POLL : New poll - 2 weeks till the election CLOSED

[Bjauck]

I think the thrust of NZ’s family trust, tax regime and policies in general were mostly in place before Boomers were in charge. I think they were designed for a farmer based economy so that the large farms could remain intact and not sold off or divided to pay taxes, that exist in other countries, such as inheritance or capital gains tax.

So NZ has got what the electorate back then wanted - a land owning gentry, with an unsophisticated low productivity service sector and companies increasingly owned by off-shore interests. Without major reform the major parties just tinker around the edges.

[Balance]

I think the thrust of NZ’s family trust, tax regime and policies in general were mostly in place before Boomers were in charge. I think they were designed for a farmer based economy so that the large farms could remain intact and not sold off or divided to pay taxes, that exist in other countries, such as inheritance or capital gains tax.

So NZ has got what the electorate back then wanted - a land owning gentry, with an unsophisticated low productivity service sector and companies increasingly owned by off-shore interests. Without major reform the major parties just tinker around the edges.

Actually NZ used to be substantially owned overseas if you go back to the 50s, 60s and early 70s.

The farming sector is the backbone of the NZ economy and has allowed other industries like education, tourism, wine and tech to build up over time.

Agree with you however that major reform is well overdue in NZ.

[Bjauck]

Actually NZ used to be substantially owned overseas if you go back to the 50s, 60s and early 70s.

The farming sector is the backbone of the NZ economy and has allowed other industries like education, tourism, wine and tech to build up over time.

Agree with you however that major reform is well overdue in NZ.

In the 1970’s we still had an array of big NZ government owned business too. I am not sure how policies favouring farming may have “allowed” other sectors to flourish.

[moka]

Sorry about that, an unnecessarily nasty post. I was in a bad mood that day and wanted to lash out at someone.

Not sure if it is totally ill informed though, I am not smart or informed enough to have original ideas so they tend to come from what I read from other people. What Bernard Hickey was saying seemed to ring true to me.

You do not like the post fair enough but are you disputing anything in it? I will admit Fran is probably not a piece of s*it as suggested, But the other things are true although the things put forward are only the negative ones to back my argument.

We might be on a similar path as the US in this regard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXAEw8psMuQ

I should not be attacking anyone but people smarter than me have highlighted the inequities of our current policies. I am not sure why they are not being discussed or changed, I assume because the people who are benefiting do not want to see any change and they vote and the politicians need to pander to them to get into or stay in power.

Don't worry about me though, I am doing OK. Working hard and being productive unless I am posting on here.

The video link you posted was No Free Lunches - Seniors Benefit at the Expense of Our Kids: Stan Druckenmiller at TEDxWallStreet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXAEw8psMuQ

And you say people smarter than me have highlighted the inequities of our current policies, and I presume you mean Stan Druckenmiller.

The solution to the problem is for the rich to pay more tax, not to have seniors and kids fighting over a few crumbs from the table. But tax is not even discussed. Druckenmiller says in the video that he is helping children in Harlem:
2:13 I'm chairman of the Harlem Children's Zone. I am promising three-year-olds that if they play by the rules and stay in school when they graduate in 20 years there'll be a job waiting for them and a shot at the American dream.

It sounds nice, compassionate etc, but providing education for kids is the government’s job, education, healthcare etc funded by taxes. And the quote reminds of me of religion, suffer on earth and when you die you will go to heaven. An empty promise to children because Druckenmller can’t guarantee there will be jobs for these kids in 20 years.

[Aaron]

And you say people smarter than me have highlighted the inequities of our current policies, and I presume you mean Stan Druckenmiller.

No I was mostly meaning Bernard Hickey as what he writes is more relevant to NZ, as for Stanley D I just remembering listening to him about the issue in the States and wondered if the situation in NZ was similar.

Guys like Stanley and Ray Dalio have all the answers and can play the markets but paying more taxes is never one of their solutions for the world.

Smaller govt and lower taxes is the answer per David Seymour and ACT despite the fact that the wealthiest countries on the planet ALL have strong public institutions funded by taxation and the happiest countries appear to be even more heavily taxed. But David like any idealogue will push forward with his beliefs despite proof to the contrary. That said I like the idea of cutting govt expenditure on useless crap.

Also guys like Gareth Morgan and I think Stephen Tindall spoke up once and was accused of virtue signaling. Colin Maiden sounded reasonable but I have not read his book.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...A7FSN3O4UFBQE/

[thegreatestben]

In longer format and unedited sources you'll find ACT are talking about this specifically when they campaign on cutting govt waste. This will involve job cuts, it's hard to argue against the logic when you see the FTE increases across the public sector. It's not in the places you want to see more people (doctors, nurses, teachers, police etc...)

Smaller govt and lower taxes is the answer per David Seymour and ACT despite the fact that the wealthiest countries on the planet ALL have strong public institutions funded by taxation and the happiest countries appear to be even more heavily taxed. But David like any idealogue will push forward with his beliefs despite proof to the contrary. That said I like the idea of cutting govt expenditure on useless crap.

[Aaron]

Interesting policy from National

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...JHQNDFU5SY2TA/

Indexing benefits to inflation rather than wages I don't care either way but I was wondering if anyone knew why national superannuation was excluded from this proposed change? It just seems inconsistent to me.

777 or Blackcap might know???

[Blue Skies]

Interesting policy from National

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...JHQNDFU5SY2TA/

Indexing benefits to inflation rather than wages I don't care either way but I was wondering if anyone knew why national superannuation was excluded from this proposed change? It just seems inconsistent to me.

777 or Blackcap might know???

Indexing Benefits to inflation rather than wages is projected to save the govt $2 Billion over 5 years as inflation comes down while wages go up ahead of inflation.
National plan to transfer that to landlords with policy adjustments which will cost $2 Billion in the form of bringing back tax deductibility on rentals giving the 300 landlords who own more than 20 properties $1.3 Million each & others with fewer properties the balance of the $2 Billion.

Beneficiaries will be $17,000 worse off over 5 years & Superannuanants (who are also classified as Beneficiaries under the Act ) were given an exclusion as they nearly all vote & are a core constituency of the National Party, whereas far fewer other beneficiaries vote.

[Aaron]

Indexing Benefits to inflation rather than wages is projected to save the govt $2 Billion over 5 years as inflation comes down while wages go up ahead of inflation.
National plan to transfer that to landlords with policy adjustments which will cost $2 Billion in the form of bringing back tax deductibility on rentals giving the 300 landlords who own more than 20 properties $1.3 Million each & others with fewer properties the balance of the $2 Billion.

Beneficiaries will be $17,000 worse off over 5 years & Superannuanants (who are also classified as Beneficiaries under the Act ) were given an exclusion as they nearly all vote & are a core constituency of the National Party, whereas far fewer other beneficiaries vote.

Are you suggesting that Super annuitants will support legislation as long as it only affects others adversely but not themselves?

If National were doing this to cut costs and felt it was the right thing to do surely as national superannuation makes up more than 50% of the welfare budget they would include it as that would save a further $2billion.

You had best be careful as it sounds like you are suggesting one class of beneficiary voting for National are effectively shi**ing on other beneficiaries that doesn't sound right.

I guess the 300 landlords of which you speak will create jobs and growth for NZ with the extra $2billion they keep. I know Chris Luxon will be happy. I wonder if any of the 300 landlords are receiving national superannuation as well?? That wouldn't seem right would it?

[Balance]

Indexing Benefits to inflation rather than wages is projected to save the govt $2 Billion over 5 years as inflation comes down while wages go up ahead of inflation.
National plan to transfer that to landlords with policy adjustments which will cost $2 Billion in the form of bringing back tax deductibility on rentals giving the 300 landlords who own more than 20 properties $1.3 Million each & others with fewer properties the balance of the $2 Billion.

Beneficiaries will be $17,000 worse off over 5 years & Superannuanants (who are also classified as Beneficiaries under the Act ) were given an exclusion as they nearly all vote & are a core constituency of the National Party, whereas far fewer other beneficiaries vote.

Straight out of Labour Party misinformation internal booklet released last week for their shills to use.

No need for any further confirmation that Blue Skies is a paid Labour shill.