If National wins ...

[Cuzzie]

Getting a bit strident there Cuzzie. Some might say Muldoon was. National increase investment and Labour only increases depression? interesting that National hasn't changed those Labour introductions like student loans family support Etc we hear so much about Still being conservative they don't do much anyway. Except borrow money and decrease taxes except for gst. in 2011 Bill English said the deficit would be below $10m and be virtually eliminated by 2013/14 We will then start repaying debt. Since Key became pm debt has increased at 27m a day.

Westerly

Ahh, yes you are right, National has not undone the Helen Clark election bribery for our students, but Key has made it work. His Govt. has generated more money to help reduce NZs deficit. Again look at the Current account balance. Given what you have just said and the relatively low percentage of National since the Clark years, surly it is an indication that under National we can afford to give our students a better start to their working life. Under Labour & Cullen loosing more public money than the country had - in bad investments, they could not afford such privileges. Good on National for not stopping what they can afford by making it work.

This is a Key difference between Right & Left wing politics right here. You need to be able to have money to support those who don't in the first place. If you make the rich poor, then you really are in big trouble. Clarks Govt. was living proof of that.

[westerly]

Ahh, yes you are right, National has not undone the Helen Clark election bribery for our students, but Key has made it work. His Govt. has generated more money to help reduce NZs deficit. Again look at the Current account balance. Given what you have just said and the relatively low percentage of National since the Clark years, surly it is an indication that under National we can afford to give our students a better start to their working life. Under Labour & Cullen loosing more public money than the country had - in bad investments, they could not afford such privileges. Good on National for not stopping what they can afford by making it work.

This is a Key difference between Right & Left wing politics right here. You need to be able to have money to support those who don't in the first place. If you make the rich poor, then you really are in big trouble. Clarks Govt. was living proof of that.

Cannot see how the rich will ever be poor. They have been increasing thier wealth under National. As for the current account graph the words underneath say it all "It sets out a countries transactions with the rest of the world" As the govt. makes up about 30% of GDP it only shows the deficit in what the country spends to what it earns, the fact that National is borrowing at $27m a day to now have a $60m debt is far more of a concern.

Westerly

[iceman]

the fact that National is borrowing at $27m a day to now have a $60m debt is far more of a concern.
Westerly

Don't worry too much Westerly. English has taken only 5 years and during the World's biggest recession in our times, to balance the out of control books he inherited, even though deficits were forecasted for at least a decade when Clark got sent packing. English also sold a couple of assets to buy new ones (schools & hospitals) so we don't need to borrow so much. Economy now growing at one of the fastest paces in the western world so we are well positioned with him in charge

[Cuzzie]

Really? Have you told the Germans? Better tell the Finns too. In fact better tell the majority of successful European countries where they have proportional representation.

{Damn cuzzie - this is too eay - best ignore me as an investment}

I see what you mean. Is England a successful European country belgarion? Because if they are this is what their P.M David Cameron thinks.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-green-cp.html
Vote Labour/Green to finish off what Clark started - And what would that be - To finish off NZ for good.

[elZorro]

Belgarian, could I ask your advice on how to vote on the referendum. Should I spurn common-sense and agree that the country doesn't need full access to an ongoing power dividend and income sharing with our own national carrier, in the interests of more cash in the govt budget, effectively? After all, we should all allow this National govt to reach their artificially-set slight budget surplus by 2014-2015. Cripes, maybe I should pay a bit of extra tax to help. I'm already paying 20% more GST, and probably more on petrol.

We will all rejoice in the streets when National get closer to balancing their books, and it only requires a mental blanking out of the great surpluses Labour achieved (oh, they had it so easy didn't they), and a brain fade on the huge deficits National decided to go with afterwards.

I'm sure they had other options, but these might have required an imagination.

I heard this article on Radio NZ today. It's about the declining share of the pie that labour obtains, as opposed to capital. NZ performed particularly badly up to 2012. That whole area deserves looking into harder. NZ Initiative (a rebranded Business Roundtable) thinks we can all be educated more, and that will be the solution. How long can we wait? And who will be paying for it?

http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/2577264

A part of the summary from the 2012 Household Economic Survey.

5 Those receiving the top 1% of income in New Zealand have an 8% share of total income(2009 to 2010), similar to France and Australia, and much lower than the UK(14%) and the US (17%).· Another way oflooking at inequality is to track the share of a country’s total income that isreceived by the top 1%. Such information is not reliably available in samplesurveys like the HES, but data based on tax returns is available forinternational comparisons.· From the 1920sthrough to around 2010, English-speaking countries have shown a U-shaped curvefor the income share of the top 1% with a lower flattish period from 1950 tothe mid 1980s (“the great compression”).
· The top 1% in New Zealand received around 8% of all taxable income in2009 and 2010 (before tax), more than in Denmark, Finland and Sweden (5 to 7%),similar to Norway, France and Australia, lower than Ireland (11%) and Canada(12%), and much lower than the UK (14%) and the US (17%). For most of thesecountries these proportions are all higher than in the 1980s (60 to 100%higher).
6 Wealth is distributed more unequally than income.· Wealth Giniscores are typically two to three times those for income. · In New Zealand,those in the top income decile receive close to 25% of gross income; those inthe top wealth decile hold 50% of the total wealth. · New Zealand’s top decile wealth share is similar to thosefound in many other OECD countries: Australiaand the UK (45%), Germany (52%), Canada(53%) and Sweden(58%). For the USit is around 70%.

[Cuzzie]

Dear oh dear, Cunliffe has resorted to Helens bad side quicker than I thought possible. First he is caught lying today and this afternoon because he has not got the tools to get on top of an opponent using words, just like Clark he resorts to name calling. Yep, it is the Labour party alright. I think another David might get a go before the next election. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11161430 Didn't the Loony left learn from Clarks mistakes and personality flaws?

[elZorro]

Dear oh dear, Cunliffe has resorted to Helens bad side quicker than I thought possible. First he is caught lying today and this afternoon because he has not got the tools to get on top of an opponent using words, just like Clark he resorts to name calling. Yep, it is the Labour party alright. I think another David might get a go before the next election. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11161430 Didn't the Loony left learn from Clarks mistakes and personality flaws?

No love lost there by the look of it, but if this is all you have on David Cunliffe, it'll be a boring leadup to the election. Anyway I'm more interested in policies.

I found this graph on the labour share of the economy, you'll see NZ on the hard left of the graph amongst other countries. So the value didn't get much worse for us up to 2009, thanks to WFF changes, but the worldwide trend in OECD countries is for labour (employees) to get less of the economic pie. NZ is nearly the least favourable country in the list for pie sharing.

[Cuzzie]

No love lost there by the look of it, but if this is all you have on David Cunliffe, it'll be a boring leadup to the election. Anyway I'm more interested in policies.

I found this graph on the labour share of the economy, you'll see NZ on the hard left of the graph amongst other countries. So the value didn't get much worse for us up to 2009, thanks to WFF changes, but the worldwide trend in OECD countries is for labour (employees) to get less of the economic pie. NZ is nearly the least favourable country in the list for pie sharing.

You would take that attitude as Labour and their supports see nothing wrong with lying and name calling.


I too would rather talk about something else - investing and that's why I'm here. Problem is the Green Party and Labour are going all out to discredit the NZ oil industry with nothing but a bunch of misinformation and untruths. Charts that are non-relevant to low pressure oil fields was beyond me and a win win to showcase their B.S. Then Funnyciffe whoops I meant Cunliffe lies about a 70% figure for deep-sea drilling that was quoted for something entirely different to what he was connecting with. Keep it honest, keep it straight and Labour would not need the Greenies but they just can't help themselves. Kind of sad really, or not if you support an honest party.


Problem for National is so many Kiwis are hoodwinked by Labour and now the Greenies untruths.

[elZorro]

You would take that attitude as Labour and their supports see nothing wrong with lying and name calling.


I too would rather talk about something else - investing and that's why I'm here. Problem is the Green Party and Labour are going all out to discredit the NZ oil industry with nothing but a bunch of misinformation and untruths. Charts that are non-relevant to low pressure oil fields was beyond me and a win win to showcase their B.S. Then Funnyciffe whoops I meant Cunliffe lies about a 70% figure for deep-sea drilling that was quoted for something entirely different to what he was connecting with. Keep it honest, keep it straight and Labour would not need the Greenies but they just can't help themselves. Kind of sad really, or not if you support an honest party.


Problem for National is so many Kiwis are hoodwinked by Labour and now the Greenies untruths.

But Cuzzie, if you take a quick look you'll see that National are economical with the real truth, frequently. Like the way that they say 'lower income people pay no tax'. Technically they might pay no net income tax, but that is only part of the revenue stream into govt. They do pay GST, fuel and other excise taxes. They spend all they get, and others pay taxes on that income.

I agree that the 70% oil risk figure was a bit bent out of shape by the time David Cunliffe mentioned it to the press. He'd better get a lot more accurate with his words in the months ahead. Regarding the trout line, google tells me that "trout" is an older man looking for a younger woman, and the two words "old" and "trout' together refer to an annoying older woman. So technically, he's distanced himself from a blatant expression, but it was a stupid series of words to write, and by now he might be realising how powerful the internet is.

This seems to be what the NZ Initiative means about better education in NZ. There's no arguing with the figures. NZ employees need to be working in high-value jobs, certainly not making cheap consumables for export, for example.

Catastrophic consequencesRose Patterson | Research Fellow | rose.patterson@nzinitiative.org.nz

One in seven of New Zealand’s 15-year-olds cannot read at a level considered requisite for basic participation in society, according to the 2009 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study. But does this simply reflect natural variation in ability levels and the left-end of the bell curve?

Leaving kids at the bottom of the educational barrel will be catastrophic for society, argues Jon Moynihan OBE, Executive Chairman of the PA Consulting Group. In his presentation The Continued Economic Decline of the West to the London School of Economics (available on YouTube), he explains that globalisation has and is continuing to open up large pools of unskilled labour markets.

There are 1.1 billion people in urban areas in developing countries who earn US$12 a day, and there are another 1.3 billion people earning US$1 to $2 per day, waiting in the wings to urbanise.

In advanced economies like ours, similar skill levels earn an average of about US$135 per day, for now.

But with the laws of supply and demand, unskilled jobs will naturally drain to the East, and it’s already happening.

So what does that mean for the one in seven Kiwi kids who cannot read? Quite simply, the migration of jobs to countries with cheaper pools of labour means there will be none of these types of jobs left. These kids will be very unlikely to participate in employment, further education, or training. Those who are lucky enough to get a job will be very poorly paid.

It is a tired excuse that schools and teachers should not be expected to correct for the disadvantages that children bring from home. Frankly, this is not good enough. Other countries are better at using education to correct for socio-economic disadvantage. 2009 figures suggest that teachers need more support to teach basic reading skills at the very least.

It is with much anticipation that we await the 3 December launch of PISA 2012. Will New Zealand still have one of the largest gaps in the world between the top- and bottom- performing students? What percentage of our 15-year-olds are able to read?

The fact that 14 per cent of 15-year-olds in 2009 could not read is not a reflection of natural ability levels. Anyone can learn to read. This excuse needs to be taken off the table.

For developed countries facing an increasingly productive and yet low-cost competition from the developing world, better education is crucial.

[elZorro]

Cuzzie, there is a picture developing here in NZ, of rising youth unemployment. This means that high school leavers don't get as much chance for on-the-job training. They are increasingly likely to be on the dole. Part of the OECD website shows the difference between someone being in work, and out of work. http://www.oecd.org/social/soc/benef...calculator.htm

If you use this software to look at a family with two children having the sole breadwinner put on the dole, when he/she was earning the average wage before, they will receive as a family, about 58% (after tax) of what they were getting when there was employment. But if a family needs to rent for say $350 a week (the model assumes $190 a week), there will not be much left over.

I'm not sure what accommodation in Auckland at a figure of $190 p.w. for four people looks like, pretty dire I guess. The point is that for everyone out of work, options are far more limited, and the tax base has been reduced. So when I see the National Govt reducing their employees, being resistant to changes in the minimum wage, I know there is a whole lot of pain at the end of it for many.

2011: Wellington accounts for 40 percent of all full-time workers on the state payroll, according to the Public Service Association. Public sector jobs in Wellington fell 3.7 percent to 18,300 last year, the PSA’s figures show. Nationally, public sector employment dropped 2.2 percent to 43,595 in the year ended June 30 following a decline of 0.3 percent in 2010, according to the State Services Commission. The decreases follow eight years of gains in the taxpayer-funded workforce.

I was hoping these figures below might give some idea about what the difference is between the govt employing someone, or paying them unemployment entitlements. Would the additional cashflow from each earner and the taxes on those transactions make it a no-brainer to keep employing, from a govt revenue point of view?

Certainly the govt has a lot more cards than an ordinary employer. In this case a clear intention by the govt to reduce staff in the public sector, affects sentiment in the private sector, who in many ways rely on a buoyant economy. Post GFC, jobs were being shed all over the place in NZ. Is this a bright future?

I've done some rough maths assuming the family consumes more when a wage was present, and trims back drastically on fuel costs, but not power or rent, when the wage has gone. Assuming the rent was $190 a week in both situations, and all income was spent (no GST on rent), then these types of figures apply:

Cost to employ one public sector worker at average wage: $57761 (includes WFF), less income taxes, fuel excise taxes, profits on power, indirect taxes from spending that wouldn't otherwise be there: $19,500, net cost $38,000 for the govt. Note: a normal employer will see quite a lot more cost ($23.70 an hour plus overheads).

If both are unemployed and no income, the govt will need to fund the family by $30,322 a year. The govt gets some tax back, reduced GST and fuel taxes, reduced indirect taxes from purchases, perhaps $7,000 back.

This means that the net cost from the govt's point of view, of one public service or SOE employee at the average wage, is just $14,700 a year, if that family couldn't find alternative income, and once unemployed relied entirely on the state for funding. (If they were employed privately in the same way, govt direct costs are $8300 for WFF etc less taxes and excise of $19,500, or a govt gain of $11,000 odd per year).

So I guess the question is, can the govt find work for people up to the staffing levels that Labour had in place, that is worth paying a net $7 an hour for? Apparently the National Govt doesn't think so, in many cases. I haven't factored in any social costs or case handling costs for the rising unemployed, or the cost of state-provided training that would otherwise be provided by workplaces. Or the ongoing strength of private sector companies, when there is a stable economy to target.

The case for reducing the public sector is not an obvious one, all things considered, that's for sure.