Will the Bear come here ?

[blackcap]

A bit of positive news - New Zealand featured in the 8 top stories from Davos 2019.
4. New Zealand has a well-being budget.
Jacinda Ardern has unveiled a new approach to running New Zealand’s finances. "We need to address the societal well-being of our nation, not just the economic well-being,” she said during a discussion on More than GDP.
This means that from 2019, her government will present a “well-being budget” to gauge the long-term impact of policy on the quality of people’s lives.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/...om-davos-2019/

How is a well-being budget going to stop a bear from coming here though?

[moka]

How is a well-being budget going to stop a bear from coming here though?

It won’t stop the bear from coming, but when it does come a well-being budget will ensure that there is plenty of porridge in the cupboard for the bear so it is not so grizzly.

[blackcap]

It won’t stop the bear from coming, but when it does come a well-being budget will ensure that there is plenty of porridge in the cupboard for the bear so it is not so grizzly.

What is a "well-being" budget anyway. How is it defined. And I think if it is what I think it is, that a well being budget will actually exacerbate the actions of the bear. From an investing point of view it will. If a well being budget means taxing at higher rates to "redistribute" wealth and or income, then that will be negative for the markets..... the parameter by which a bear is measured.
Jacindarella is deluded.

[Timesurfer]

We aren't worried about the general "well-being," we are worred about our well-being come next elections.

[Aaron]

What is a "well-being" budget anyway. How is it defined. And I think if it is what I think it is, that a well being budget will actually exacerbate the actions of the bear. From an investing point of view it will. If a well being budget means taxing at higher rates to "redistribute" wealth and or income, then that will be negative for the markets..... the parameter by which a bear is measured.
Jacindarella is deluded.

A "well-being budget" sounds a bit airy fairy but nice to see a government putting the people ahead of the financial system. Especially a financial system that appears to be responsible for an ever increasing gap in wealth between the haves and have-nots.

[blackcap]

A "well-being budget" sounds a bit airy fairy but nice to see a government putting the people ahead of the financial system. Especially a financial system that appears to be responsible for an ever increasing gap in wealth between the haves and have-nots.

It does sound airy fairy indeed. The problem I have with it is that will it actually help the people that it is trying to help? Hand outs do not help. Look at Africa for huge hand out failures. There needs to be incentive to people can work their way up. Giving money away to those "in need" just exacerbates the problem and creates dependency.

That said we still do not even know what this "well-being" budget will look like. To me it is a catch cry and a political slogan, but in actual real terms will make no difference.

Anyway we are talking whether the bear will come here. No budget or political slogan is going to change or minimise the impact of the Bear if and when it comes.

[moka]

If a well being budget means taxing at higher rates to "redistribute" wealth and or income, then that will be negative for the markets..... the parameter by which a bear is measured.

Apparently taxing at high rates is not necessarily bad for the economy according to history and Professor Brynjolfsson.
At Davos Michael Dell, the billionaire CEO responds to a question about a 70% marginal tax rate on the wealthiest Americans, “No, I’m not supportive of that,” Dell says, to much laughter from the assembled plutocrats.
“And I don’t think it will help the growth of the US economy. Name a country where that’s worked.”
At which point his co-panellist, MIT professor Erik Brynjolfsson, chimes in: “The United States.”
As Dell and others sputter incredulously, Brynjolfsson explains that America didn’t always allow the super-rich to pay a mere 37% in tax.

“From about the 1930s to the 1960s the tax rate [on the very rich] averaged about 70%,” he says. “At times it was up as high as 95%. And those were actually pretty good years for growth … There’s actually a lot of economics to suggest that it’s not actually going to hurt growth.”

The top marginal tax rate in the United States was above 90 percent in much of the 1950s and early 1960s, and the rate was 70 percent as recently as 1980. That year, the 70-percent rate applied to income over $215,400 for married couples. It has steadily fallen in the last 25 years, with the top rate hovering in the mid-to-high 30s.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...s-common-sense
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/domestic-taxes/426695-dell-ceo-rejects-ocasio-cortezs-tax-plan-at-davos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sl7yVVaKl4 short you tube video
Davos laughs at AOC tax proposals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8akySjXuOAs longer you tube video
MIT Professor Destroys Entire DAVOS Panel, Silences Confused Panel Host

[blackcap]

Apparently taxing at high rates is not necessarily bad for the economy according to history and Professor Brynjolfsson.
At Davos Michael Dell, the billionaire CEO responds to a question about a 70% marginal tax rate on the wealthiest Americans, “No, I’m not supportive of that,” Dell says, to much laughter from the assembled plutocrats.
“And I don’t think it will help the growth of the US economy. Name a country where that’s worked.”
At which point his co-panellist, MIT professor Erik Brynjolfsson, chimes in: “The United States.”
As Dell and others sputter incredulously, Brynjolfsson explains that America didn’t always allow the super-rich to pay a mere 37% in tax.

“From about the 1930s to the 1960s the tax rate [on the very rich] averaged about 70%,” he says. “At times it was up as high as 95%. And those were actually pretty good years for growth … There’s actually a lot of economics to suggest that it’s not actually going to hurt growth.”

The top marginal tax rate in the United States was above 90 percent in much of the 1950s and early 1960s, and the rate was 70 percent as recently as 1980. That year, the 70-percent rate applied to income over $215,400 for married couples. It has steadily fallen in the last 25 years, with the top rate hovering in the mid-to-high 30s.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...s-common-sense
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/domestic-taxes/426695-dell-ceo-rejects-ocasio-cortezs-tax-plan-at-davos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sl7yVVaKl4 short you tube video
Davos laughs at AOC tax proposals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8akySjXuOAs longer you tube video
MIT Professor Destroys Entire DAVOS Panel, Silences Confused Panel Host

That may be the case in the 50's 60's and before. That was before capital and people were as free to move as they are today. I just watched the Australian Open tennis. Of note was that many of the players represented their countries ie Serbia (Novak Djocovic) Croatia (Marin Cilic) etc etc, but for some funny reason the majority of players had their place of residence somewhere else. Monaco seemed to pop up frequently.

[Aaron]

That may be the case in the 50's 60's and before. That was before capital and people were as free to move as they are today. I just watched the Australian Open tennis. Of note was that many of the players represented their countries ie Serbia (Novak Djocovic) Croatia (Marin Cilic) etc etc, but for some funny reason the majority of players had their place of residence somewhere else. Monaco seemed to pop up frequently.

Blackcap still banging on about supply side economics in spite of actual evidence to the contrary. What a magnificent ideologue.
It would also seem that recent tax cuts in the US have not done what they were supposed to do.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...side-economics

The job creator myth was disproved now capital flight seems to be the last great threat against raising taxes(other than we will turn out like Venezuela if we raise taxes) (My view is we are more likely to turn out like Venezuela with excessive money printing and low interest getting inflation really cranking) .
Sorry not really related to the bear coming, but breaking news, the price of gold is signalling an increased possibility of a bear.

[moka]

The problem I have with it is that will it actually help the people that it is trying to help? Hand outs do not help. Look at Africa for huge hand out failures. There needs to be incentive to people can work their way up. Giving money away to those "in need" just exacerbates the problem and creates dependency.

Is it a handout or social welfare?
A social welfare system provides assistance to needy individuals and families.
The definition of a handout is - a portion of food, clothing, or money given to or as if to a beggar. A handout is a gift not a right. We all have a right to an adequate standard of living under the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 25.(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
http://www.un.org/en/universal-decla...hts/index.html