Labour’s vote but hasn’t and should look at all aspects of its approach, including it’s leadership.

That’s not a partisan view, it’s an obvious one.
0 0
Report
April 3, 2006 12:48pm
Cadmus

DPF, didn’t the ACT Party make the cut again?

I see the article said ACT would hold 1 seat. I doubt it!
0 0
Report
April 3, 2006 12:57pm
darren

The trouble is, much potential support for National, is fleeing to Australia- 600 or more each week. Perhaps 90,000-100,000 come the next election.
More if the economy keeps heading downhill.
Again, this leaves a large Lar-bour voting beneficiery community behind.

Furthermore, as Richard Prebble notes in the Letter today. Working for other People’s Familes has just created some 600,000 voters whose incomes depend on government largresse.
Thus, those on middle class welfare now have an advantage to keep Liar-bour in power.

The growth of government is keeping ever greater numbers dependent on the state, be they nurses or pen pushing bureachcrats and assorted policy analysts in Wellington. Thus, Liar-bour can count on a huge ‘payroll vote.’
No wonder David that you and Mark Blumsky did not do so well at the election, your prospective constutuents probably depended on the survival of Helengrad for their livlihoods.
Prebble notes less than a quarter of New Zealand taxpayers actually pay their way, so there are few people who benefit from small government.

I guess I am one of these taxpayers, paying for other people familes, etc. Certainly the burden I feel is growing and it is making it damned hard to make any progress in New Zealand.
This Atlas certainly feels like shrugging and buggering off to Australia.
One day, Helen Clark might just have to say to her missing taxpayers and the departed productive elements of the New Zealand economy:
“Where the bloody hell are you?!”
0 0
Report
April 3, 2006 1:19pm
foz

bye
0 0
Report
April 3, 2006 3:58pm
Michael

I think the real issue is that most people hate and fear National more than they dislike Labour. We saw National’s ugly side during the 2005 election campaign (never far from the surface) and we won’t forget it in a hurry. If National wants to become electable it’s got to jettison the hard right, religious fundamentalists and racist bigots. I think that would still leave a few people in the caucus room – but they would be the nucleus for a grouping that reflects traditional New Zealand values of tolerance and fairness.
0 0
Report
April 3, 2006 5:01pm
Ross Miller

Pretty shallow analysis guys. The latest TV1 poll had National up and Labour down with National ahead of Labour. The TV3 poll shows National up and Labour down with National ahead of Labour ….. nuff said.

And Michael ….. most racist bigots I know tend to be Labour supporters …. ever met a Wharfie?
0 0
Report
April 4, 2006 7:35am
Ross Miller

re my last. Sorry, finger problems. The TV3 Poll, while showing National up and Labour down, still had Labour ahead. But that doesn’t alter the essential premise which was to point out the trend.
0 0
Report
April 4, 2006 9:22am
PaulL

I think there is a valid question here about whether NZ will elect a right wing govt again in the near future. The problem of the loss offshore of those with more get up and go (who are less likely to favour govt intervention in their lives – they don’t need it or believe that other need it), and the continuing deficiency in the education system that leaves large segments of the population unable to comprehend basic logic and mathematics, will result in people believing a history lecturers pronouncements on how the economy runs over a former governor of the reserve bank.

I guess for me it isn’t a big deal – I am living in Australia and saving for my retirement, I own property in NZ still and may retire there. NZ under current policies will become a low wage country with beautiful scenery, which suits my retirement plans rather well. I just hadn’t imagined in my vision for NZ that our competitive advantage was that we were a pretty place to retire with low cost English speaking labour to wipe my bottom as I slowly go senile.
0 0
Report
April 4, 2006 9:50am
Ben Wilson

PaulL, you didn’t notice that Australia, despite having a rightist government, still has a state that totally dwarfs NZ’s?

I seem to recall in my time there a few years ago, that I had to pay 47% income tax, with 2% medicare levy, 10% GST, 5% Super, just to name the big taxes. Then there were all the little ones like registering your car costing $400, and buying a car having the cost of running all of Geelong factored into it.

But I didn’t grudge paying all that tax because ozzie is a living testament to what can be acheived with a sensible and active state – a place with decent infrastructure and a really good lifestyle. And the people are nice too.
0 0
Report
April 4, 2006 10:26am
iiq374

Ben – what he probably noticed is because of the difference in levels at which the taxes kick in the cross over is still at income levels of over $110,000. So the burden of the state on each person / family is still way lower – especially for the middle class.

Medicare is 1.5% and Super is 9% – although classifying super as a tax seeing as it goes into your own personal super fund is really streching it. And the fact that super savings are only taxed at 15%?
0 0
Report
April 4, 2006 11:40am
iiq374

Ben – what he probably noticed is because of the difference in levels at which the taxes kick in the cross over is still at income levels of over $110,000. So the burden of the state on each person / family is still way lower – especially for the middle class.

Medicare is 1.5% and Super is 9% – although classifying super as a tax seeing as it goes into your own personal super fund is really streching it. And the fact that super savings are only taxed at 15%?
0 0
Report
April 4, 2006 11:47am
Ben Wilson

iig374, since I can’t get the super I earned in ozzie until I’m 55, I really do see it as a tax. I have far better uses for that money right now, as I have a new baby, but nanny Howard knows best?

I’m not sure how right you are about the tax levels, since I read that they all changed last year. But when I was there 5 years ago, the highest marginal tax rate started at $60k. It was a shitload more tax than I was paying in NZ. And again I don’t begrudge it – I’m sure that the increased tax burden was a major source of Australia’s general prosperity.

It was 5% on super, but you could opt for more if you wanted. If I was planning to live in Australia forever I might have done that, it had good tax advantages. But I opted for the minimum of 5%.
0 0
Report
April 4, 2006 12:47pm
iiq374

I can’t get the super I earned in ozzie until I’m 55 But you still get it – I’m not disputing whether it is good / bad etc, but it has to be differentiated at least. Especially with the fantastic tax advantages! 😉

The current minimum is 9% contribution. It started at 3% when it was first introduced and has been incremented since then.
0 0
Report
April 4, 2006 1:35pm
Kimble

“I’m sure that the increased tax burden was a major source of Australia’s general prosperity.”

yup, because high taxes cause economic prosperity. They also cause racial harmony, increased company profits, a flexible labour market, a winning sporting culture, slot machines that pay out 5 percent more, Ian Thorpe’s big feet, and razors that stay sharp 30 percent longer!
0 0
Report
April 4, 2006 1:53pm
iiq374

For a good look at some worked examples of the comparison have a look at:
http://burtnz.blogspot.com/2006/03/spin-or-lie-you-decide.html

Otherwise you can check from this too:
Aussie Tax Rates (http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/12333.htm)
$0
0 0
Report
April 4, 2006 1:59pm
Ben Wilson

iig374, it’s semantically different only. In practise it’s the same as if I paid extra tax for pensions, and then got one myself. In fact it’s stinker, because that tax could be paying pensioners now, not sitting in some fund for 30 years making fund managers rich. My riches in ozzie are only one stock and property market crash away from complete annihilation. Or one change in government policy.

Kimble, you’re probably right on most counts there, except Thorpedo’s big feet – that is nature, but the 15 years in a swimming pool are all nurture from nanny (and a lot of hard work by Thorpe).
0 0
Report
April 4, 2006 2:41pm
PaulL

Ben,

There is a lot of disagreement about the details of the tax rates etc. Focus on the key facts here: average income much higher, income for those at the top end much higher. Gap increasing at a higher rate than it was under National. Blame what you like, NZ is losing ground. If we agree that it is too hard to tie individual policies back to measures like productivity, surely we can agree that average income is a useful measure that the govt should be accountable for.

If we cannot, then there are two options:
1. The govt doesn’t influence average income. I think that they do, and that some of the policies of the current govt discourage increase in average income. If this is your position, then we agree to disagree?
2. Average income doesn’t matter.

If point 2 is your position, then I guess we are in the world that I am often in with some on the left – we believe that success and happiness are measured by things other than income, but at the same time we think we have justification to run policies that redistribute substantial chunks of income from one person to another, presumably on the basis that doing so is fair.

My problem is that if income is not important (and therefore it isn’t important to try to ensure that everyone in the country’s income goes up), then I am not sure why we need to waste our time redistributing it, particularly to middle income earners who already have “sufficient” by most people’s definition.

Surely if those receiving the income thought it was important to have more, they would organise their lives to have more – perhaps by working longer hours or by changing what they do from day to day in order to get paid more (both things that I had to do in order to get the income that I get).

Note here that I am not taking issue with basic income transfers to those who genuinely do not have enough income to support themselves, I am taking issue with transfers to middle income earners.
0 0
Report
April 4, 2006 3:07pm
iiq374

The risk on those funds is no different to the Cullen fund – and your comments have shown precisely why that type of compulsory saving is required. In practise it is the same only if your pension was indexed (positively) according to how much tax you paid during your working life. Effectively here the means testing makes pensions here negatively indexed.
0 0
Report
April 4, 2006 3:17pm
PaulL

OK, lots more came in since I submitted that.

1. Headline tax rates aren’t of much use without looking at the deductions. As a percentage of GDP the Australian govt takes less in tax than the NZ (excluding superannuation). The difference is the huge range of deductions that result in most Australians earning over 150K paying very little tax

2. You could argue that super in Australia is a tax, by that definition ACC levies in NZ, car registration, and in fact anything that the govt makes compulsary is a tax. My definition is that if the govt takes money off me and gives me back something that bears no resemblence to my contribution, then it is a tax. If the govt takes something off me and gives me back something in proportion to my payment then it isn’t a tax. Super with individual accounts isn’t a tax, general tax with a flat rate pension is a tax. Car rego isn’t a tax, rates are a tax. I know, probably not the official definition, but it works for me. And I can get my super back by going to the UK.

3. I will ignore the comment about higher taxes creating prosperity – I am not aware of any reputable economist who believes that based on economic theory – although I agree that there are some who believe that based on them wanting to live in a world that works that way

I am in Australia right now, and I can tell you that after tax, my income is substantially higher than it would have been in NZ. That is a fact. I earn more gross, my tax as a percentage is about the same after deductions. The failure of the NZ govt is to create an economy that is able to pay people more, not a failure to divide our income fairly amongst the people in NZ. As long as we are a poor country we will have to argue about whether we can afford first world healthcare, first world superannuation, and to care for the environment the way we want to. All of those things cost money, and are easier when you are wealthier.
0 0
Report
April 4, 2006 3:34pm
Ben Wilson

PaulL “excluding superannuation” is not something I’ll have the luxury to do for 23 years with my money in ozzie. Sorry mate, that’s tax. And yup ACC levies, car rego etc, those are taxes. I don’t buy your definition that it’s not a tax if it’s not redistributive. Parking meters are a tax too, user pays.

You can ignore my prosperity point only if you limit your list of ‘reputable economists’ to people who agree with your view. That’s not an argument.

In ozzie my income was higher too. That’s rather irrelevant and brings me to your previous post. You are attempting to make it a race for income with Australia. Well, if so, we will certainly lose.

Australia has far too many advantages over us. They are much more massive, with enormous mineral wealth, comparable agricultural resources, 5 times the population, with an already established industrial base. They are much closer physically to Asia for trade. Their infrastructure is far more developed. This is not a race that we can win. Nor should we be aiming to. If you want more money, by all means go to ozzie. I did. But NZ has it’s own advantages, particularly in lifestyle. It is arguably a fairer place with less of a huge gap between classes, less of an oppressed indigenous population. And it’s home for me and all other NZers, and that counts for a lot.

In summary, if you’re all about the money, go to ozzie. Fine. Why stop there? Go to England, or New York, or Dubai. Personally I’m happy here.
0 0
Report
April 4, 2006 6:04pm
Red Fred

Hear! hear! Ben,exactly.No one yet tho has mentioned stamp duty on houses and cars in Aussie, in Queensland it is 2%
0 0
Report
April 4, 2006 7:52pm
PaulL

Right. So we are down to the old “money isn’t everything argument.”

Ben: “This is not a race that we can win. Nor should we be aiming to. If you want more money, by all means go to ozzie. I did. But NZ has it’s own advantages, particularly in lifestyle.”

So if money isn’t all that important, why do we need to give middle class folks money taken (taxed) from other (perhaps wealthier) folk. They have enough to meet their needs, and lifestyle makes up for it – for example the satisfaction of having children.

If we agree that some people are happy having less money, then let them make that choice. Other people are happier with more money, why do we feel the need to take it off them to avoid “inequality.” We don’t feel the need to take leisure time from those who are leisure time wealthy and give it to those who are leisure time poor, nor do we redistribute other elements of “lifestyle.” Why is money special given that we think that it is not the be all and end all.

This is one of my great annoyances, I clearly recall when I went to university some of my acquantances studying liberal arts, and telling me (studying computer science) that whilst they knew I would get paid more, they would be more than compensated by their understanding of the arts or whatever – basically, lifestyle. I am fine with that, I have no desire to force my choices on others. What I don’t understand is why, knowing that they made that active choice, some of those same people now say that I should be taxed at a higher rate in order to transfer income to them (they earn a reasonable middle income wage) – surely the same argument still applies, and by their measurement criteria they are still better off. What changed that I must now be taxed? And if it changed, why don’t they retrain and move into IT or some other higher paying sphere?

Ben: “It is arguably a fairer place with less of a huge gap between classes, less of an oppressed indigenous population.”

Yes, it has a flatter income distribution – there is less potential to earn “the big dollars.” And I can see that you value that. What I don’t understand is when we decided that equality was a public good, knowing that equality essentially means reducing the incentives to better yourself.

To be more specific, I am very interested in equality of opporutnity, and in everyone having a basic minimum income. I don’t see equality of outcome being necessarily desirable, you seem to see it to be a good thing. To me, it is simply forcing people into a one size fits all package, I don’t see the benefit in that. Of course, that is what our current govt is good at, but personally I believe that we are all individuals, and that we can all make our own choices, subject to a basic safety net if we get things wrong. Not everyone values the same things, and trying to give everyone the same of everything is non-sensical.
0 0
Report
April 4, 2006 8:51pm
iiq374

Ben – congratulations on being the perfect Socialist – Too dumb and greedy to grasp the concept of savings for retirement so creating a burden on whichever welfare system is unlucky enough to have you retire in.

Australia’s tax free day is still a few weeks before ours – they pay less tax by virtually any measure you want to take.

And you are wrong when you point to Australia’s mineral resources as a key differential point – you need to point to Australia USING their mineral resources as the differentiator. The RMA keeps killing our attempts to use our gold etc.

And it’s home for me and all other NZers, and that counts for a lot. I now wich it was only the latter.
0 0
Report
April 5, 2006 6:41am
Ben Wilson

PaulL, in case you didn’t notice, they also have a welfare state in ozzie, and England, and even the US. They are just richer because they are older, more established, bigger, and better placed.

I don’t believe in equality of outcome at all, and this does not happen in NZ. Your computer programming job makes you plenty of money to spend on yourself. This is it’s own reward.

But my sticking point with the unfairness-of-progressive-taxation point you are trying to make is that it is well known that in a capitalist system (and we are still a capitalist system) that the biggest money earner is not work, but *capital*. In some cases it is fairly acquired by a man with nothing rising to wealth. But most of the time it accrues in families and perpetuates, with the gap slowly widening through the simple law of “we got there first”. I find that unfair and have always supported progressive tax as a result, and huge death duties too.

iig374, I’m surprised at you turning nasty, you were doing pretty well for a while. I lived in Australia, myself, personally, for 5 years not that long ago, and it was a great place, but don’t try to tell me I paid less tax, that is utterly false. I know how much tax I paid in both countries and I was earning the same money initially. In ozzie I earned a lot more eventually, comparable to what I earn here now, and I paid a shitload more tax there than I’m paying now.

And I said before I didn’t begrudge it because I could see that the tax I paid was one of the things that made Australia great. Why they are now seeking to emulate the NZ model I don’t know. If we are agreed that Australia is a much richer country and that taxation might have some influence, why did they rush to emulate the taxation model of a poorer country? I put it to you it was simply greed on the part of the wealthy classes who make the decisions in Australia. Or fuxored economic thinking that got caught up in the neoliberal (failed) experiment in NZ.
0 0
Report
April 5, 2006 9:39am
iiq374

We’re obviously going to have to agree to disagree on the tax 😉 In part because of definition – it is obvious we are not going to change each others mind about the super contribution.

Posting at the end of a 12 hour work day does bad things for irritation – normally I’d be having anyone else up for playing the man and not the ball.

You’re point of “old” money is certainly true as of about 50 years ago – but has become progressively untrue. In fact the “rule” of the third generation bankrupting the empire is becoming increasingly true all the time. Even in England with some of the most entrenched capital empires you are seeing the declines of many estates – even the Royals are coming under pressure there.
Even if it was true it would not be a valid case for progressive taxation – higher investment tax maybe (which is also patently unfair), but otherwise you are taxing to keep people in their class of birth – not allowing chance for this generation.
0 0
Report
April 5, 2006 10:34am
Ben Wilson

Progressive taxation is simply a recognition of 2 things:
1. The rich are already doing very well. They don’t *need* the money. To be rich is a reward in itself, giving the person privileges far in excess of their contributions to society (typically).
2. Gradually widening wealth gaps are generally bad for society as a whole. They create a classed society in which most people do not have a chance regardless of talent, and the rich have the power to entrench their preexisting privilege.

Both of these points are as true as they ever were. The only thing that’s changed is that the wealth gaps got less as a result of progressive income tax and death duties. I do not lament in any way the demise of the English Royals, who are only in their incredibly privileged positions out of simple luck, the luck of having been born into families that managed to rort the peasantry centuries ago.
0 0
Report
April 5, 2006 1:33pm
iiq374

Progressive taxation is simply a presumption of those 2 things. Along with the assumption that the only people to make a reasonably large amount of money over a short period are those who are wealthy.

The truely rich still cannot use their wealth to entrench their privilidge – passive investment of liquid wealth does not create wealth as quickly as active creation. Furthermore the narrowing of the gaps where this has occurred is to do with empire splitting amongst hiers, hiers destroying their empires, etc.

I like you do not mourn the passing of the monarchy’s wealth – I am just using it as an example that empires of cash do not last. And I hate to burst your bubble but that was nothing to do with progressive taxation.

The people most hurt by progressive taxation have always and will continue to be those attempting to move upwards through a class barrier – not those already there.
0 0
Report
April 5, 2006 2:30pm

« The problem with state control

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Highlights

The Kiwis are fleeing
Inflation by term
Houston we have a problem
Our immunisation disaster

Top Stories

General Debate 18 April 2024
This could explain the brickbat
No excuse for fleeing
We still have an inflation problem
UK Labour Deputy Leader in trouble
Ministry of Education Cuts in Perspective.
General Debate 17 April 2024
Graham Adams on MACA and the Court of Appeal
Fire and Emergency costs blowout
The Cass Report

Recent Posts

No excuse for fleeing 18 April 2024
This could explain the brickbat 18 April 2024
General Debate 18 April 2024 18 April 2024
We still have an inflation problem 18 April 2024
UK Labour Deputy Leader in trouble 17 April 2024
Ministry of Education Cuts in Perspective. 17 April 2024
Graham Adams on MACA and the Court of Appeal 17 April 2024
General Debate 17 April 2024 17 April 2024
Fire and Emergency costs blowout 17 April 2024
The Cass Report 16 April 2024
Another badly designed cycleway 16 April 2024
General Debate 16 April 2024 16 April 2024

Never miss a post

Email Address

Recent Comments

General Debate 18 April 2024
NZer In Exile
No excuse for fleeing
NZer In Exile
We still have an inflation problem
NZer In Exile
No excuse for fleeing
Ghost
No excuse for fleeing
Ghost
No excuse for fleeing
NZer In Exile
General Debate 18 April 2024
NeverMindTheBollocks
No excuse for fleeing
Ghost
No excuse for fleeing
Rich Prick
No excuse for fleeing
Rich Prick
General Debate 18 April 2024
NeverMindTheBollocks
General Debate 18 April 2024
Piniwi
This could explain the brickbat
NeverMindTheBollocks
No excuse for fleeing
NeverMindTheBollocks
General Debate 18 April 2024
greybeard

Links

Breaking Views Update: Week of 14.4.24
Breaking Views
Crafting a Comprehensive Business Plan for Startup Success
The Daily Blog
Open mike 19/04/2024
The Standard
Climate Change: Turning the tide
No Right Turn
A question for you all on those sackings
Not PC
Despair - construction consenting edition
Offsetting Behaviour
A Water Tank Is Not A Fire Risk
No Minister
Jones finds $410,000 to help the government muscle in on a spat project
Point of Order
Word of the day
Hompaddock
What Time Is The Protest March To The Iranian Embassy?
Utopia
RACIST ADVERTISING
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Is the state coming for churches?
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
Super Rugby Predictions for Week 9
Stats Chat
Coalition Promises
NZCPR
Tougher than that
Croaking Cassandra
ABs stripped of 2011 title after try disallowed
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2024 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d