National - FFS!

[macduffy]

Why not create the environment for them to stay then-- which means higher incomes and lower rents.

The earthquake was good for the economy and I'm sure there was higher debt and unemployment after the GFC like there is now.

If you think that the earthquake was good for the economy, I suggest you research the "broken window fallacy".

[blackcap]

Why not create the environment for them to stay then-- which means higher incomes and lower rents.

The earthquake was good for the economy and I'm sure there was higher debt and unemployment after the GFC like there is now.

Earthquake is never good for the economy. Just like the fallacy that war is good for an economy. There was destruction on a massive scale. That is never good. Resources that were normally utilised for other production were now diverted to rebuilding. Not to mention the social cost of relocation for a lot of people, mental health costs with shot nerves etc etc.

[Bjauck]

Why not create the environment for them to stay then-- which means higher incomes and lower rents.

The earthquake was good for the economy and I'm sure there was higher debt and unemployment after the GFC like there is now.

Truly? Nothing like destructon of homes and infrastructure, lost business, and dislocation?

Sure, How you react to a disaster will affect recovery.

For example prioritising high profile sports may keep vocal voters entertained and sweet but allowing well supervised agricultural workers in may keep our productive sectors vital and able to stimulate the regional economies.

[Zaphod]

From what has been reported thus far, New Zealanders are not applying for either the skilled or unskilled agricultural roles which if true, is disappointing and lends weight to the argument around opening the borders in a controlled fashion. It was pleasing to hear Jacinda finally acknowledge as well this during some remarks made at a campaign event.

[Panda-NZ-]

Truly? Nothing like destructon of homes and infrastructure, lost business, and dislocation?

Sure, How you react to a disaster will affect recovery.

For example prioritising high profile sports may keep vocal voters entertained and sweet but allowing well supervised agricultural workers in may keep our productive sectors vital and able to stimulate the regional economies.

It is a broken window, but it still contributes to GDP numbers.

If you remove the construction activity it will knock 5% off gdp and maybe 1% off employment.

[tim23]

[QUOTE=fungus pudding;844473]

Collins is not in my lot. Nevertheless she is not plain stupid, as is Twyford.

Well its pretty clear that you are not a Labour voter, so maybe you are in that party with JL Ross?

[iceman]

National has now come out with a tax policy which is starkly different to Labour’s. Clearly aimed at temporary reducing the tax on all wage/salary earners to leave more money in the economy rather than Labour’s approach of picking winners to redistribute to like theGreen school and AJ Hackett.

I like National’s approach and hope it resonates with working voters

[fungus pudding]

National has now come out with a tax policy which is starkly different to Labour’s. Clearly aimed at temporary reducing the tax on all wage/salary earners to leave more money in the economy rather than Labour’s approach of picking winners to redistribute to like theGreen school and AJ Hackett.

I like National’s approach and hope it resonates with working voters

Certainly better than Labour's crazy envy tax, but why not accompany it with some cost cutting; e.g. the crazy electricity payment - a misnomer if ever there was one. Nothing to do with electricity. Why not call it what it is - a tax free bribe for oldies to spend at the pub?

[Zaphod]

Wider issues such as why national refused to improve savings levels over their nine years (taking away kiwisaver tax credits and not lifiting contributions) or invest in the super fund so we rely on foreign investment and land sales.

Cullen himself advocated for removal of Government incentives on KiwiSaver, so National's stance is perfectly in line with Labour's expectations for the scheme.
Borrowing to fund super was not a sensible move during a recession created by the 2008 GFC, nor during the economic impact of the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes. Cullen's vision for Kiwisaver to be means tested against national super means we wouldn't require such hefty contributions anyway. We obviously need to continue to follow Labour's vision.

[Panda-NZ-]

I don't think what Labour said in the past (apparently) is relevant to what national did.

The income tax from both those funds paid for Bill's surplus which he wanted to spend on tax cuts instead of building up the fund to pay for super liabilities.