Labour / NZ First Government

[iceman]

Bond holders are paying NZ in real terms because it's so safe. 0.5% months ago v 3% under National.

The increase value of the power companies and increased super fund gains are massive on the other hand. The balance sheet position may be better post-corona than pre-corona.
Remarkable achievement, thanks labour.

OMG. Here is Treaury's forecast for you but don't let their facts stand in your way:

summaryHYEFY.jpg

[Balance]

OMG. Here is Treaury's forecast for you but don't let their facts stand in your way:

summaryHYEFY.jpg

PandaNZ is typical of the warped mindset Labourites - the weak & dumb minded who cannot see Cynical Cindy for who she is - a manipulative economic ignorant hypocrite.

Trevor Mallard.

Housing disaster.

Ihumatao.

Hijab to insult & spite the oppressed Muslim women.

[westerly]

OMG. Here is Treaury's forecast for you but don't let their facts stand in your way:

summaryHYEFY.jpg

Since when has an economic forecast become facts?

westerly

[Balance]

Since when has an economic forecast become facts?

westerly

2020 numbers are actual.

And the numbers already show the economic woke cuckoo land that Labourites live in.

[dobby41]

Sorry. You are right. I am one too along with a helluva lot more then 2%. Yes, I can afford it - but that is not the point. It is not a fair tax - plain and simple. I'm still shaking from Muldoon's 66% back in the 80s.

Many believe that no tax is fair - subjective.

[Zaphod]

Got a better idea?

Yes, basically constrain the spending as much as possible. Two ideas that immediately spring to mind:
1. Better design of the wage subsidy. This has turned into a fiasco, with calls for it to be repaid voluntarily, so it obviously wasn't designed well in the first place.
2. Don't increase the minimum wage during a lockdown, especially when the tax payer is footing 90% of the wage bill for a huge proportion of the population.

That's many more ways.

It was National who dropped tax to 33% then embarked on a borrowing spree to pay for stuff "oh, whoops, we'll balance the books next year, promise".

I'm trying to understand the relevance of this statement. Are you saying that if the top tax rate had been kept at 39% we wouldn't have had to borrow?

Naive to think National wouldn't have borrowed as a response to covid either initially or eventually.

Yes, it would be. I haven't seen any arguments on this forum stating that the government shouldn't have borrowed.

As I recall their main plan was simply to open the borders. Smart.

Your recall is inaccurate.

[Panda-NZ-]

We need to spend more given debt costs are so low. hundred year lows.

Yes, basically constrain the spending as much as possible. Two ideas that immediately spring to mind:
1. Better design of the wage subsidy. This has turned into a fiasco, with calls for it to be repaid voluntarily, so it obviously wasn't designed well in the first place.
2. Don't increase the minimum wage during a lockdown, especially when the tax payer is footing 90% of the wage bill for a huge proportion of the population.

I think pretty much every country has been more generous than us. Australia doubled their welfare across the board for six months as well as provided a more generous wage subsidy. So we have recieved great value for money.

Find me a country which has done better, you can't.

[dobby41]

Why is this thread still running - there is no Labour/NZ First Govt anymore

[jonu]

Why is this thread still running - there is no Labour/NZ First Govt anymore

I guess it has pertinence as to decisions made prior the election, but hopefully the 20-23 thread will prevail

[Zaphod]

We need to spend more given debt costs are so low. hundred year lows.

No, we need to kick start the economy, but be careful of amounting vast sums of debt that successive generations will need to repay. Just because interest rates are currently low, does not mean that we should borrow asd much as possible. That would be irresponsible for any government.

I think pretty much every country has been more generous than us. Australia doubled their welfare across the board for six months as well as provided a more generous wage subsidy. So we have recieved great value for money..

That's not a logical argument though. Even if the premise is true (I haven't checked), it does not mean that we received great value for money, and it still does not invalidate argument around the wider issue of inefficient spending and burgeoning debt. Treasury has indicated a combination of higher taxes and lower public services will be required to balance the budget as best we can. The massive spending and borrowing has created a significant long-term problem, as would be expected.