If National wins ...

[elZorro]

EZ, I believe at the core there is fundamentally little difference between Nats and Labour (and ACT if you want to include them)

In spite of stated philosophy / policies I believe Labour don't really want to make any drastic changes to the status quo. Major or drastic changes would only see the rise of more radical parties like what is happening in Europe at the moment. Self interest implies preservation and Labour and National will work together to stop this happening. You sort of agreed with this supposition a few days ago.

So we are stuck for another 5 years at least with what we have now, after a Nat win in next election. And probably the current issues will only fester away and inequalities will only get greater.

W69, while I don't see Labour as radical, I do see them as the best chance for good incremental change in NZ. Sure they have centrist leanings, but some in the party wanted to bring in a CGT, a leveller in the tax treatment that everyone who lives here must pay, in some form. GST was brought in by Labour, but increased twice by National. That's not a tax that hits high income earners, or the wealthy, in the same proportion as it does for those who need to spend every dollar that comes in.

Apart from helping the govt balance the books and make it fairer on most of us, a CGT would mark a radical change in the perception of the usefulness of investment in housing, for example. I saw some of the stats on Q&A today, it's like a runaway freight train in Auckland at the moment. While some I know are selling down to encapsulate the gains, many more are jumping in, at or near the top. All this effort, good capital spent on a vain asset that employs just a few during the short construction stage, and a portion of a person for maintenance over its lifetime. A business can provide a far better return over decades, can employ many, can export goods, can improve the economy in bounds. Yet if you go to a bank looking for money to buy a building to trade from, or for funds to get started, you'll only get 50% of the lending for the former, nothing for the latter, no matter what your previous income might have been, unless you have some unencumbered property you can put up as collateral.

For me, any party that has small-business-centric policies will be worth voting for, because this is where the new jobs will come from, the new exports, the investment, the nous. I disagree with you about Labour's chances in 2017 too, they'll have a good chance by then, and I'm sure we'll see a lot more from Andrew Little. I note the sentiment about National vs Labour is already changing, on blogs and comments on the web.

The Labour LECs are getting organised right now, for a leadup into the winnable election in 2017.

[artemis]

...... GST was brought in by Labour, but increased twice by National. That's not a tax that hits high income earners, or the wealthy, in the same proportion as it does for those who need to spend every dollar that comes in......

True, mainly because low income earners usually pay a bigger proportion of their income in rent or mortgage interest. Neither of which attract GST.

[winner69]

What about his EZ

http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/74...licy-your-view

As it says we have a problem because The New Zealand approach is a legacy from that long ago era when it was believed economies could always provide full employment.

[elZorro]

What about this EZ

http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/74...licy-your-view

As it says we have a problem because The New Zealand approach is a legacy from that long ago era when it was believed economies could always provide full employment.

Yes, interesting W69, but I don't like the sound of flat payments, sure it would be easier to implement. Gareth also said:

Who knows where this belief came from in New Zealand that workers won’t work if they are supported out of poverty. But it’s a pretty sick piece of bigotry that we should ditch quickly.

It has long been an argument that National/ACT voters would trot out, and the message is subtly reinforced by National policy and crackdowns on beneficiaries. My argument is that if work was more readily available, and well paid, there wouldn't be any need for crackdowns, and the taxes coming back would be more than adequate to cover govt costs and services anyway.

So what kind of a job would be situated close to suburbia or regional towns perhaps, would require little training and minimal written or IT skills, would offer flexible daytime hours, a pay rate well above minimum wage rates, and rely more on good hand-eye co-ordination and thoroughness to detail? In a workplace that could scale up to export and take on more staff without extending its footprint much at all? These jobs are in manufacturing, and of course around the outside of these core workers are others who will probably need tertiary level qualifications.

We are, after all, a country with only 4.5 million people in it, far smaller than some of the other major manufacturing countries worldwide. It's not improbable that manufacturing of the right kind of export goods could employ everyone left on the scrapheap in NZ who wants a job, close to where they live, and could also pay them at a good rate. All without needing any major infrastructure to be added.

[artemis]

..... So what kind of a job would be situated close to suburbia or regional towns perhaps, would require little training and minimal written or IT skills, would offer flexible daytime hours, a pay rate well above minimum wage rates, and rely more on good hand-eye co-ordination and thoroughness to detail? In a workplace that could scale up to export and take on more staff without extending its footprint much at all? These jobs are in manufacturing, and of course around the outside of these core workers are others who will probably need tertiary level qualifications......

You'd think that potential manufacturing buyinesses would be lining up to open factories then. especially since the 'manufacturing crisis' didn't exactly happen. (On the contrary.) Any thoughts on why they are not?

In the meantime, until the manufacturing utopia arrives, we (the government) could reduce the numbers coming in under the seasonal workers scheme and other temporary migrants. To be fair, these jobs may not meet all your requirements - such as location - but the temporary migrants would still be available to fill those jobs. The employers might not be too happy of course.

As an indicative example, even though dates don't line up exactly it gives some idea -

2011 - BOP / Gisborne / Hawkes Bay - 119,700 months worked by temporary migrant workers.

As at March 2014 there were 18,800 unemployed in those same regions not counting 15-17 year olds. Usually around half of unemployed are considered work ready at any point in time.

[Daytr]

Sure, I was only mucking around & I just think it sounds great, rather than is great. Many terms or words get hijacked over the years & Liberal is one of those imo. In regards jobs in the regions, solar energy & I know I keep harping on about this, but it could create a whole industry if was better supported. Migrant workers are an issue as well as are too frequently the first choice for reasons of price & also availability of labour. If it is tough job, perhaps like dairy in Southland the if they paid a wage that attracted people rather than just having the ability to employ Filipinos off the bat then they might actually attract local talent. There is a place for migrant workers, but it shouldn't be at the expense of locals & university students & the like.

Neo-liberalism is just a bunch of powerful people doing things in their own self interest. Doesn't sound like you daytr so you not a neo-liberal

Compassion and empathy are the caring roots of a caring society. Socialism is a negative word with associations to totalitarianism. Socialism is really organised compassion, which everyone can relate to. It's not an ideology - its simply a starting point for a conversation about how we organise society. Thinking in these terms is a a good start to improving society for all. Hence I think you fundamentally really are a socialist daytr - but that's only a word eh.

[elZorro]

You'd think that potential manufacturing buyinesses would be lining up to open factories then. especially since the 'manufacturing crisis' didn't exactly happen. (On the contrary.) Any thoughts on why they are not?

In the meantime, until the manufacturing utopia arrives, we (the government) could reduce the numbers coming in under the seasonal workers scheme and other temporary migrants. To be fair, these jobs may not meet all your requirements - such as location - but the temporary migrants would still be available to fill those jobs. The employers might not be too happy of course.

As an indicative example, even though dates don't line up exactly it gives some idea -

2011 - BOP / Gisborne / Hawkes Bay - 119,700 months worked by temporary migrant workers.

As at March 2014 there were 18,800 unemployed in those same regions not counting 15-17 year olds. Usually around half of unemployed are considered work ready at any point in time.

Artemis, I'm not sure what you're meaning here. There is a difference between a permanent fulltime job with annual holidays and sick pay etc, and a temporary contract job picking fruit for X$ a kg. There must be quite a rigmarole taking on part-time seasonal work when you're unemployed, although that is not something I've experienced. On the face of it though, at least half of the unemployed in the BOP region could have been working for part of the year, and maybe they did, but who knows if they earned more than the minimum wage. Overseas workers will come over and work at those low rates and then return home, because they don't have our higher costs of living for the rest of the year. It's not as simple as you think. You could argue that these overseas people are often really hard, uncomplaining workers, but that's not a reason to give up on the manufacturing sector in NZ. Perhaps you could supply some figures on how well the manufacturing sector is going. Real figures please, not feel-good data from a survey.

John Key was just on TV1, being 'rigorously' questioned on why the government won't hit its budget surplus this year. Rawdon didn't seem to notice that John spouted so much BS that I was fuming at the TV. For instance: we're doing well since we used to have a massive deficit, now it's close to balancing, this is good that we're only a few hundred million out in a $200billion economy, and the big whopper "getting to a budget surplus is like landing a Boeing 747 on a pin-head".

Yeah, well, I think I know who the pin-head is, he thinks the rest of us don't have a clue about numbers and figures, and will believe anything he says. Not any more.

The govt operates on $60-$70billion of income, so they are a big part of the economy. But not all of it, and over the past six and now seven years it'll run in the red, borrowing on behalf of the taxpayer to cover the shortfall. Conversely the Labour govt managed record budget surpluses and paid down historic debt while they were in office. These are very fundamental differences between the two parties, and I don't think you can pin it all on the GFC and the Earthquakes. National have always been more content to let the govt books sail close to the wind, Labour have been more careful and business-like.

[Daytr]

National will set another record for the most consecutive deficits, breaking their own previous record! It sort of flies in the face that National are the money managers & Labour the irresponsible spenders, when on record the opposite is what has actually occurred.
John Key on National Radio this morning referring to the Auckland property market saying it's unsustainable but insisting the only option to cool it was to make more land & housing available. Well its one option of many including taxes to perhaps produce a surplus, obviously not a priority for this government, despite promising it year after year. They could also look at foreign ownership. At some point there will be a scenario that means foreign ownership is mot attractive & we will see a reversal with sales rather than buys & that will create a vacuum in the market.

[elZorro]

National will set another record for tie most consecutive deficits, breaking their own previous record! It sort of foreskin the face that National are the money managers & Labour the irresponsible spenders, when on record the opposite is what has actually occurred.
John Key on National Radio this morning referring to the Auckland property market saying it's unsustainable but insisting the only option to cool it was to make more land & housing available. Well its one option of many including taxes to perhaps produce a surplus, obviously not a priority for this government, despite promising it year after year. They could also look at foreign ownership. At some point there will be a scenario that means foreign ownership is mot attractive & we will see a reversal with sales rather than buys & that will create a vacuum in the market.

Daytr, National won't try any of those polices, it's their rich mates they're looking after, not the average NZer, or the NZ economy. That's what is so galling.

BTW, interesting spell-correction in your last post .

[Daytr]

Ha ha, thanks. The tablet I use quite often jumps to the most unusual predictive text!