Um ... El Z the polite and tolerant one. I'm the cutting, forthright one who calls out foolishness immediately it appears.
Both of us come armed with facts and logic. Both of us apologise when we've made mistakes.
And, if I can speak for El Z, both of us enjoy the cut and trust of a good argument.
You're right there, Belgarion.
BlackPeter has some good points about the odd bit of Labour policy that might have had unintended consequences. But I was very happy with the new shape of NZ when the Clark Labour government was in.
The Cullen Fund. Paying back very old debt. Budget surpluses. Organising fixing the Tui Mine. Grants to Innovation Park and Maungatautari Ecological Park nearby. R&D tax credits giving hope for a smart economy. Apologies to the Chinese for the historical tax. No smoking in public buildings. Gay law reform. Increases to the minimum wage. Record employment. Support for SMEs in general, and public companies and SOES. Higher GDP per capita rates. Considering a CGT.
These and many other things that I believe were in the correct direction. I wrote to the party and said so.
The Cullen Fund. Paying back very old debt. Budget surpluses. Organising fixing the Tui Mine. Grants to Innovation Park and Maungatautari Ecological Park nearby. R&D tax credits giving hope for a smart economy. Apologies to the Chinese for the historical tax. No smoking in public buildings. Gay law reform. Increases to the minimum wage. Record employment. Support for SMEs in general, and public companies and SOES. Higher GDP per capita rates. Considering a CGT.
So I went and compared the 5th Labour government's and the 5th National government's significant policies.
I must say National's list makes rather grime reading. I know many will be happy with the tax break and the assets sales, but it seems their time in government has been more about what they have been preventing the opposition from doing rather than making NZ a better place to live.
I must say National's list makes rather grime reading. I know many will be happy with the tax break and the assets sales, but it seems their time in government has been more about what they have been preventing the opposition from doing rather than making NZ a better place to live.
Maybe this is one of the cases where less is more?
Yes, Labour was much happier than National to open our wallets, take our money and spend it as they see fit (Mama Helen knows better). Labour decided to spend our money to
- hire senior unemployed clowns (referring not just to all these senior policy analysts crowding government premises at the end of HC's reign ... and than, she was as well minister for the arts - wasn't she?
- to increase overall bureaucracy (another ministry - anybody?) or
- to get people addicted to receiving benefits - hardly anybody left who doesn't live off the tax payer in one form or another (oh - damn, forgot about me ...)
- ah yeah, didn't check on Wikipedia, but the greed tax was really an outstanding Labour achievement - and how fast they've been to implement it, amazing performance ...
Banksie, do you really say these are all good things?
Maybe this is one of the cases where less is more?
Yes, Labour was much happier than National to open our wallets, take our money and spend it as they see fit (Mama Helen knows better). Labour decided to spend our money to
- hire senior unemployed clowns (referring not just to all these senior policy analysts crowding government premises at the end of HC's reign ... and than, she was as well minister for the arts - wasn't she?
- to increase overall bureaucracy (another ministry - anybody?) or
- to get people addicted to receiving benefits - hardly anybody left who doesn't live off the tax payer in one form or another (oh - damn, forgot about me ...)
- ah yeah, didn't check on Wikipedia, but the greed tax was really an outstanding Labour achievement - and how fast they've been to implement it, amazing performance ...
Banksie, do you really say these are all good things?
BP, National is spending just as much as Labour was, their costs haven't reduced. Partly because there are more on the dole, the recycling of money isn't as good. But because of the tax breaks mostly helping out the wealthier PAYE people, govt income is below their expenditure, and has been like that for their entire term. Presumably they are happy with this, they'll keep borrowing to make up the shortfall rather than admit they got the settings wrong.
While you may think you're the only one who pays taxes, you are wrong. In fact the wealthiest people pay the least tax in proportion to their annual income on average, they have structured their affairs, and it's all legit. Morally corrupt, but legit. National promotes a greed mentality, not Labour.
National's decisions on coalition partners have upset a few voters, according to the latest Roy Morgan poll. It's much closer now.
Maybe this is one of the cases where less is more?
Yes, Labour was much happier than National to open our wallets, take our money and spend it as they see fit (Mama Helen knows better). Labour decided to spend our money to
- hire senior unemployed clowns (referring not just to all these senior policy analysts crowding government premises at the end of HC's reign ... and than, she was as well minister for the arts - wasn't she?
- to increase overall bureaucracy (another ministry - anybody?) or
- to get people addicted to receiving benefits - hardly anybody left who doesn't live off the tax payer in one form or another (oh - damn, forgot about me ...)
- ah yeah, didn't check on Wikipedia, but the greed tax was really an outstanding Labour achievement - and how fast they've been to implement it, amazing performance ...
Banksie, do you really say these are all good things?
Have we not just shifted people from the public sector to the unemployment sector?
Sorry but I don't understand your reference to greed tax, and are you saying it is a good or a bad thing that Clark was the minister of arts?
Have we not just shifted people from the public sector to the unemployment sector?
Sorry but I don't understand your reference to greed tax, and are you saying it is a good or a bad thing that Clark was the minister of arts?
Banksie, good point about the labour force. It looks fairly artificial, that graph. After National got in, the unemployment rate went from around 4% to between 6 and 7%. It never goes below 6%. If a party was fairly interested in holding back wages, that would be a certain way to do it.
Labour now has a clear message for all those people out there stubbornly being paid just above the minimum wage. Things will get better quickly, just vote Labour. Any business that cries they can't afford a higher but fair minimum wage, hasn't been doing very well at all. Sooner or later, they would have been part of the normal business failure/rebirth cycle, if they didn't pick up their act.
Banksie, good point about the labour force. It looks fairly artificial, that graph. After National got in, the unemployment rate went from around 4% to between 6 and 7%. It never goes below 6%. If a party was fairly interested in holding back wages, that would be a certain way to do it.
Yeah, it does appear to be bouncing off the 6% line. Surely if the economy is doing as well as the gov maintain we should be seeing a return to the 4% line we saw previously. Of course the other argument is the 6% are "addicted to receiving benefits", but which ever way you cut it, this situation has been created by the current government.
Edit: I suppose there is another interpretation: which is successive governments count unemployment in different ways i.e. stats manipulation. Is there any evidence of this?
Originally Posted by belgarion
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks