If National wins ...

[777]

When has investing in property a gross waste of money?

[craic]

And how much did they get from the sale of the old apartment? And the three hundred and twenty seven good sound reasons for having accommodation apart from the Embassy?

[Daytr]

Hi Craic, we are getting far better representation in Northland than we were under National/Sabin that's for sure.
What ever happened to that guy Sabin??? :-)
The latest & in tune with Peters by-election campaign of value add, he has called for a moratorium on the mining of swamp kauri.
An industry that is a disgrace, ripping up wetlands with little overview & flouting the flimsy current law by a putting a few scribbles on a log & claiming its a finished product. Every time Winston opens his mouth in parliament he's a reminder to National of their humbling defeat in the Northland by-election. Its very possible that NZF holds the balance of power in 2017 & the more Key lets Winston get under his skin, the less likely they will ever do a coalition deal. I just hope Labour can get its act together & become a substantial opposition between now & then.

I would have thought NZF will be the biggest beneficiaries from the implosion of the Conservative party, them & ACT, followed by National.

Had a ONECARD since the beginning and used it once on an Auckland bus and maybe half a dozen times at The Mad Butcher for a small discout. no other use to me. Fly Buys usually pays for a night in a motel about once a year on trips overseas from Auckland. Farmlands gets me credit and some very good discounts. Reading the UK International Express, there is a very good article on pensions, related tax and the power of that vote. Winston will have to come up with something fairly spectacular to make gains. I haven't heard much from his electorate? Is he actually achieving anything up there?

[westerly]

[QUOTE=winner69;578090]EZ (and maybe westerly), you'll enjoy this from Robert Reich. He is talking my language.

Reich was Labour Secretary under Clinton. Since before the GFC he really anti banks and big money. Some of his solutions these days are bit weird but generally he talking my language. If wanting something to read his books are worthwhile

Interesting views, tend to agree. Big money means big power though.


westerly

[Major von Tempsky]

Reich shows a gross ignorance of economics. For example raising the minimum wage too far (i.e. more than inflation) has a number of effects, none of them good. (a) it stops teenagers getting their first job, learning to budget, to organize themselves, to get work experience (b) it puts some businesses out of existence e.g. fast food operators (c) it means that some services and goods would no longer be available in NZ (d) for some families (including immigrants) who rely on 1 or more members making a contribution from minimum wage jobs they are reduced to welfare if theses jobs are no longer there (e) students who rely on these jobs can no longer work their way through courses part time (f) it may make it uneconomic for employers to offer apprenticeship jobs to the detriment of a skilled workforce and future growth.
Now all these points have been rehearsed here before - what's the matter with you guys? memories like a sieve or unable to understand simple economics?

[Sgt Pepper]

Reich shows a gross ignorance of economics. For example raising the minimum wage too far (i.e. more than inflation) has a number of effects, none of them good. (a) it stops teenagers getting their first job, learning to budget, to organize themselves, to get work experience (b) it puts some businesses out of existence e.g. fast food operators (c) it means that some services and goods would no longer be available in NZ (d) for some families (including immigrants) who rely on 1 or more members making a contribution from minimum wage jobs they are reduced to welfare if theses jobs are no longer there (e) students who rely on these jobs can no longer work their way through courses part time (f) it may make it uneconomic for employers to offer apprenticeship jobs to the detriment of a skilled workforce and future growth.
Now all these points have been rehearsed here before - what's the matter with you guys? memories like a sieve or unable to understand simple economics?

Major

Do you think there should be any legislated minimum wage at all?

[Daytr]

I would suggest these are cliqued reasons to not raise the minimum wage. What evidence is their of your first point a) ? What goods & services do your refer to in c) ?
The problem with the minimum wage in NZ is that it is basically at subsistence levels where it leaves a huge portion of the nation that can't get ahead.
With rising rents in the likes of Auckland particularly & rising electricity prices across the country year after year how is the minimum wage keeping up with the cost of living.
MVT being someone so au fait with economics you will understand the multiplier effect & if the minimum wage was raised in NZ it is likely to create far more jobs through share consumption than would be lost. An extra couple of dollars per hour makes a huge difference to low income earners. Australia seems to manage to do it, in fact it attracts our young people as they know they can actually earn a reasonable income doing the menial job they would be doing here.

Reich shows a gross ignorance of economics. For example raising the minimum wage too far (i.e. more than inflation) has a number of effects, none of them good. (a) it stops teenagers getting their first job, learning to budget, to organize themselves, to get work experience (b) it puts some businesses out of existence e.g. fast food operators (c) it means that some services and goods would no longer be available in NZ (d) for some families (including immigrants) who rely on 1 or more members making a contribution from minimum wage jobs they are reduced to welfare if theses jobs are no longer there (e) students who rely on these jobs can no longer work their way through courses part time (f) it may make it uneconomic for employers to offer apprenticeship jobs to the detriment of a skilled workforce and future growth.
Now all these points have been rehearsed here before - what's the matter with you guys? memories like a sieve or unable to understand simple economics?

[elZorro]

Reich shows a gross ignorance of economics. For example raising the minimum wage too far (i.e. more than inflation) has a number of effects, none of them good. (a) it stops teenagers getting their first job, learning to budget, to organize themselves, to get work experience (b) it puts some businesses out of existence e.g. fast food operators (c) it means that some services and goods would no longer be available in NZ (d) for some families (including immigrants) who rely on 1 or more members making a contribution from minimum wage jobs they are reduced to welfare if theses jobs are no longer there (e) students who rely on these jobs can no longer work their way through courses part time (f) it may make it uneconomic for employers to offer apprenticeship jobs to the detriment of a skilled workforce and future growth.
Now all these points have been rehearsed here before - what's the matter with you guys? memories like a sieve or unable to understand simple economics?

MVT, employers are already able to offer a percentage of the adult minimum wage to teenagers. When Labour tried to install a flat minimum wage, employers responded crudely by swapping younger workers for more experienced staff, still paying the lowest possible wage. Your argument isn't very good if the minimum wage means that working part-time people don't have much left over after transport costs, child-minding costs are taken out. The apprentice schemes have been let go over the years, it's harder and harder for school leavers to get one. Nat Govt policy hasn't helped there.

A truly organised govt would guide businesses into profitable new areas, they would ensure a stronger economy so that when minimum wages were moved higher, there would be enough profit to allow that to occur, without job losses. Ideally, new jobs would actually appear as more cash was put into circulation.

[BlackPeter]

MVT, employers are already able to offer a percentage of the adult minimum wage to teenagers. When Labour tried to install a flat minimum wage, employers responded crudely by swapping younger workers for more experienced staff, still paying the lowest possible wage. Your argument isn't very good if the minimum wage means that working part-time people don't have much left over after transport costs, child-minding costs are taken out. The apprentice schemes have been let go over the years, it's harder and harder for school leavers to get one. Nat Govt policy hasn't helped there.

A truly organised govt would guide businesses into profitable new areas, they would ensure a stronger economy so that when minimum wages were moved higher, there would be enough profit to allow that to occur, without job losses. Ideally, new jobs would actually appear as more cash was put into circulation.

Lol - you mean something like Greece, do you? Government made sure they get great wages (in their heydays some of the best in Europe), early retirement and a hard left government run by academics. Paradise ... I guess just fair that others have to mop up the mess

[elZorro]

Lol - you mean something like Greece, do you? Government made sure they get great wages (in their heydays some of the best in Europe), early retirement and a hard left government run by academics. Paradise ... I guess just fair that others have to mop up the mess

I don't know much about the Greek situation, but a very low tax base didn't help the money-go-round.

Over here this morning, John Key was trying valiantly to make a few situations look normal:

400 NZ state houses bought with taxpayer money and housing the most vulnerable in many cases, could end up Australian owned, as no NZ social housing providers have the capital base or nerve to complete a firesale of this size.

Enrolments in the Kiwisaver programme have halved since the $1000 kickstart was dropped by a mean govt.

They could have funded all this, and more, if they'd resumed putting cash into the Cullen fund shortly after the GFC.

If they keep going the way they are, there will be no Crown assets left, no income streams except taxes and levies. And yet their main reason for existing seems to be - to reduce the tax burden on the already well-off.