If National wins ...

[elZorro]

You are so right. My tax rate dropped from 39 to 33, but losing the depreciation claim has meant I pay one hellluva lot more tax than before. In fact I dropped more than the Ch-ch bloke who didn't take his increase.

And now would be a good time to move into R&D or manufacturing instead, except of course National effectively removed any push-pull incentive to go there in the meantime. Yes, I'm still mad too FP, but about the R&D tax credits being abolished.

[elZorro]

Wellington is being emptied out as far as jobs go, house prices too. Is the public sector really that inefficient, or are they just convenient cost savers? The National Govt can't sack workers in the private sector, well not directly. They are making it hard for Wellington retailers, landlords, and anyone needing a prompt response from the public sector.

http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/6...on-s-mojo.html

[elZorro]

From Colin James.

Colin James's column for the Otago Daily Times for 13 March 2012


Where to find the workplace discontent


Spiders discomfort some people. Unions discomfort John Key. Unions are the antithesis of individualism and they get in the way. One got in the way of some film moguls so he changed workplace law to suit the moguls.

Unions are fomenting discontent by joining Greypower and other groups to get up a citizens-initiated referendum on state asset sales which could be a bit embarrassing.

Other unions have been: obstructing Ports of Auckland's drive for much more job flexibility; not immediately embracing a meatworks company's major unilateral work practice changes; and wanting a fair share of the increase in a for-profit old-people's home operator's loot from taxpayers.

This agitation differs from pre-1980s Midlands-accented workplace folklore. Unions, once powerful, are now under a tenth of the private-sector workforce and by and large on the defensive as the cabinet limbers up for more deregulation in collective bargaining, flexible hours and dismissal constraints and as globalisation-stretched companies anticipate those more employer-friendly settings.

There is pressure in the public sector, too. The Defence Force's sackings last year to civilianise some jobs is now rewarding top brass with higher attrition and low morale. John Allen risks a similar return on his reconstruction of the foreign service: a survey of staff indicated widespread and deep upset at his big-change proposals.

People aren't numbers.

Well, actually they are. By and large National views employees' incomes as costs. By and large Labour views them as sustenance. The workplace is the dividing line between the two big old parties and an enduring reason why only in a dire national emergency would Labour enter a grand coalition.

In National's world flexible work practices and containment of wages and salaries are vital ingredients of business competitiveness in a tough global economy. In that arena people are numbers.

Labour thinks competitiveness comes from investment and innovation to lift worker productivity: David Shearer has kept the science and innovation portfolio. For Labour numbers in the workplace are those that meet living costs: food on the table in a house and so on. That's how people are numbers.

There are two main dimensions to this.

Go back 100 years: built into the conciliation and arbitration (IC&A) system then was a presumption that a wage should at the least enable a man to afford a decent supply of the basics for an average family: that is, a living wage.

The Service and Food Workers Union, which represents many of the lowest-paid workers, some of them shockingly treated, wants to resurrect that concept. It is talking to community organisations which support low-income families about launching a living wage campaign.

What is the moral case for not paying someone who works conscientiously a wage that pays for a decent supply of necessities, especially if supporting children, who hardly deserve to go without?

Actually, it is not so simple. The IC&A notion assumed a single "breadwinner", which was then the norm. This is still the case in many households but many now have two "breadwinners". Should the "living wage" for them be divided in two? And what if the other "breadwinner" is on a good screw?

Now apply National's argument that work gives "dignity". That is not easy to argue if the pay is derisory and demeaning and not enough to keep a couple of kids decently. A "dignity" policy needs strong foundations.

Now for the second numbers dimension. Global economics are driving down wages for even skilled work. Moreover, who gets most hurt if transport (including port) costs are higher than they need be? The least-well-off.

Ken Douglas, legendary unionist, used to call "wharfies" the "aristocrats of labour": high wages and cushy conditions. As in 1951, the Labour party is wary of being seen in cahoots with wharfies. Labour's safer position is concern that what can be done to well-organised wharfies can be done even more readily to others.

There is also a legal dimension.

The pressure generating the current tensions has been coming mostly from employers, whom unions think have been emboldened in exacting economic times by Key's law change promises, which Key disingenuously calls minor.

There has been loose talk of a "winter of discontent". But whose discontent is on show?

And where will employers' discontent lead? If Key does make the changes he has said he will, the next Labour-led government will reverse them and probably overdo it, as it did after National's 1990s deregulation.

The alternative for Key would be to tune into conservative values, one of which is durability of social conditions and conventions. Unstable workplace law doesn't fit.

* Last week I talked of "banana-less" New Zealand, in contrast to banana-republic Australian politics. Actually, I am told, the far north grows some bananas: a few and "marginal". The lesson: if we look for bananas politics in this country we will find it at the margins.





-- Colin James, Synapsis Ltd, P O Box 9494, Wellington 6141
Ph (64)-4-384 7030, Mobile (64)-21-438 434, Fax (64)-4-384 9175
Webpage http://www.ColinJames.co.nz

[elZorro]

David Shearer's speech this morning. I think he's on the right track.

http://labour.org.nz/newnz

[CJ]

David Shearer's speech this morning. I think he's on the right track.

http://labour.org.nz/newnz

"I want to arrive in government on Day One with a detailed plan that will actually achieve a shift to a new, job-rich, high-value economy.

We won't be waiting around for officials to give us cautious ideas and suggest a few adjustments.

We will be presenting them with detailed and far-reaching policies.

Labour will spend the next two years listening, drawing up our plans. We will accept the best ideas wherever they come from."

I will wait to see what he puts forward. Until we see details, it is just waffle.

He seems to have dropped teh $5k tax free which is good.

He likes CGT. I am not opposed to it per se, provided it comes with reduction in other taxes. My concern is it is complex to implement and the revenue received doesn't justify it (if taxed on realization of a gain, that can be many years out, so you have a shortfall in the mean time).

Education - good but what changes.

Welfare changes - good but National is doing this already. They need to say how they will do it differently (since they dont like nationals plan) yet still get the savings/benefits they are after.

[fungus pudding]

[I]"I want to arrive in government on Day One with a detailed plan that will actually achieve a shift to a new, job-rich, high-value economy.
.

He likes CGT. I am not opposed to it per se, provided it comes with reduction in other taxes. elfare changes - good but National is doing this already. They need to say how they will do it differently (since they dont like nationals plan) yet still get the savings/benefits they are after.

And I'm not opposed to CGT either, provided it has a repatriation clause - something Goff and Cunliffe were not planning.

[elZorro]

"I want to arrive in government on Day One with a detailed plan that will actually achieve a shift to a new, job-rich, high-value economy.

We won't be waiting around for officials to give us cautious ideas and suggest a few adjustments.

We will be presenting them with detailed and far-reaching policies.

Labour will spend the next two years listening, drawing up our plans. We will accept the best ideas wherever they come from."

I will wait to see what he puts forward. Until we see details, it is just waffle.

He seems to have dropped teh $5k tax free which is good.

He likes CGT. I am not opposed to it per se, provided it comes with reduction in other taxes. My concern is it is complex to implement and the revenue received doesn't justify it (if taxed on realization of a gain, that can be many years out, so you have a shortfall in the mean time).

Education - good but what changes.

Welfare changes - good but National is doing this already. They need to say how they will do it differently (since they dont like nationals plan) yet still get the savings/benefits they are after.

CJ, here is your chance to send through some ideas to the Shearer camp - no matter which way you normally vote. Shearer is right, there is always an opportunity to do better with our resources. How much of an improvement could be made, and how quickly, those are important questions too.

[fungus pudding]

CJ, here is your chance to send through some ideas to the Shearer camp - no matter which way you normally vote. Shearer is right, there is always an opportunity to do better with our resources. How much of an improvement could be made, and how quickly, those are important questions too.

That would be pointless. Far better to wait until Labour have appointed a new leader. I doubt that Shearer will last long; he's only there because he's not Cunliffe.

[CJ]

CJ, here is your chance to send through some ideas to the Shearer camp - no matter which way you normally vote. Shearer is right, there is always an opportunity to do better with our resources. How much of an improvement could be made, and how quickly, those are important questions too.

As long as Shearer pickets beside the POAL employees, there is no chance in hell he will listen to any suggestions I have. The unions are a bigger block vote so much more 'valuable'.

But lets start with a simple one:

Bipartisan approach to interest free student loans. Key has come out and said it is not sustainable but it cant be changed as it is an election loser. Behind closed doors (trust issues aside), if Labour and national could find some common ground (even if just a small patch), then that would be good.

And just so no one thinks I am one sided, Key should do exactly the same with superannuation. He is currently in denial thinking it is sustainable. National and Labour needs to take a bipartisan approach to this issue as well.

Social welfare: Shearer has come out and said the model needs to be changed. If he keeps saying the right things, and starts adding to the debate rather than just dismissing everything National says, maybe Key would let him around the table on these issues. While you are diametrically opposed there is no point but if you are hitting your ball down the same fairway (with labour hooking to the left and National slicing to the right) the end goal is the same.

[elZorro]

As long as Shearer pickets beside the POAL employees, there is no chance in hell he will listen to any suggestions I have. The unions are a bigger block vote so much more 'valuable'.

But lets start with a simple one:

Bipartisan approach to interest free student loans. Key has come out and said it is not sustainable but it cant be changed as it is an election loser. Behind closed doors (trust issues aside), if Labour and national could find some common ground (even if just a small patch), then that would be good.

And just so no one thinks I am one sided, Key should do exactly the same with superannuation. He is currently in denial thinking it is sustainable. National and Labour needs to take a bipartisan approach to this issue as well.

Social welfare: Shearer has come out and said the model needs to be changed. If he keeps saying the right things, and starts adding to the debate rather than just dismissing everything National says, maybe Key would let him around the table on these issues. While you are diametrically opposed there is no point but if you are hitting your ball down the same fairway (with labour hooking to the left and National slicing to the right) the end goal is the same.

Hang on CJ, NZ could afford all of these policies 20-30 years ago - good social welfare, jobs for anyone who wanted to work, free tertiary education, think big schemes. Retailers put a markup on of 1/3 in general, it all seemed to be OK. In the meantime globalisation happened, energy started to be priced higher, and we didn't keep up with the play.

We have to be very careful in choosing what we develop and sell overseas, and ensure we get a good margin for it. Then we can afford all the niceties in the domestic market, no problem. I think that's the guts of it, and all the policy noises from Shearer are along this line.

He does need to polish his presentation a bit, that should not be too hard for someone brave enough to travel along a mined road, simply to deliver examination papers to schools.