By Alex Tarrant
ACT Party leader Don Brash says the government's borrowing programme is irresponsible, and that the economic goal of the ACT Party for reductions in government spending does not call for a 'hard-right' agenda.
Brash said he wanted government spending to be back at the level seen in 2005 at the end of the previous Labour government's second term. The changes - reversing some of the "seriously stupid policies" from Labour's third term - could take place over three to four years, Brash said.
Brash rolled former ACT leader Rodney Hide in a coup last week, which had Labour and other left-wing parties claiming a future National-ACT coalition government would move toward the right due to Brash's influence on the economic policies of such a government.
Brash's latest public role was to lead the contreversial 2025 Taskforce, set up by the National-led government in its election agreement with the ACT Party to look at how New Zealand could match Australian incomes by 2025. However many of the suggestions put forward by the Taskforce, which included former Labour Finance Minister Davil Caygill, were ruled out by centre-right National as too politically unviable.
Brash was talking to interest.co.nz after Treasury's Debt Management Office announced it would increase the government's borrowing programme to NZ$20 billion for the current 2010/11 financial year. See Gareth Vaughan's article here.
The government's operating deficit before gains and losses is expected to be NZ$16 billion this year, before halving in 2011/12, meaning it will already have about NZ$4 billion, or half the required amount, in the bank for next year's budget spending. The government is, however, running a structural deficit of 5% of GDP, the IMF has warned. Less than third of the budget deficit is linked to the Earthquake.
Brash said he thought the government's borrowing programme was irresponsible as National continued to fund policies it had criticised in its final term in Opposition.
"Of course the reason it’s irresponsible is that government spending is irresponsible," Brash said.
"I would say the [previous] Labour government in the first two terms of their three terms was reasonably responsible on government spending. They kept running quite good fiscal surpluses, which, given the age structure of the New Zealand population, was entirely appropriate," he said.
"I think in their last term, the third term, they went bananas, and started throwing money around in all directions. As a consequence government spending rose very strongly. The National Party first under my leadership, and then under John Key’s leadership, criticised most of the programmes which were the most extravagant ones.”
Working for Families was one policy, along with interest free student loans and universal subsidies for doctors visits.
“Originally we used to provide subsidies for people who were low income, and critical health. And then I think we extended it to under-six-year-olds, and you could say it’s important children get access to medical attention," Brash said about doctors subsidies.
“Then I think it went to over-65-year-olds from memory, may have been the other way round, but something like that – it was quite carefully targeted anyway. Then Labour said, ‘let’s give it to everybody’.
“And the logic of that is absolutely straight political. It doesn’t target people on the basis of health, on the basis of income,” he said.
Asked what aspects of the programme he would like to be cut, Brash said he would be reluctant to get into that.
“All I’m really saying is, in third term of Labour’s turn in office, they engaged in very extravagant, very poorly targeted spending," Brash said.
'Smart in Opposition, not in government'
“What I’m saying is, so far, the National government has not wound most of that back. They criticised it in Opposition, but haven’t been willing to explain to the public why these goodies they’re getting are being funded by a massive borrowing programme,” Brash said.
“It’s always true that government’s don’t like removing goodies. That’s the way governments in democratic countries are," he said.
“I don’t want to pretend they can do it without political cost, I don’t want to pretend that there wouldn’t be additional pressure put on families. What I’m saying is, that borrowing NZ$300 dollars a week per family – which is what NZ$300 million a week works out at – makes people feel good now, but saddles those families with a massive amount of debt, which they don’t see right now, but which nevertheless is being taken on on their behalf by the government."
There was no politically or economically painless way out of realistically getting government spending under control, Brash said.
"I’m not saying that’s an easy dilemma to deal with, I’m saying it absolutely has to be dealt with, one way or the other. I’m not saying which particular things they should change, I’m not suggesting they should necessarily change Working for Families, at this point we haven’t made any decision on whether we support that or oppose it," Brash said.
"All we’re saying in general terms, and I’ve been saying it consistently since long before I joined the ACT Party, that government spending is irresponsibly high, it should be cut back," he said.
ACT goal to get back to Labour's 2005 spending levels
"In the last year of Labour’s second term, 2005 roughly, the ratio of core crown expenses to GDP was 29%. It’s currently around 34-35%," Brash said.
"What the 2025 taskforce said was, you can’t get it to 29% tomorrow – that would be ridiculous – but we ought to be aiming to get back to 29% over a three or four year period. That would take us back to the same ratio of government spending to GDP as we had at the end of Labour’s second term of government,” he said
“The question is, did we feel government spending was adequate in 2005? And most people, I think, did – Labour won the election anyway."
'Not hard right'
So what I’m saying is, this is not some hard-right prescription. Labour was [spending that level], at the end of their second term, and that’s the bit I’m stressing," Brash said.
“This is not after some draconian set of policies, it’s a reversal of some of the seriously stupid policies which Labour put in place,” he said.
Meanwhile a number of “quite exciting names” had been brought to Brash’s attention as possible ACT Party candidates for the November 26 election.
“To be honest, since Saturday, I’ve been so utterly immersed in media and caucus issues that I haven’t had a chance to tap anyone on the shoulder," Brash said.
Government debt
Select chart tabs
70 Comments
"Then I think it went to over-65-year-olds from memory..........."
So he hasnt looked at it but "thinks" its wrong............
"Asked what aspects of the programme he would like to be cut, Brash said he would be reluctant to get into that."
So he wont stand up and say what exactly he will do, kind of leaves his options open eh?
regards
Matt, he hasn't actually proposed anything!
All I could get was that he's saying government expenditure should be 29% of GDP because if it was adequate in 2005 so then it should be adequate today.
And he gets alot of his facts confused these days - WFF for example was introduced in 2004 - Labour's second (not third) term. And yesterday he couldn't recall the name of the Bill that had been proposed by ACT in Parliament. He's lost the plot - hasn't got the sort of sharpness in intellect which he might once have had.
NZ's version of Ronald Reagan perhaps? He certainly ascribes to RRs neoliberal prescription.
i agree kate. under reagan the top tax rate was 50%, which is about where i'd like to see it now
great chris hitchens piece on reagan here http://www.slate.com/id/2101842/
haha, let me guess, you think Labour is pragmatic and logical - who win elections with blatant bribes...if you actually know anything about Don Brash he did an amazing job as RB Governer and restructured the Reserve Bank so that it was one of the best run in the developed world...if he can replicate those results on NZ then we will be doing great...but wait, a bunch of left wing beggars have got their hands out for election bribes, welfare dependency, bloated inefficient govt, red tape..so he might have a hard time of it...
Ricardo - you're blinded by your stereotypicality.
I think Labour are a wasted space, their only redeeming feature being a slightly better approach to nurturing a cohesive society, and to conservation. Slightly.
As I've said here often, the old left/right. yin/yang, boss/worker standoff, was about divvying up the cake.
I'm on of those who ascertain how much of the cake is left.
Think of it as you whinging about the Steerage passengers wanting free deckchairs, while folk like me are launching the lifeboats.
No, these are idealogical burbs on the carry on as normal road to the cliff....all these do is determine the % each gets of the pie differs.....what you dont seem to get it the pie is getting smaller....and at some stage some have no slice left so have nothing to lose in going for it all...
regards
Student loans gets the attention...what about.......
Student Allowances- When did the Govt last take a look at who is getting them. It aint the target group. Just ask a student - it's the kids whoose parents have their income in trusts, Companies or other business entities. This includes farmers kids with $Millions in assets.
Not to mention those whoose parents make out they are seperated, and the bread winner "denounces' the student...and thus meet the income test.
How about National Super when an underage partner is inlcluded? Once again, those with the ability to shelter income and assest as in the above get the married rate when they shouldn't. Heaps of dollars here to claw back
Whoose getting the WFF accommodation supplments (income and asset tested)? Once again, those who structure as above and operate with Companies & Trusts.
Same thing goes for local Council rates subsidies, Residential Care and all the other lollies out there.
Problem is, the deads head who get to interview our Pollie's have no idea of what's going on...and it they did for once ask, that's the end of a Pollie coming on your network!
Brash saying he's not hard-right, is like Hitler saying he's a pacifist.
The basis for appraisal is starting from so skewed a point, that it's not worth appraising.
The real question, is: who stands to benefit from what Brash would do, if he got in a position to do?
Not you, Matt, the list is a lot shorter than that.
Agree, and isnt he nicely vague to boot....he's not said a word on say broadening the tax structure to catch those paying little tax....but oh wait they are at the top end.....his mates after all....I do wonder about WFF at the top end somewhat but I certainly dont agree on attack the student loans....
I think my biggest concern when ever I listen to him he just strikes me as clueless...and of course he's leader of ACT which with <4% of the right wing vote makes then pretty hard right be defination...
Matt, there is no firm policy just a vague wish,,,but you have jumped straight in and said yes....kind of makes me wonder if there was any other option anyway in your mind.
regards
ok all you lefties out there, please tell me how you would address this country's issues?
Its all very well arguing against things like cutting WFF if you can provide a convincing alternative as to how this country's totally unsustainable financial position can be turned around. I'm not sure some of you realise how perilous this country's position is. If we turn out like an Ireland then the common man and woman is going to be hurting a lot more than if they get their WFF allowance cut
I look forward to real solutions rather than rhetoric
Oh so I assume you mean left of where you are...
To start with,
1) The tax cut National gave is reversed...
2) The OAP goes to 66 for 40~50 years and 67 for 17~40 year olds.
3) A land tax is introduced 0.5% or something collected with the rates, probably limited in terms of land area...ie not hammer farmers or say forestry......
4) While we are on farming, take the fart tax out of the ETS.
5) WFF limited to no more than $100k and 3 children.
6) The RB takes over setting the PAYE tax rate as the main tool to control inflation, OCR probably stays where its is, but Im open to the actual %.
7) Trusts are abolished....they are over-abused, sure they have legit uses but thats tough.
8) No asset sales.
9) Banking; retail is cleaved off from lending so a bank can fail and eftpos etc still works.
Perilous, no it can be turned around moderately if action is taken now....
Getting back to 2005 spending amounts after 6 years of inflation and a collpase in Govn revenue is pretty drastic and well right wing....
I'm no ACT apologist. I would be the last to vote for a pure libertarian agenda.
But the reality is as a minority party, even with maybe 8%, they will be lucky if they got even 25% of their policy goals through.
I'd be the last one to support cuts to core social sevrices- education, health
the reason I see value in ACT is the same reason I see value in the Greens - fringe parties whose policies if implemented in full would be very harmful, but from whom some influence is a very good thing
And as you know I would rather that income taxes were never cut, and I do support CGT / land tax. I believe we need a combination of both higher revenue AND reduced spending to get things even remotely close to where they need be
As you can tell, I'm very much non-ideological. Its a pity ideolgoy on both sides of the political spectrum can't be overcome to come up with the necessary solutions
25% of policies for 8% of the vote?
There is only the Greens in terms of green issues, to the right there is the biggest party and ACT, oh and Dunne....and I guess Maori....
Hmm did Greens with just shy of 7% get say 20% odd?
NZ I would suppose ACT are not Libertarians by a long way...3.4%? v 1000 votes.
regards
I'm just talking off the cuff things here
I reckon a party with 8% could realistically get circa 25% of their ultimate wishlist through...actually forget about %, the point is a party in coalition with 8% would expet to get a certain number of policy concessions from the ruling party
"Oh so I assume you mean left of where you are... ""
actually I'm basically apolitical, but if you were to apply a left-right spectrum to me I'd probably be straight down the center
So yeah I'd call anyone to the left of me as lefties
what's left and right anyway? they are neat and tidy political stereotypes. Like most simplistic categorisations that don't account for complexity
many of Labour's policies actually worked counter to a left wing objective. Classic example is much of their policy settings helped exacerbate the inflation of the housing bubble- hmmmmmmm high housing costs, thats a really left wing objective
Sorry but anyone who jumps in and votes for Brash without even seeing any real policy or costing I cant see as terribly centralist or down the middle. Taking spending back to 2005 levels after 6 years that National has not achieved is very right wing....this is massive cuts in real terms.....
Left and right are but west and east of the compass, there is north, north east and right to the edge of and NE but only just off centre, sure its not a simple stereotype....
Who said Labour was terribly left wing? by your example they clearly are not, and again they are a collection of ppl who make up that spectrum that is Labour...Goff for instance would seem very close to the centre and to the right of his party, but Im sure there are counter-balances. Hence why we have had the Alliance and JA's new labour....
regards
well I think its fairly easy to read what Brash's policies will be, without it having to be delivered by him on a silver platter. None of the parties have come out explicitly with their election policy platform
I don't think you are quite getting my point. I have said several times I do not advocate Act's overall philosophy in full. Far from it. There is a thing called "tactical voting" and thats why, at this stage, I'd say I'd vote for ACT. We are simply nowhere near wealthy as a nation to afford expensive luxuries like WFF, and National do not have the balls to make the necessary changes.
Having said all that, I was never comfortable with Brash's Maori policies. I would like to see his policy on Maori relations before I definitely commit to voting for him.
For better or for worse a good number of people are thinking the same way. Would be more choice if the two main parties actually took a position which was progressive on the problems.
You will note the media are getting stuck into ACT for the sole reason they have the potential to create change from the status quo. They attempt to suggest the support for ACT is limited however the sentiment for change is much larger, still doesn't mean ACT will get their votes.
yeah i agree with you there matt. these fringe parties have come out with some pretty extreme talk (no actual policies yet) and it's going to force the encumbents out of their lazy stupid slumbers to react to it, and force voters to vote tactically rather than reflexively.
personally i'm a bit more interested in hone at thew mo because his policies are more radical - more of a rejection of the status quo - than act's. that said, as a taranaki boy i'm basically a pragmatic centrist. but hey i'd love to see hone's idea of nationalising monopolies and duopolies. that is pure comedy gold.
Some elements of good tinkering, but still tinkering...far from solving the problem, then you do not see the problem so go figure. Your last sentence makes sense. Most novel the RB have control on PAYE rate, have you given any real thought to the unintended consequences of that? :-)
So the government solves all the problems in the world for you Steven, no need for the real sector of the economy in your world view it will appear. Guess its peak oil...time to give up in your world. No wonder you don't see the problem.
Some one needs to give this a nudge..not sure I could vote ACT though. Have always voted for the most disadvantaged and never in my best interests.
Real change is needed now for everyones best interests...then people don't want to see the problem.
1) The tax cut National gave is reversed...
No. Despite the claims it benefitted only the rich it actually made a meaningful difference to the lower/middle brackets. if spending is brought under control it doesnt need to be reversed.
2) The OAP goes to 66 for 40~50 years and 67 for 17~40 year olds.
No problem there. If anything you are being slightly generous. I would also bring back means testing.
3) A land tax is introduced 0.5% or something collected with the rates, probably limited in terms of land area...ie not hammer farmers or say forestry......
CGT yes. Land tax no. We already have a land tax and it is abused by local Govt.
4) While we are on farming, take the fart tax out of the ETS.
Hmmm. Not sure I know enough to comment but at some point farming will have to pay its share ?
5) WFF limited to no more than $100k and 3 children.
WFF goes and is replaced by a tax cut targetted at the lower brackets. It is a major handbrake on productivity and I have never agreed with paying people to breed.
6) The RB takes over setting the PAYE tax rate as the main tool to control inflation, OCR probably stays where its is, but Im open to the actual %.
Too complex and I suspect too many unintended consequences.
7) Trusts are abolished....they are over-abused, sure they have legit uses but thats tough.
Dont agree. Crack down on abuse by all meansbut dont punish legitimate Trusts.
8) No asset sales.
There are some assets central Govt should own outright...no problem with certain SOE shareholdings being sold down to 51% Govt ownership. Place a cap on the % of foreign ownership if need be.
9) Banking; retail is cleaved off from lending so a bank can fail and eftpos etc still works.
Too complicated.
One further thing. All benefits to be reapplied for 6 monthly...and the interview takes place at the beneficiaries place...not WINZ office.
Anyway Steven not bad for a "lefty" :-)
1) Im in that middle, made no huge difference....the difference is I will live with that loss rather than see the deficit racked up.
9) has to happen then the libertarians can have thier wish, banks not to big to fail, we clean out huge moral hazard.....the other alternative is to be allowed to hang a few bankers if we get a meltdown.....
regards
good start steven, a few more off the top of my head...
- MP's wages frozen now and pegged to inflation
-MP's to stay in halls of residence style accom in Welly - no more rorts
-Tobin tax
-adopt Norway style policies re non-renewable resource extractions
-introduce legislation to allow those responsible for leaky building crisis to be made liable for loses incurred by NZinc
-MP's clothes must be emblazoned with the logos of their sponsors, and non-productive execs (ie bridgecorp rather than saya boat builder) who lose investors money must dress like pirates complete with shoulder parrot until $$ all paid back.
-immediate withdrawal from TPP negotiations
and maybe even a kind of big kahuna style tax/welfare overhaul to eviscerate those bloated parasitic beaurocracies
What is the problem with MPs earning a good wage. If it is so good why don't you become an MP. Jealousy is such a problem in this country, people can't come up with productive ways of making real cost savings, just stupid things that would make them feel better but not save any real money. Even if they dropped MPs wages by 30k a year it would save SFA, so why bother mentioning it.
The reality is that the only way we can reduce the deficit is to make cuts to a big ticket item (health, welfare or nz super) or increase tax.
ok all you lefties out there, please tell me how you would address this country's issues?
Not that I want to rise to the call because I'm a lefty - but to be fair, you've gotta admit - steven has provided more real propositions in his brief few words in response to your question than Brash provided in the above article.
That said, I'll add my hobby horse:
THE BIG KAHUNA.
GM argued strongly against Michael Cullen when Kiwisaver was first created .
The Big Kahuna suggested that Kiwis were being corralled into the open arms of giant fee-sucking underforming funds management companies .......
........ and now he's proven to you , that he was right !
Matt - I don't regard myself as a Leftie, but as a physics/energy studier.
That makes me, at the end of the day, a Greenie, but that's not the same at all. That's just the realisation that the physical habitat is needed, and that placing 'fiscal' concerns above that, is delusional.
So - ideas?
Yes - I've put up plenty.
What do we spend on energy? After all, nothing happens without it, right? (And notice, Brash fails to mention the price diffo, in the time reference? One of the classic signatures of spin, is that: mentioning one parameter without the other)
So - self-sufficiency in energy, and renewably sourced (not vulnerable then, either hiatus or time-wise.
That takes care of a large part of the cost. Then we have to accept that there are limits to growth, and therefore limits to wealth, which can indeed include limiting population, should we wish to be more wealthy.
But - note that we are, even as we go backwards, not accounting properly. Pollution, ultimate scarcity, neither are costed in. Both actually are worth more, than the figure you're worried about. Within a century, they basically kill off this species - what's that worth?
So - a big value has to be put on both.
What that will do, is make folk very much 'poorer', in terms of goods/services purchasing ability. Which is where the squealing gets loud, the denial gets endemic, and the rhetoric actually appears.
"Leftie, Greenie, doomer, wants us to, sandal-wearing, etc, etc.'.
Within the wriggle-room you have left (and it'll be austere compared to what you've had, and compared to what you perhaps desire), you have to make a decision about addressing current debt. Or not.
Clearly, reducing incomes across the board, including in the public service, would be part of fitting our coat to the cloth available.
There is a lot of scope for efficiencies in the system, and I'm living proof of that (my whole house runs on the equivalent of a 100watt incandescent bulb). If we all did that, we'd have enough existing hydro to power out transport. It's always cheaper to use what you have more efficiently, than to buy your way out.
I've gone too long - but we have lots of ideas - been thinking about this point for decades.
I'm interested in how you would translate the objective of self-sufficiency in energy into political action.
What exactly would you have government / lawmakers do?
Dam more rivers, erect more windfarms, ban certain products from future importation?
It's the practical aspect of implementing this prescription that would interest me - because I do think we should get there, but how exactly?
Kate - political action requires either inspired leadership, a mature (as in thinking, not in years) voting populace, or - preferably - both.
I think we're out of time for either, just for the record, but:
You don't need to 'more' anything. That's the beauty of it. We're soooooo conditioned to 'buy our way to' wherever we think we need to go. When you conserve, reduce, re-use, get more efficient, you get 'more' out of the existing infastructure. If all houses were as - or near as - efficient as mine, Benmore alone would power the country. It already exists. That gives us the rest - which exists - do do oil-displacement with, cherry-picking the best first.
It's no coincidence the generators are being earmarked for sale - some of these folk know very well what it is society can't do without. (Water will be the other).
Tax incentives for small local micro-hydro (from mine, up to the size of Teviot say, or these guys:
http://gbweekly.co.nz/2011/3/23/pupu-hydro-society-turns-30
Hydro beats wind hands down - much more 24/7, much more even, no need for batteries.
Ban products? We're running up debt. Surely the two are related? In this family, if we can't afford it, it doesn't get bought. Back to that mature populace...... :)
Ban debt. End story.
Well you could think they are being marked for sale because we cant do without it or in fact that the cupboard is otherwise bare? the money would be a pittance mind, makes no sense but it does expose the idealogical underbelly that still lurks....
Ban debt, not so sure its necessary but its sure well out of hand....I'd be p*ssed having to sell my house to pay but 1/10th of its value off mind.....so I might dis-agree with you in a minor way.....I think 80% or 70% max though...for sure.....we survived for many years without CCs so they can go.....I wonder if NZ could actually ban them, legally mind....guess so.
A mature voting public....so really you are saying we are stuffed then.....bugger............
Tell me there is a plan B?
regards
PDK, you are answering Kate's question about what you think the Government ought to do, by setting out what you think people ought to do - conserve, reduce, re-use, make their homes more efficient. As you yourself demonstrate, there's nothing stopping people from doing all of that already, and no doubt many are already starting to do so in response to an ever stronger economic incentive, namely the increasing price of oil and hence electricity.
But others don't share your sense of priorities as to what's the best way to use their money, or your view of how things are likely to turn out in the future.
Are you suggesting that they should nevertheless be made to do it? How? Is it to be made a criminal offence not to have insulation in the loft and double glazed windows? What if people can't afford the initial outlay?
MdM - welcome to ideology meets fact.
First, you hope that education will do it. As I did, when I was in my '20's, 3 decades ago.
Now, I know (and you and others here prove) that it won't happen via education.
If you hit the top of the gaussian, full noise, there is only Mad Max down the other side.
The only viable alternative is self-discipline, en masse. Having seen 30 years squandered, and folk still existing who see the Brash view of the world as valid, there may well be no other way but enforcement.
Folk like you will no doubt scream in ideological torment, but you all drive on the left side of the road - some rules are there for the common good. I suggest this is no different - collective safety is at stake - between imposing road-rules, and imposing sustainability.
Happy cogitating....
I don't believe I said that education will do it, though there can't be any harm in education. I think financial necessity will do it, as energy prices go up and therefore more people find they can't afford to continue current levels of energy consumption without sacrifices elsehere.
You still haven't answered the question. What is it that you think the Government should do - what laws should it pass and enforce, what taxes should it impose, what spending should it undertake - to make people behave in the way you want?
MdM - easy.
Value Natural Capital (ultimate depletion, as best=practice determined by URR or whatever, and real pollution/degradation ditto.
It'll be rough at the margins - somewhat like the fishing quota (and we are watching a cynical twisting of that at present) but 99% better than nothing.
That would price energy, pollution etc way, way above where they are, but it would be a realistic long-term appraisal of their values.
The rest? I'm not really into social engineering, but at the bottom line population is the biggie - resources per head is the ALL of it. So two children per couple (or per person) then snip/tie, or fine massively on 'thereafters'.
None of which will be voted for by a the current average mind-set. Not surprising - most of them are blatantly brainwashed nightly "coming out better off'', "because you're worth it'.
I'm taking this to mean that you would first determine how much oil/fossil fuel is left in the world, then allocate some share of that to New Zealand taking into account the expected total future demand of every other country in the world, and then allocate the NZ share over some (what?) time period so as to determine the annual amount to be allowed to be consumed in this country, and then add sufficient tax to the market price so as to constrain demand to that level?
Yup, that sounds straightforward enough.
It's a better option than ploughing on regardless.
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2011/05/downside-of-dependence.h…
1) tallow conversion to bio-deisel....we need to guarantee enough transport fuel is manufactured in NZ....so I guess a tax break.
2) almost certainly electrify the north - south rail link....
3) No more new motorways.
4) Car Road tax based on petrol engine size. I recognise that some ppl have to tow etc, that can be done with deisel engines, Im not aware of any deisel engined HSVs or Falcons though...........the money covers 1)s tax break....
5) Dam rivers, im not so sure there are many left that are worthwhile...
6) Tide, cook straight, that was being tested I dont know where it went but it looked good.
7) Wind is variable so it cant fill too much of our needs.
regards
6) Tide, cook straight, that was being tested I dont know where it went but it looked good.
Got the go-ahead in Kaipara Harbour;
And your list got me thinking:
8) Remove GST from all insulation products, solar products, double glazed windows etc.
9) No consents costs from local government for wind/water home power generation proposals.
kate my understanding is that crest are progressing and will probably get threough ultimately. i think the currently issue is with a finding that 90% of nz's snapper fishery spawns in the kaipara so there's some work being done getting over that issue.
that said, those blades spin at 5rpm so i'd be surprised if a snapper couldn't dodge them.
your point about removing gst on insulation is excellent btw. and pdk makes the point about micro-generation. that seems like a no-brainer to me. remove the need for so much large scale generation/infrastructure and also engage kiwi ingenuity and some of that self-determination act and the nats claim to love so much.
Matt & Speckles are to be commended.
Key & English are fiddling while NZ burns. The exodus of skilled people is escalating under Key's tenure. Have heard of tractor mechanics being offered big bikkies to move to Australia.
The lefties on this blog need to wake up to the consequences of the previous and this governments' social engineering.
(a) Surely wanting to get back to the level of public spending/borrowing that Labour was undertaking also needs the tax reductions since 2005 to be reversed as borrowing needs are set by revenue-spending. (And he is ignoring cycclical variability in spending and borrowing).
(b) This government borriwing should be broken into four categories -- rolling over debt, business cycle related debt which bablances out over a business cycle, borrowing for infrastructre and structual deficit borrowing. It is the structural deficit borrowing that is the real concern as that is not ssutainable.
(c) Brash isn't good on arithmetic. There are 1,643,500 odd households in New Zealand. If $300/week/household is the current level of borrowing then we are borrowing $493 million a week. Yet he claims that "What I’m saying is, that borrowing NZ$300 dollars a week per family – which is what NZ$300 million a week works out at ..."
Ah well nothing has changed.
"Brash isn't good on arithmetic" we are talking about an ex-RB governor arnt we?
His biggest problem has alwyas been he isnt trustworthy and he's obviously shifty when any attempt is made to being nailed down.....if that doesnt speak volumes for his [un-]worthiness of being voted for I dont know what will.
regards
Summing up the 42 postings above , it seems to me that we all agree that Don Brash has breathed some excitement into the election campaign .
..........And as appalling as Labour's policies were from 1999-2005 , their last 3 years nailed the coffin lid onto the Kiwi economy . Exactly as Brash forewarned .
Bloody brilliant to see such accord amongst all the team , here at interest.co.nz ! ... We're all of one mind that we need to re-balance the economy , and to boot populist politics firmly in the arse ..............
...... Onward to the election , and let's finally un-Cullenise the fiscal settings , lets breathe some life into the poor over-taxed , over regulated , bureaucratically stymied economy .
Over regulated? That's a joke, look at the NZ finance sector, described by Gareth Morgan as a rats nest.
Have you already forgotten all those finance companies that crashed and burned, destroying fast amounts of wealth except for the perpetrators Hotchins et al.?
The result of lack of regulation not over regulation. Just like the other centers of global sleeze - Wall Street, City of London...
south paw, the reason they could do that, is because market correction was absent: they knew they would be bailed out. Just like AMI, the only goal is market share. If you topple over, the government will catch you.
And I think you're sadly mistaken that regulation can fix this. Regulation is very costly, easily avoided, leads to false market perceptions. I rather rely on individual investors making decisions fully aware of the fact that the government IS NOT THERE to bail them out.
Because the people with money are bailed out by those with no money.
We call that crony capitalism.
Unfortunately Steven I dont think anything is going to happen until the general populace understand and accept that it is better to take a spoonful of medicine now, even if it does taste bad, rather than have to have the whole bottle later.
Problem is none of the Pollies (other than Brash it seems) are brave enough to come out and say it as it will cost votes
Steven
I think we should get all our cards on the table. You describe yourself as "middle income" - do you receive WFF, or are entitled to receive it if you have children?
I've already put my cards on the table in terms of ballpark income, acknowledged that I benefitted significantly from the tax cuts
There'a Tui billboard in there somewhere - yeah right!
Don Brash - putting the "ACT" back in fAsCisT
- along with his other buddy boys and aspiring dictators from 2009 no doubt:
http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/big-farm-day-out/
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3029220/Gibbs-to-tell-how-he-d-rule-the-world
"Richlister Alan Gibbs will host former National Party leader Don Brash and ACT founder Sir Roger Douglas to discuss what they would do as “New Zealand’s dictator for a year”.
This sounds like the same complete disdain for democracy that Brash used to get the leadership of the ACT party in the first place. Anyone who votes for ACT later this year needs to be well aware that this is the mindset that these people have
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.