Labour / NZ First Government

[jonu]

Why has New Zealand gone backwards in living standards from the mid 1970s = neoliberalism. Neoliberal strategies include driving down wages, opposition to unions, labour market flexibility.
Good chart in the article showing how since 1973 there has been a divergence of productivity versus hourly compensation. US figures but NZ’s shows a similar divergence.

Though productivity (defined as the output of goods and services per hours worked) grew by about 74 percent between 1973 and 2013, compensation for workers grew at a much slower rate of only 9 percent during the same time period, according to data from the Economic Policy Institute.
Labor has become more efficient and profitable, but employees aren't sharing in the benefits.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/why-the-gap-between-worker-pay-and-productivity-is-so-problematic/385931/

But in the 1970s, when Keynesian policies began to fall apart and economic crises struck on both sides of the Atlantic, neoliberal ideas began to enter the mainstream. As Friedman remarked, “when the time came that you had to change ... there was an alternative ready there to be picked up”. With the help of sympathetic journalists and political advisers, elements of neoliberalism, especially its prescriptions for monetary policy, were adopted by Jimmy Carter’s administration in the US and Jim Callaghan’s government in Britain.
It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom should have been promoted with the slogan “there is no alternative”.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

Badly flawed premise moka. Can you show me where neo-liberalism was present in the Kirk/Rowling/Muldoon governments of the 70's?

Your long treatise bears no relation to NZ history. Check your dates for when LABOUR's neo-liberal policies came into play in the late 80's, as a kneejerk reaction to the interventionist policies of the 70s which combined with the oil shocks and formation of the EEC had been a disaster.

[jonu]

You would be talking about inequality if you were living in poverty in New Zealand.
Global population 7.8 billion as of October 2020 so 25% have been lifted out of poverty. Or to put it another way 75% of people still live in poverty in a world of plenty.[/I]

Blatant misrepresentation of statistics to support another long winded spiel. You really must learn to build a strong foundation for your arguments moka, rather than starting off with an obvious error and constructing your argument upon it.

The 25% poverty statistic does not even remotely imply that the remaining 75% was also living in poverty. You're not only speaking to gullible Cindy acolytes here moka! Sharpen up your act!

[blackcap]

You would be talking about inequality if you were living in poverty in New Zealand.
Global population 7.8 billion as of October 2020 so 25% have been lifted out of poverty. Or to put it another way 75% of people still live in poverty in a world of plenty.

.[/I]

Not at all. Not all of the 7.8 billion were living in poverty. 2 Billion have been lifted out of poverty of the 3 Billion or so that were in poverty. So you are making up crap as you go along. Just like you did in the Neo Liberal thing talking about the 70's when it was instituted by Labour in 1980's. But you have an agenda so keep up the work. Its interesting reading for a good laugh.

[fungus pudding]

Surely you jest? The NZ from the 70's was way worse than the NZ now. Not even close. NZ's standard of living has improved markedly.

'The good old days' were always a wonderful time when seen in the rear view mirror, or in moka's case, has his head on backwards.

[iceman]

So now we have proof Ardern and Hipkins were lying and simply threw Bloomfield under the bus https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/hea...ugust-outbreak

[Bjauck]

'The good old days' were always a wonderful time when seen in the rear view mirror, or in moka's case, has his head on backwards.

The post-covid times with low interest rates seem on track to further exacerbating the the trend in divergence of wealth. Asset prices have increased. So maybe some think the future is rosier?

However, it is pretty scary looking through the windscreen at the road ahead.

Bob Jones is waiting for what he sees as the inevitable crash when reality can no longer be postponed.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/pro...f-cash-waiting

[fungus pudding]

When trickle-down works what is it supposed to do? Increase GDP, increase growth and over time this growth will generate enough government revenue to offset tax losses. But it works best according to the Laffer curve when taxes are high 50% – 100%.

You obviously do not understand Laffer economics. I doubt you have ever studied the philosophy. But just to help you out, according to the curve, trickle down slows at 50% and stops at 100%.

[jonu]

So now we have proof Ardern and Hipkins were lying and simply threw Bloomfield under the bus https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/hea...ugust-outbreak

Her faithful will never believe it. Cindy is as pure as the driven snow in their eyes. History will show her to be one of the most deeply cynical politicians our country has suffered.

[Bjauck]

You obviously do not understand Laffer economics. I doubt you have ever studied the philosophy. But just to help you out, according to the curve, trickle down slows at 50% and stops at 100%.

Laffer "economics" expounded in the USA? Where they have a general Capital Gains Tax and death duties too?

It is arguable that in NZ that any "trickle-down" could dry up with Income Tax rates even below 50% as the more highly paid and wealthy invest their tax-paid money in long-term assets with capital gains. The Laffer envelope has a more limited application to the NZ tax environment?

Tax cuts for higher income earners will more likely lead to a drop in overall tax returns as any boost in GST does not compensate for the reduction on income tax receipts. With the wealthy able to leverage their increased net income into investments, with capital gains comprising the bulk of their return.

[fungus pudding]

Laffer "economics" expounded in the USA? Where they have a general Capital Gains Tax and death duties too?

It is arguable that in NZ that any "trickle-down" could dry up with Income Tax rates even below 50% as the more highly paid and wealthy invest their tax-paid money in long-term assets with capital gains. The Laffer envelope has a more limited application to the NZ tax environment?

Tax cuts for higher income earners will more likely lead to a drop in overall tax returns as any boost in GST does not compensate for the reduction on income tax receipts. With the wealthy able to leverage their increased net income into investments, with capital gains comprising the bulk of their return.

You overlook the main point of the Laffer curve. That is there are always two different percentage rates a high and a low, that will produce the same result, or the same amount of tax revenue. The obvious examples are 100% (where nobody bothers doing anything or doesn't bother charging for it, or most likely operates only in the black economy) and 0% where regardless of activity, the govt. gets nothing. So perhaps in NZ 90% and 4% might produce a similar result.
(The Labour proposed 39% to be introduced is in my opinion too high on the wrong side of the curve and will boost the black economy.)