Fungus Pudding What Polls the same ones that said that National was going to get 55% of the vote & would not need coalition partners
Printable View
Fungus Pudding What Polls the same ones that said that National was going to get 55% of the vote & would not need coalition partners
Ha Ha, you're pulling my leg right FP? I had to have a look at the ACT website for a couple of minutes to find these barely-thought-out policies. Have a quick look at them and they might make sense, if you'd had a couple of beers and were about to nod off.
There must be plenty of others, in the vein of trickle-down theory, look after business owners, forget the environment, dismantle the public sector, etc.Quote:
ACT will keep working for a stronger economy. A Party Vote for ACT is a vote to:
• Push the next government to reduce wasteful spending. In 2005, Labour was spending 29 per cent of the national income. Today, the same figure is 35 per cent. ACT would push the next government to return spending to the level it was at in 2005 by repealing the “election bribe” spending of the past two elections with a view toward getting the top personal tax rate down to 25% and the company tax rate to 12.5%;
• Push the next government to lock in lower taxes by passing ACT’s Spending Cap Bill into law. The Bill would require government spending to increase only by the level of inflation and population growth. By reducing government spending and taxes, it would increase the rewards for wealth creation;
• Push the next government to pass ACT’s Regulatory Standards Bill. The Bill would test all new regulations for unnecessary red tape, making it easier to do business;
• Sell state assets such as power generation companies; the overwhelming evidence is that such valuable assets produce more wealth when managed privately;
• Allow more mining when the economic benefits outweigh the environmental costs.
If you have high income, the public sector is just a nuisance. But if you've been let go by a business, say, that sees continued profits at all costs as its only reason for existence, then the social policies that Labour brought in all those years ago, are the backstop. To pay for those, we need taxes (or inflation). I think we can have all of these positive outcomes, including profitable businesses employing lots of people, if taxes are only reduced in areas that foster positive actions. In other areas, they should be brought in to stop negative activity. As a relative pointed out to me yesterday, a CGT would make business owners more likely to hold out for better prices, making sales to overseas investors more profitable for the country as a whole. A CGT is also likely to encourage investment away from property, and into more lucrative business areas, because the annual returns from a half-way decent business will more than match a hopeful (taxed) capital gain from property down the track.
All very sensible policies designed to ramp up the productive part of the economy and incentivise productive effort.
Only thing missing is cutting down on existing red tape such as the Resources Management Act.
If you want to catch up with Australia and attract and keep more entrpreneurs here its the way to go.
Not another ACT voter, this is too much.. OK, Major, the RMA, which is designed to make people think twice before bulldozing themselves a jetty into a river or draining a swamp, lowering a lake, as well as numerous other sabotage that we've all heard about, including taking more than your share of water. The RMA is there for a reason. Sure, regional councils get a fair bit of their income from it. But if it didn't come from those wanting to work on infrastructure, every ratepayer would have to pay more. And most of us aren't doing a lot most of the time. So I'm sick of farmers etc moaning about the bloody RMA. Get over it?
The research shows that trickle down theory doesn't work, it's a lie, it works the other way to pull profits into the top sector only. So unless the policies are suitable for smaller businesses who are just starting out, they won't help most of us at all. More tax reductions at the top end won't help, either. Unless you're already well off, and then I guess ACT is a great party, just for you.
And for the anti-assets sales flock of parrots (hint No 1, you never succeed with a negative message, you need a positive message) , you will of course have noted that (a) the OECD recently advised the NZ Govt that it needed to make some asset sales to improve the economy and (b) that Julia Gillard's Labour Government is now moving towards power company sales in Australia.
Major von Tempsky When has the OECD ever given any good advice. The Australian power company sales so far have been a disaster for the ordinary Australian
The best argument National has presented is that we have to sell something to make the books balance. That is not a positive message.
If we want to back centre-right stewardship of the economy and the contention that National are better masters of growth, then retaining assets is the smart thing to do. Asset sales is a 'no' vote for the local economy (and therefore a no vote for national?).
I also prefer my thinking to be a little more independant. Asia can still recall the advice received from the OECD (advice that came with teeth via the IMF) about debt management. Think we know now what a bunch of cr@p the OECD has proved to be.
On asset sales I want to see interest saved and the benefits vs income earned and the benefits over a time series. Until I see something to the contrary, methinks inflation and compounding is a vote for assets retained. How about less dogma and more math?
I agree Halebop: On Tuesday a power fault at Huntly threatened the National Grid. 200,000 customers were dropped as part of load shedding. Genesis have threatened that Huntly is not profitable enough and they'd like to retire all of the old four steam generators. Oh sure, when on Tuesday lunchtime, two out of four were running flat out, generating 500MW. Split the power companies up even more, add market forces more directly, and we'll get heaps of this sort of rubbish going on. It's a bit like Pike River, in retrospect the best and safest use of that site would be to have Solid Energy operate it. With no market forces, just have a tidy, careful planning stage, but do it right. These are important national assets, not playthings.
It's not "the best argument National has presented" (doubt you've even read half of them anyway) but the arguments presented by OECD, IMF, Treasury, Reserve Bank, in the Australian Labour Government and expert worldwide economic advice!
Here's something to put in your pipe from Shane Jones
"Labour MP Shane Jones says his party has to realise that National has the numbers to push through state asset sales, and he will not criticise iwi which wish to invest in them.
Yesterday Mr Jones said that although Labour opposed state asset sales they were now inevitable and iwi wanting to invest in them for commercial reasons should not be pilloried.
He indicated a more pragmatic stance on the issue was ahead as Labour sought to re-build its links with business and enterprises.
"We can continue to criticise that programme, because we are in Opposition. But ... the Labour Party needs to learn to count in terms of the election outcome.
"The Government has the numbers to pursue its programme. I certainly won't get too precious if various iwi step up to the plate and say 'we want to be part of this action'. That's a decision they're entitled to take. They've got sovereignty over their own commercial decisions."
The position is similar to that of the Maori Party - which is opposed to state asset sales but has said it will support any iwi which wants to buy shares."