Economic performance
Bob Howard
That's what you get when you have a government of redistribution instead of
growth. It's what you get when the government raises taxes instead of
lowering them especially on the higher achievers.
Bob Howard.
BrentC
wrote:
Written by http://pssm.ssc.govt.nz/2004/speaker/oramr.aspx
Won't mean a thing to those with their hands out and their snouts in
the trough.
**************
BrentC
TomV
wrote:
>http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3430404a1865,00.html
The blame rests far from solely with the government. We have one of
the most exposed economies in the world, and business doesn't get the
state prop up it gets in many other countries.
A sign that businesses were upping their game would also be helpful.
...tom
JAS
"BrentC" <bre...@NSPMgmx.net> wrote in message
news:0ts0k1tau0g97pa1m...@4ax.com...
The election was not about the economy. Why?
In a few months, the 2005 election debate may be forgotten, as we focus on
the real economic issues that were hardly addressed during it. The most
salient include:
1. The Current Account Deficit: we are working (and holidaying) for 11
months and spending for 12. Private foreign debt is high and growing. If
there are ructions in the world financial system, New Zealand will suffer
because of the private debt and deficit overload. (The good news is the low
government debt may help us to manage the crisis.)
2. The oil price spike, mainly arising from the shortage of refining
capacity: we don't know how long or how damaging it is to the world economy,
but it is impacting on ours.
3. Inflation: low unemployment, cost pressures and the oil price spike add
to the problem.
4. The growth path: we have to move from a low productivity
growth/labour-extensive growth strategy to a high productivity one because
the sources of additional labour are running out. (One of the sillier
episodes was a group of politicians saying on TV that we needed more
economic growth, as if the aspiration would magically produce the desired
outcome. I did not hear a single practical policy discussion, although there
was the usual cant of ideology unsupported by facts.)
I have summarised each briefly because, I promise you, commentators and this
column will be repeatedly coming back to them once the election partying is
over.
Regrettably, as a result of the election we have to add a fifth concern,
exacerbating the others.
5. Fiscal stability: election promises of tax cuts and spending will be hard
to meet.
One estimate had National promising a net increase of $4.5 billion a year in
spending, three years out. That is a big fiscal injection of about three
percent of GDP.
Labour retaliated, according to this estimate, with $1.2 billion pa extra
cuts and spending. Both estimates could be contested - they seem a bit low
to me - but even Labour will have difficulty keeping to its promises without
knocking the economy off course into more inflation, a bigger current
account deficit and lower sustainable growth. Expect a vigorous version of
the usual post-election government expenditure review.
National went into the election with the most impressive finance team of
politicians ever: Reserve Banker Don Brash,merchant banker John Key and
ex-Treasury official and previous Minister of Finance Bill English. And yet
they ended up with an excessively expansionary - many would say
irresponsible - fiscal package (unless they had some secret plan to cut
spending, which they hotly denied).
Had you doubts of this assessment, consider their last announced policy, the
temporary tax reduction on petrol. It was an attempt to curry public favour,
without addressing the real problem of the oil price spike, by shifting it
onto the fiscal deficit. Who does such brazen cynicism remind you of? Rob
Muldoon of course. And yet the three are not economic Muldoonists.
Perhaps the New Right believed its own propaganda, that its measures of the
80s and 90s had put the economy onto a golden path (albeit one that was some
20 percent lower than when they started). So instead of arguing that we had
serious economic challenges and National had the men to address them, they
assumed everything was satisfactory and the issue was about spending any
future gains.
My doubts about such gains were confirmed by one statistic. In the six
Labour years, real income rose about 21.5 percent and real private
consumption by 25.7 percent. (Real government spending rose about 22.2
percent.) The figures mean that private consumption is already outstripping
what we were earning. That's the reason that the current account looks so
shaky. And yet - and yet - National was offering a further three percent
boost.
It was, of course, not in Labour's interests to tell you that despite the
excellent economic performance, we still face challenges. It went into the
election on "you've never had it so good" slogan, and came out with "and
it's going to be even better". Well, yes, we have never had it so good. But
to get better is going to require some hard work, beginning with more fiscal
discipline.
>
>
>
>
> **************
>
> BrentC
thingy
What does the consumers overspending have to do with the Government in
terms of redistribution? It might actually be improving things....
eg., If the rich have lots of disposable income, it goes on imported
fancy goods, if it goes to the poor it goes to buy NZ grown food.....
Where can you show me that the Nats would be better for growth as
opposed to Labour. We have a skills shortage, businesses wont pay for
people to join them so suffer, they wont invest in apprentiships so
suffer....wont pay to train people up in case they then leave so
suffer....At least Labour is stimulating the apprentiships and tertiary
education, unlike the Nats who only see cut, cut, cut.....
We have one of the easist places in the world to run a business, so NZ
businesses already enjoy an advantage over everyone else....yet its not
enough to stop the whinning....
I fail to see how being a high achievers has a direct link to
earnings....ditto hard workers to high earnings, a total fallacy.
You can be a hard worker and work long hours and earn very
little.....You can be a high achiever say a doctor and earn less than an
accountant who just does the books....do we need that many highly paid
lawyers? no, I would suggets offering them a plane ticket to OZ, NZ
would benefit IMHO.
For me the difference in the Nats and Labour is attitude, for Nats it is
incredibly negative, in fact strict accountancy rules and all that
implies prevails...For Labour its positive, let us spend on the long
term view to grow exports, the skills of the labour force, we wont see
any direct benefit as its intangable but that is what good governments
do......
So yeah....3 more years.....
regards
Thing
BrentC
wrote:
Yep - yep - good on yah - you are entitled to an opinion - right or
wrong - I just wish I hadn't read the drivel.
What we really need is more production and less gvt - Labour is
actually more BS than positive - still it give hope to the no hopers
so must save the country some money on valium
**************
BrentC
thingy
> "BrentC" <bre...@NSPMgmx.net> wrote in message
> news:0ts0k1tau0g97pa1m...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:50:45 +1300, "Bob Howard" <n...@spam.none.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3430404a1865,00.html
>>>
>>>That's what you get when you have a government of redistribution instead
>>>of
>>>growth. It's what you get when the government raises taxes instead of
>>>lowering them especially on the higher achievers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Bob Howard.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Written by http://pssm.ssc.govt.nz/2004/speaker/oramr.aspx
>>
>>Won't mean a thing to those with their hands out and their snouts in
>>the trough.
>
> by Brian Easton
>
> The election was not about the economy. Why?
> In a few months, the 2005 election debate may be forgotten, as we focus on
> the real economic issues that were hardly addressed during it. The most
> salient include:
>
> 1. The Current Account Deficit: we are working (and holidaying) for 11
> months and spending for 12. Private foreign debt is high and growing. If
> there are ructions in the world financial system, New Zealand will suffer
> because of the private debt and deficit overload. (The good news is the low
> government debt may help us to manage the crisis.)
I have not seen any Government, left or right that has a solution to
this one.
> 2. The oil price spike, mainly arising from the shortage of refining
> capacity: we don't know how long or how damaging it is to the world economy,
> but it is impacting on ours.
I suspect for ever, it could be good though as instead of a sharp
crippling pain some years from now these rises cause a change of use
now, ie marked decrease in oil consumption over a period of time....
> 3. Inflation: low unemployment, cost pressures and the oil price spike add
> to the problem.
If the exchange rate dips that will seriously add IMHO.
> 4. The growth path: we have to move from a low productivity
> growth/labour-extensive growth strategy to a high productivity one because
> the sources of additional labour are running out. (One of the sillier
> episodes was a group of politicians saying on TV that we needed more
> economic growth, as if the aspiration would magically produce the desired
> outcome. I did not hear a single practical policy discussion, although there
> was the usual cant of ideology unsupported by facts.)
Dogma acting as blinkers.
Simple, and populist, they knew they had to buy their into the Treasury
benches, they almost did it. Labour was forced to counter with tax
credits that see us near the top of the available money to spend with
little reserve.
> Perhaps the New Right believed its own propaganda, that its measures of the
> 80s and 90s had put the economy onto a golden path (albeit one that was some
> 20 percent lower than when they started). So instead of arguing that we had
> serious economic challenges and National had the men to address them, they
> assumed everything was satisfactory and the issue was about spending any
> future gains.
>
> My doubts about such gains were confirmed by one statistic. In the six
> Labour years, real income rose about 21.5 percent and real private
> consumption by 25.7 percent. (Real government spending rose about 22.2
> percent.) The figures mean that private consumption is already outstripping
> what we were earning. That's the reason that the current account looks so
> shaky. And yet - and yet - National was offering a further three percent
> boost.
National in the past was always thought of as the government of fisal
responsibility, these bribes prove otherwise.
> It was, of course, not in Labour's interests to tell you that despite the
> excellent economic performance, we still face challenges. It went into the
> election on "you've never had it so good" slogan, and came out with "and
> it's going to be even better". Well, yes, we have never had it so good. But
> to get better is going to require some hard work, beginning with more fiscal
> discipline.
Yes, about 30~40 years of it....
regards
Thing
--Newsman--
wrote:
>http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3430404a1865,00.html
The sad truth is that your dismal level of commentary is what you get
when people like you demonstrate you have not one single clue about
what happens to an economy when an amateurish "She'll be roight, mate"
NZ business community has got its head jammed up its arse.
Below, a partial outline, including verbatims, of Rod Oram's column,
SST yesterday. What he identifies is the overall collective
*incompetence* of NZ business to to get a grip on reality in today's
harsh world of investment and trading.
For every $1 we earn in export revenue we spend $1.47 on imports.
(Presumably all this high spending on imports is the fault of the
monied lower achievers, Bob?)
The great majority of NZ businesses exist only to serve our tiny
market of domestic consumers. Growth in New Zealand has been driven
largely by the home market for the past 15 years.
New Zealand has failed to build the skills necessary to compete
internationally in trade and investment.
Our current account deficit is now running at one of the OECD's
highest - 8% of GDP which is fine while we continue to raise money by
borrowing from overseas investors, or keep selling our businesses and
our land to them. What will happen when they cease to to be willing
lenders and buyers?
By and large, NZ business have failed in the capabilities critical to
competing in trading and investing competently overseas.
NZ's competitiveness rankings from the World Economic Forum Report:
(Out of 117 countries)
Ability to absorb technology: 20th
Ability to attract foreign direct investment and technology: 33rd
Sophistication of company operations and strategies: 21st
Breadth of international markets: 23rd (down from 21st - y2000)
Control of foreign distribution: 32nd (down from 24th - y2000)
"The weakness goes right to thet heart of our competitive advantage.
On a scale of 1 = low-cost as the advantage, to 7 = unique products or
processes we scored 4.1 to rank 27th, down one plalce from y2000
Botswana one place above us and Spain is one below.
"As a result, we ranked 32nd on value chains, with Tunisia above us
and Costa Rica below. This means we make less profit selling products
to distributors and retailers further up the value chain than they
make selling them to consumers.
"Taking all these factors together, exports account for only 29% of
our GDP, rnaking us 78th out of 117 countries, with Madagascar one
above us and Mozambique one below.
"Only one thing can change this dismal export performance - we need
many more exporters that the meagre 4% of our companies selling
overseas.
"That in turn requires a fundamental rethink by companies of their
strategies and the skills needed to execute them."
(etc...)
"But until business and government engage more productively - and
drastically life their ambitions and sense of urgency - these efforts
will be too little far too late.
"Then August's trade deficit will be just a foretaste of the economic
ruin awaiting us."
(The World Economic Forum is an organisation of international business
leaders)
>
>
>
>Bob Howard.
>
>
--Newsman--
wrote:
>http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3430404a1865,00.html
The sad truth is that your dismal level of commentary is what you get
(Out of 117 countries)
Botswana is one place above us and Spain is one below.
"As a result, we ranked 32nd on value chains, with Tunisia above us
and Costa Rica below. This means we make less profit selling products
to distributors and retailers further up the value chain than they
make selling them to consumers.
"Taking all these factors together, exports account for only 29% of
our GDP, rnaking us 78th out of 117 countries, with Madagascar one
above us and Mozambique one below.
"Only one thing can change this dismal export performance - we need
many more exporters that the meagre 4% of our companies selling
overseas.
"That in turn requires a fundamental rethink by companies of their
strategies and the skills needed to execute them."
(etc...)
"But until business and government engage more productively - and
drastically lift their ambitions and sense of urgency - these efforts
Bob Howard
"thingy" <th...@nothere.commy> wrote in message
news:gib613-...@katrina.thing.dyndns.org...
>
> What does the consumers overspending have to do with the Government in
> terms of redistribution? It might actually be improving things....
They are not totally related. But Labour has concentrated on redistribution
instead of growing the economy. For instance increasing the top tax rate
from 33% to 39% took money much of which would have been reinvested in
productive activity. Giving tax cuts to the "rich" gives extra money to the
people who are more likely to invest in the economy. If you have ever been
involved in a business even a small business you would know owners tend to
invest their spare cash in new equipment or products to increase their
business. Even in a lawn mowing round the owner might buy extra equipment
and expand his services. Large companies do the same. You see new buildings
going up on industrial sites. You notice newer more modern trucks on the
road.
Helen would prefer to give less in tax cuts so government surplus can be
given to the unproductive in society.
>
> eg., If the rich have lots of disposable income, it goes on imported
> fancy goods, if it goes to the poor it goes to buy NZ grown food.....
It is only average wage earners who haven't got a clue who say this sort of
thing. Because if they got an extra $30 a week they would spend it they
assume if they buy a modest car someone well off would buy a luxury car or
yacht. But a lot of big money is invested. Bob Clarkson the man of testicle
fame has plowed a lot of money into Tauranga. Many people in the district
have jobs because of him. If tax cuts gave him an extra couple of million it
would go into more industrial workshops.
>
> I fail to see how being a high achievers has a direct link to
> earnings....ditto hard workers to high earnings, a total fallacy.
It depends on what they are achieving. I don't suppose high achieving
mountain climbers make a lot of money. High achieving sports people make a
lot of money if they are professional. Look at David Tua and Michael
Campbell the golfer. High achieving business people make a lot of money.
Look at Stephen Tindall. Look at the owner of Briscoes, name forgotten. Hard
work and achieving are two different things though most achievers have
worked hard. A waiter might work hard and not earn much. But then he is not
achieving much. Your remark is really a bit silly.
> You can be a hard worker and work long hours and earn very
> little.....You can be a high achiever say a doctor and earn less than an
> accountant who just does the books....do we need that many highly paid
> lawyers? no, I would suggets offering them a plane ticket to OZ, NZ
> would benefit IMHO.
It is the achievers who create jobs and wealth. What has disparity in
earnings by profession got to do with anything? There are low achieving
accountants and high achieving accountants.
>
> For me the difference in the Nats and Labour is attitude, for Nats it is
> incredibly negative, in fact strict accountancy rules and all that
> implies prevails...For Labour its positive, let us spend on the long
> term view to grow exports, the skills of the labour force, we wont see
> any direct benefit as its intangable but that is what good governments
> do......
>
> So yeah....3 more years.....
Total garbage.
Bob Howard.
--Newsman--
wrote:
>
>"thingy" <th...@nothere.commy> wrote in message
>news:gib613-...@katrina.thing.dyndns.org...
>
>>
>> What does the consumers overspending have to do with the Government in
>> terms of redistribution? It might actually be improving things....
>
>They are not totally related. But Labour has concentrated on redistribution
>instead of growing the economy. For instance increasing the top tax rate
>from 33% to 39% took money much of which would have been reinvested in
>productive activity.
Productive activity that would have served the local consumer or
increased export growth?
>Giving tax cuts to the "rich" gives extra money to the
>people who are more likely to invest in the economy.
Never happen when there's a faster buck to be made speculating on
property and renting it, than sinking your money in some longer-term
exporting venture.
Tell me Bob, which is the greater: the money you have invested in
local property or the money you have invested in businesses concerned
with long term export activity?
>If you have ever been
>involved in a business even a small business you would know owners tend to
>invest their spare cash in new equipment or products to increase their
>business.
To serve the local consumer or increase export growth?
> Even in a lawn mowing round the owner might buy extra equipment
>and expand his services.
To serve the local consumer or to increase export growth?
> Large companies do the same. You see new buildings
>going up on industrial sites. You notice newer more modern trucks on the
>road.
All to serve the local economy or to increase export growth?
>
>Helen would prefer to give less in tax cuts so government surplus can be
>given to the unproductive in society.
>
>>
>> eg., If the rich have lots of disposable income, it goes on imported
>> fancy goods, if it goes to the poor it goes to buy NZ grown food.....
>
>It is only average wage earners who haven't got a clue who say this sort of
>thing. Because if they got an extra $30 a week they would spend it they
>assume if they buy a modest car someone well off would buy a luxury car or
>yacht. But a lot of big money is invested. Bob Clarkson the man of testicle
>fame has plowed a lot of money into Tauranga.
To serve the local economy or to increase export growth?
>Many people in the district
>have jobs because of him. If tax cuts gave him an extra couple of million it
>would go into more industrial workshops.
To serve the local economy or to increase export growth?
>
>>
>> I fail to see how being a high achievers has a direct link to
>> earnings....ditto hard workers to high earnings, a total fallacy.
>
>It depends on what they are achieving. I don't suppose high achieving
>mountain climbers make a lot of money. High achieving sports people make a
>lot of money if they are professional. Look at David Tua and Michael
>Campbell the golfer.
How have these people achieved anything substantial that adds to our
economic performance with regard to exports?
> High achieving business people make a lot of money.
>Look at Stephen Tindall.
Look at Tindall indeed, Bob! What has he achieved for the export
economy of New Zealand? Do tell!
>Look at the owner of Briscoes, name forgotten.
But his activity is certainly not forgotten, which is that of
*importing* products for the local consumer. So what has he achieved
for the export economy of New Zealand?
>Hard
>work and achieving are two different things though most achievers have
>worked hard. A waiter might work hard and not earn much. But then he is not
>achieving much. Your remark is really a bit silly.
The topic is yours, Bob, and your thread title is "Economic
performance".
In terms of the economic wellbeing of New Zealand, "achievement" is
meaningless unless it is accompanied by increased *value* in terms of
business and export trade activity.
>
>> You can be a hard worker and work long hours and earn very
>> little.....You can be a high achiever say a doctor and earn less than an
>> accountant who just does the books....do we need that many highly paid
>> lawyers? no, I would suggets offering them a plane ticket to OZ, NZ
>> would benefit IMHO.
You may well be right. NZ universities are churning out "graduates"
like candy floss with a whole host of great sounding qualifications
but which contribute fuck all to the economy. In fact, many are
dligently sucking the lifeblood out of it as they eagerly practise
their newly gained "qualifications".
>It is the achievers who create jobs and wealth.
If that same wealth is gained from foreign exchange entering the
country through export activity, then that's fine. Otherwise, it's
money churning with little if any value to the NZ economy whatever.
> What has disparity in
>earnings by profession got to do with anything? There are low achieving
>accountants and high achieving accountants.
Who, though they may well be drone book-keepers, have little to do
with the actual business of *enterprise* where exporting *activity* is
concerned.
>
>>
>> For me the difference in the Nats and Labour is attitude, for Nats it is
>> incredibly negative, in fact strict accountancy rules and all that
>> implies prevails...For Labour its positive, let us spend on the long
>> term view to grow exports, the skills of the labour force, we wont see
>> any direct benefit as its intangable but that is what good governments
>> do......
>>
>> So yeah....3 more years.....
>
>Total garbage.
For this country, the writing's on the wall - Export or die.
So a government policy that promotes increased skills in the labour
force and encourages the increase of exports is total garbage, Bob?
Geeezus H Christ!
thingy
So dont read it again....like I care............
regards
Thing
thingy
> "thingy" <th...@nothere.commy> wrote in message
> news:gib613-...@katrina.thing.dyndns.org...
>
>
>>What does the consumers overspending have to do with the Government in
>>terms of redistribution? It might actually be improving things....
>
>
> They are not totally related. But Labour has concentrated on redistribution
> instead of growing the economy. For instance increasing the top tax rate
> from 33% to 39% took money much of which would have been reinvested in
> productive activity.
yada...yada....dogma....dogma....it is not targetted, you think it might
be re-invested, or someone might go get a new Alfa, or Merc every 2
years instaed of every three......
Giving tax cuts to the "rich" gives extra money to the
> people who are more likely to invest in the economy.
Maggie Thatcher tried this one, didnt work then wont work now.....
If you have ever been
> involved in a business even a small business you would know owners tend to
> invest their spare cash in new equipment or products to increase their
> business.
yes I have lots, and quite often they dont, usually it is invest the
absolute minimum to take out the maximum.....dont send employees on
training they might leave....(could always pay close to the going rate
too keep them of course).
Even in a lawn mowing round the owner might buy extra equipment
> and expand his services. Large companies do the same.
Depends....you are automatically assuming more money = more investment,
quite often its I can take more out.
You see new buildings
> going up on industrial sites. You notice newer more modern trucks on the
> road.
>
> Helen would prefer to give less in tax cuts so government surplus can be
> given to the unproductive in society.
>>eg., If the rich have lots of disposable income, it goes on imported
>>fancy goods, if it goes to the poor it goes to buy NZ grown food.....
>
>
> It is only average wage earners who haven't got a clue who say this sort of
> thing. Because if they got an extra $30 a week they would spend it they
> assume if they buy a modest car someone well off would buy a luxury car or
> yacht. But a lot of big money is invested. Bob Clarkson the man of testicle
> fame has plowed a lot of money into Tauranga. Many people in the district
> have jobs because of him. If tax cuts gave him an extra couple of million it
> would go into more industrial workshops.
>
>
>>I fail to see how being a high achievers has a direct link to
>>earnings....ditto hard workers to high earnings, a total fallacy.
>
>
> It depends on what they are achieving. I don't suppose high achieving
> mountain climbers make a lot of money. High achieving sports people make a
> lot of money if they are professional. Look at David Tua and Michael
> Campbell the golfer. High achieving business people make a lot of money.
> Look at Stephen Tindall. Look at the owner of Briscoes, name forgotten. Hard
> work and achieving are two different things though most achievers have
> worked hard. A waiter might work hard and not earn much. But then he is not
> achieving much. Your remark is really a bit silly.
These are exceptional people, lowering the tax rate so a lawyer or
account also gets more dosh does not necessarily equal more investment.
>>You can be a hard worker and work long hours and earn very
>>little.....You can be a high achiever say a doctor and earn less than an
>>accountant who just does the books....do we need that many highly paid
>>lawyers? no, I would suggets offering them a plane ticket to OZ, NZ
>>would benefit IMHO.
>
>
> It is the achievers who create jobs and wealth. What has disparity in
> earnings by profession got to do with anything? There are low achieving
> accountants and high achieving accountants.
The tax break you want does not traget those achievers, it just assumes
because you have a big bank balance a bigger one is better.....
>>For me the difference in the Nats and Labour is attitude, for Nats it is
>>incredibly negative, in fact strict accountancy rules and all that
>>implies prevails...For Labour its positive, let us spend on the long
>>term view to grow exports, the skills of the labour force, we wont see
>>any direct benefit as its intangable but that is what good governments
>>do......
>>
>>So yeah....3 more years.....
>
>
> Total garbage.
>
>
>
> Bob Howard.
>
>
No reality, there are a lot of second rate business people about who
seem to spend all day whining about how hard the Government is one them
when in reality NZ is one of th easiest places to have a business and
the tax rate is competitive with our neighbours.
Instead of whining about tax breaks, they should be getting their ass
into gear and spending the time improving their business.
I have a relation who run bought a business, this new owner declined
several times to do deals outside NZ when they were handed to him on a
plate from the previous owner (a life long mate) He could have made
money and grown the business instead he continues to run it down into
the ground....
Wont invest, wont plan more than 2 years out....the business was growing
every year until he bought it, now for the last 10~15 it has
shrunk....down to the last 1 or 2 employees when he bought it there were
over 15....
This is not the only sad case I have seen....
So if giving tax cuts to help this lot is the anwser, we're screwed....
Just as well it is not.
regards
Thing
thingy
8><----
>
> For this country, the writing's on the wall - Export or die.
>
> So a government policy that promotes increased skills in the labour
> force and encourages the increase of exports is total garbage, Bob?
>
> Geeezus H Christ!
Even if we carry on (and not buy yet more imports per person) I think it
is going to get worse, oil will go higher, so we pay more to bring it
in, we then pay more to export our goods, a double whammy....
We have so many unique advantages that we seem not to be exploiting
well; small, english speaking, highly inovative, can do attitude. We can
produce the boutique type stuff, high margins, low transport volume. Our
small size means we should be able to adapt quickly as markets change.....
Yet are we seeing this? not even enough with Labour IMHO. Dont give
blanket tax breaks, give targetted export and set up assistance to
companies that are doing this. Target areas where we can grow, expand
our brand of clean and green....people are prepared to pay a high price
for "organic" non-mass produced kit, build on it....
We seem to have some good IT software houses....get the cost of the
Internet down so we can be effective in bringing the work in....Telecom
is killing us and Uncle Bob wants to give Teresa G. a tax
break.....geeee wizzzzz.....No......
like duh.....
regards
Thing
Sue Bilstein
>On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:50:45 +1300, "Bob Howard" <n...@spam.none.com>
>wrote:
>
>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3430404a1865,00.html
>>
>>That's what you get when you have a government of redistribution instead of
>>growth. It's what you get when the government raises taxes instead of
>>lowering them especially on the higher achievers.
>
>
>Won't mean a thing to those with their hands out and their snouts in
>the trough.
But remember, Rod Oram is wrong 89% of the time (on average).
WD
thingy wrote:
> Bob Howard wrote:
> > http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3430404a1865,00.html
> > That's what you get when you have a government of redistribution instead of
> > growth. It's what you get when the government raises taxes instead of
> > lowering them especially on the higher achievers.
> > Bob Howard.
> What does the consumers overspending have to do with the Government in
> terms of redistribution? It might actually be improving things....
> eg., If the rich have lots of disposable income, it goes on imported
> fancy goods, if it goes to the poor it goes to buy NZ grown food.....
There is not this huge population of so-called "rich" folks out there
driving around in their ferrari's. So it makes no sense to base an
argument on a tiny fraction of the New Zealand population and act as if
it applies as a general rule.
The problem with redistribution is simple - it rewards those who didn't
create the wealth. After a while, people will stop creating that
wealth and they'll join the queue of people with their hands out.
> Where can you show me that the Nats would be better for growth as
> opposed to Labour. We have a skills shortage, businesses wont pay for
> people to join them so suffer, they wont invest in apprentiships so
> suffer....wont pay to train people up in case they then leave so
> suffer....At least Labour is stimulating the apprentiships and tertiary
> education, unlike the Nats who only see cut, cut, cut.....
You act as though businesses are just being stubborn. Businesses pay
what they can afford to pay and still expect to make a profit. It is
much harder to make profit when your expenses go up - such as taxation.
> We have one of the easist places in the world to run a business, so NZ
> businesses already enjoy an advantage over everyone else....yet its not
> enough to stop the whinning....
It is one of the easiest places to OPEN a business. That doesn't
equate to being the most competitive market. It's better than many
places. But the complaints of the business community are reasonable.
> I fail to see how being a high achievers has a direct link to
> earnings....ditto hard workers to high earnings, a total fallacy.
Moving a huge pile of sand with tweezers from one spot to another and
back again is hard work. But why the hell should anyone expect someone
else to pay them a lot of money to do such a meaningless task?
Value is not determined by how much you sweat or even how intelligent
you are. Value is determined by how much other people want what you
have to offer and that is how it should be. That is how society as a
whole gets the most of what it wants. Money flows to those who provide
what people want.
> You can be a hard worker and work long hours and earn very
> little.....You can be a high achiever say a doctor and earn less than an
> accountant who just does the books....do we need that many highly paid
> lawyers? no, I would suggets offering them a plane ticket to OZ, NZ
> would benefit IMHO.
"do we need..." You think you speak for everyone else? I'm certain
you don't. Let them spend their money how they will. The law is a
very serious matter and it is no surprise that some people are prepared
to pay a lot of money for the best legal assistance possible.
You seem to believe in a universal standard of worth, but in reality
that is simply you dictating to the rest of us what you value with our
money.
> For me the difference in the Nats and Labour is attitude, for Nats it is
> incredibly negative, in fact strict accountancy rules and all that
> implies prevails...For Labour its positive, let us spend on the long
> term view to grow exports, the skills of the labour force, we wont see
> any direct benefit as its intangable but that is what good governments
> do......
> So yeah....3 more years.....
> regards
> Thing
That's the problem with Labour and people like you who support such
attitudes. You believe the government is the creator of wealth and
prosperity.
W.D.
thingy
> thingy wrote:
>
>>Bob Howard wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3430404a1865,00.html
>>>That's what you get when you have a government of redistribution instead of
>>>growth. It's what you get when the government raises taxes instead of
>>>lowering them especially on the higher achievers.
>>>Bob Howard.
>>
>>What does the consumers overspending have to do with the Government in
>>terms of redistribution? It might actually be improving things....
>>eg., If the rich have lots of disposable income, it goes on imported
>>fancy goods, if it goes to the poor it goes to buy NZ grown food.....
>
>
> There is not this huge population of so-called "rich" folks out there
> driving around in their ferrari's. So it makes no sense to base an
> argument on a tiny fraction of the New Zealand population and act as if
> it applies as a general rule.
Trying to reduce the top tax rate is doing just that, applying a general
rule...so I agree it makes no sense to apply a general rule in this
case, so the top tax rate can stay.
> The problem with redistribution is simple - it rewards those who didn't
> create the wealth.
Total re-distribution aka socialism is a waste of time, but we are not
talking socialism, we are taking re-distributing some.
After a while, people will stop creating that
> wealth and they'll join the queue of people with their hands out.
Unlikely, they will simply put thier hands out, they are far better off
doing what they are doing now, and they know it. Re-distribution is not
the issue, creating/earning is, churning money around inside NZ does not
create wealth for the Nation just the individual.
>>Where can you show me that the Nats would be better for growth as
>>opposed to Labour. We have a skills shortage, businesses wont pay for
>>people to join them so suffer, they wont invest in apprentiships so
>>suffer....wont pay to train people up in case they then leave so
>>suffer....At least Labour is stimulating the apprentiships and tertiary
>>education, unlike the Nats who only see cut, cut, cut.....
>
>
> You act as though businesses are just being stubborn. Businesses pay
> what they can afford to pay and still expect to make a profit. It is
> much harder to make profit when your expenses go up - such as taxation.
Taxes have not gone up, they are where they are. I dont consider
businesses stubborn, more like run your business properly. When we look
at other countries NZ is no worse off as a place to do business, indeed
it looks easier.
>>We have one of the easist places in the world to run a business, so NZ
>>businesses already enjoy an advantage over everyone else....yet its not
>>enough to stop the whinning....
>
>
> It is one of the easiest places to OPEN a business. That doesn't
> equate to being the most competitive market. It's better than many
> places. But the complaints of the business community are reasonable.
In your opinion, seems the Govn does not agree with them.
>>I fail to see how being a high achievers has a direct link to
>>earnings....ditto hard workers to high earnings, a total fallacy.
>
>
> Moving a huge pile of sand with tweezers from one spot to another and
> back again is hard work. But why the hell should anyone expect someone
> else to pay them a lot of money to do such a meaningless task?
Silly and pointless argument.
> Value is not determined by how much you sweat or even how intelligent
> you are. Value is determined by how much other people want what you
> have to offer and that is how it should be.
Or forced to pay if you can monopolise an area.
That is how society as a
> whole gets the most of what it wants. Money flows to those who provide
> what people want.
>
>
>>You can be a hard worker and work long hours and earn very
>>little.....You can be a high achiever say a doctor and earn less than an
>>accountant who just does the books....do we need that many highly paid
>>lawyers? no, I would suggets offering them a plane ticket to OZ, NZ
>>would benefit IMHO.
>
>
> "do we need..." You think you speak for everyone else?
No I was asking a question, I am speaking in terms of NZ, not of me
directly, if you cannot fathom that then that is your problem.
I'm certain
> you don't. Let them spend their money how they will. The law is a
> very serious matter and it is no surprise that some people are prepared
> to pay a lot of money for the best legal assistance possible.
I believe both the British and NZ Government have commented we are
producing too many lawyers and not enough engineers. This means being an
engineer is under valued both in status and in salary....so kids go to
college to become lawyers, hardly surprising.....
> You seem to believe in a universal standard of worth, but in reality
> that is simply you dictating to the rest of us what you value with our
> money.
See my above comment. Otherwise no I am not, what I am taking is the
Nats simplistic comments and trying to show how meaningless they are.
>>For me the difference in the Nats and Labour is attitude, for Nats it is
>>incredibly negative, in fact strict accountancy rules and all that
>>implies prevails...For Labour its positive, let us spend on the long
>>term view to grow exports, the skills of the labour force, we wont see
>>any direct benefit as its intangable but that is what good governments
>>do......
>>So yeah....3 more years.....
>>regards
>>Thing
>
>
> That's the problem with Labour and people like you who support such
> attitudes.
If this is my attitude "let us spend on the long term view to grow
exports, the skills of the labour force, we wont see any direct benefit
as its intangable but that is what good governments do....." then yes,
spend money to support business in a positive way, grow overseas
markets, sell NZ as a brand people want to buy.....
You believe the government is the creator of wealth and
> prosperity.
No, people in a Nation create wealth and prosperity as a society, each
person doing their bit.
Ah now its OK to say "you" for me but not if I say "we" within context,
how two faced.
regards
Thing
WD
thingy wrote:
> WD wrote:
> > thingy wrote:
> >
> >>Bob Howard wrote:
> >>
> >>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3430404a1865,00.html
> >>>That's what you get when you have a government of redistribution instead of
> >>>growth. It's what you get when the government raises taxes instead of
> >>>lowering them especially on the higher achievers.
> >>>Bob Howard.
> >>
> >>What does the consumers overspending have to do with the Government in
> >>terms of redistribution? It might actually be improving things....
> >>eg., If the rich have lots of disposable income, it goes on imported
> >>fancy goods, if it goes to the poor it goes to buy NZ grown food.....
> >
> >
> > There is not this huge population of so-called "rich" folks out there
> > driving around in their ferrari's. So it makes no sense to base an
> > argument on a tiny fraction of the New Zealand population and act as if
> > it applies as a general rule.
>
> Trying to reduce the top tax rate is doing just that, applying a general
> rule...so I agree it makes no sense to apply a general rule in this
> case, so the top tax rate can stay.
The top tax rate applies to a lot more people than what I would call
the "rich".
Besides all tax rates should be lowered and the top tax rate shouldn't
be an exception. Yes they'll get more back - more of what they earned.
> > The problem with redistribution is simple - it rewards those who didn't
> > create the wealth.
> Total re-distribution aka socialism is a waste of time, but we are not
> talking socialism, we are taking re-distributing some.
So you are talking about wasting just a little bit of time.
Government spending shouldn't have redistribution of wealth (whole or
some) as a goal. And I make a distinction between a basic safety net
and the idea that the we should try and "close the gaps". A society
based on merit should have gaps because people are different. Wealth
shouldn't be redistributed to reward failure and punish success.
> After a while, people will stop creating that
> > wealth and they'll join the queue of people with their hands out.
> Unlikely, they will simply put thier hands out, they are far better off
> doing what they are doing now, and they know it. Re-distribution is not
> the issue, creating/earning is, churning money around inside NZ does not
> create wealth for the Nation just the individual.
Not true, they aren't necesarrily better off. They go into businesses
risking their financial position. If being an entreprenuer will likely
make you worse off, many people will choose instead to play it safe.
It's not just a matter of putting your hand out, but rather a lack of
people willing to take those risks which make our society more
productive. Sure they may not put their hand out, but they would be
far more valuable as entreprenuers rather than employees of someone
else.
It's also not just a matter of "churning money arond". Real wealth is
created by people who find better ways to deliver products cheaper and
more efficiently. A competitive market makes this happen. A market
with barriers to success will tend not to do so well.
> >>Where can you show me that the Nats would be better for growth as
> >>opposed to Labour. We have a skills shortage, businesses wont pay for
> >>people to join them so suffer, they wont invest in apprentiships so
> >>suffer....wont pay to train people up in case they then leave so
> >>suffer....At least Labour is stimulating the apprentiships and tertiary
> >>education, unlike the Nats who only see cut, cut, cut.....
> >
> >
> > You act as though businesses are just being stubborn. Businesses pay
> > what they can afford to pay and still expect to make a profit. It is
> > much harder to make profit when your expenses go up - such as taxation.
>
> Taxes have not gone up, they are where they are. I dont consider
> businesses stubborn, more like run your business properly. When we look
> at other countries NZ is no worse off as a place to do business, indeed
> it looks easier.
Properly? A business can't make certain expenses vanish into thin air.
> >>We have one of the easist places in the world to run a business, so NZ
> >>businesses already enjoy an advantage over everyone else....yet its not
> >>enough to stop the whinning....
> >
> >
> > It is one of the easiest places to OPEN a business. That doesn't
> > equate to being the most competitive market. It's better than many
> > places. But the complaints of the business community are reasonable.
>
> In your opinion, seems the Govn does not agree with them.
Of course it's my damn opinion. Why do people think that saying it's
"your opinion" is a counter-argument?
The government is elected by votes. It does not have any direct link
with success and the ability of the general public to measure success
is very inadequate in my "opinion". Not that I advocate anything other
than a democracy, but simply that just because the government doesn't
agree with does not make my point wrong.
> >>I fail to see how being a high achievers has a direct link to
> >>earnings....ditto hard workers to high earnings, a total fallacy.
> >
> >
> > Moving a huge pile of sand with tweezers from one spot to another and
> > back again is hard work. But why the hell should anyone expect someone
> > else to pay them a lot of money to do such a meaningless task?
>
> Silly and pointless argument.
No. It was relevant to your point. You raised the issue of the link
between hard work and high earnings. Indeed I agreed with you to an
extent but pointed out that this is in fact how things should be.
> > Value is not determined by how much you sweat or even how intelligent
> > you are. Value is determined by how much other people want what you
> > have to offer and that is how it should be.
> Or forced to pay if you can monopolise an area.
>
> That is how society as a
> > whole gets the most of what it wants. Money flows to those who provide
> > what people want.
> >
> >
> >>You can be a hard worker and work long hours and earn very
> >>little.....You can be a high achiever say a doctor and earn less than an
> >>accountant who just does the books....do we need that many highly paid
> >>lawyers? no, I would suggets offering them a plane ticket to OZ, NZ
> >>would benefit IMHO.
> >
> >
> > "do we need..." You think you speak for everyone else?
>
> No I was asking a question, I am speaking in terms of NZ, not of me
> directly, if you cannot fathom that then that is your problem.
The question itself has implications which is what I disagree with. It
is not a question for "NZ" because these decisions aren't the decision
of the collective. What I value is different from what you value.
Simply by you asking the question implies that you (or NZ) has some
right to decide what individuals need on a daily basis - such as
"highly paid lawyers". If I'm in trouble with the law and I can afford
such a lawyer then hell yes I need such a lawyer and it isn't any of
NZ's business how I spend my money.
> I'm certain
> > you don't. Let them spend their money how they will. The law is a
> > very serious matter and it is no surprise that some people are prepared
> > to pay a lot of money for the best legal assistance possible.
> I believe both the British and NZ Government have commented we are
> producing too many lawyers and not enough engineers. This means being an
> engineer is under valued both in status and in salary....so kids go to
> college to become lawyers, hardly surprising.....
Again. Not a decision for the government. If engineers are in such
demand then raise the pay to provide incentive for more engineers. If
there are too many lawyers then there is no reason not to lower the
pay. And there are too many lawyers. But the difference is in the
quality of the lawyer.
If you acknowledge that it is the people that make the wealth then let
them. Let them make their own economic decisions. It is not a
decision for the government to make.
W.D.
Bob Howard
"--Newsman--" <sla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4340c178...@news.actrix.co.nz...
>
> >Giving tax cuts to the "rich" gives extra money to the
> >people who are more likely to invest in the economy.
>
> Never happen when there's a faster buck to be made speculating on
> property and renting it, than sinking your money in some longer-term
> exporting venture.
>
> Tell me Bob, which is the greater: the money you have invested in
> local property or the money you have invested in businesses concerned
> with long term export activity?
The money I have invested in business. Don't forget too that local
businesses might be helping other businesses which export. As for myself I
have some shares, among others, in Fisher and Paykel who are doing well
exporting whiteware to the US. I have shares in Nuplex which started here
and is now an Australasian compny. I have no property though I have had in
the past. I have some money invested in a company which leases industrial
equipment. No doubt some of their clients are exporters. You see finance and
business, local and exporting, can be quite intermingled.
>
> >If you have ever been
> >involved in a business even a small business you would know owners tend
to
> >invest their spare cash in new equipment or products to increase their
> >business.
>
> To serve the local consumer or increase export growth?
Both obviously.
>
> > Even in a lawn mowing round the owner might buy extra equipment
> >and expand his services.
>
> To serve the local consumer or to increase export growth?
What do you think?
>
> > Large companies do the same. You see new buildings
> >going up on industrial sites. You notice newer more modern trucks on the
> >road.
>
> All to serve the local economy or to increase export growth?
Can you separate them?
> >
> >Helen would prefer to give less in tax cuts so government surplus can be
> >given to the unproductive in society.
> >
> >>
> >> eg., If the rich have lots of disposable income, it goes on imported
> >> fancy goods, if it goes to the poor it goes to buy NZ grown food.....
Are you sure of that? Who buys the cheap goods from China in the Warehouse?
The point which you can't get through your head is that the "rich" have the
spare money to invest in enterprises. Low income people don't invest.
>
> You may well be right. NZ universities are churning out "graduates"
> like candy floss with a whole host of great sounding qualifications
> but which contribute fuck all to the economy. In fact, many are
> dligently sucking the lifeblood out of it as they eagerly practise
> their newly gained "qualifications".
It takes all types to make an economy. Most clerical workers are
unproductive by your measure. Are they not part of the overall economy
making it work?
>
> >It is the achievers who create jobs and wealth.
>
> If that same wealth is gained from foreign exchange entering the
> country through export activity, then that's fine. Otherwise, it's
> money churning with little if any value to the NZ economy whatever.
So when Cavalier carpets make a carpet and fit it to your house it is a
useless economic activity in spite of the fact it keeps a lot of people in
work in their factories.
You really haven't got a clue have you.
>
> > What has disparity in
> >earnings by profession got to do with anything? There are low achieving
> >accountants and high achieving accountants.
>
> Who, though they may well be drone book-keepers, have little to do
> with the actual business of *enterprise* where exporting *activity* is
> concerned.
If you mean they don't sit on a machine churning out widgets they are
unproductive. Yet business would collapse if we didn't have administration
and record keeping. Garbage collectors don't do much exporting. Are you
going to tell me they are not important to the economy?
>
> For this country, the writing's on the wall - Export or die.
>
> So a government policy that promotes increased skills in the labour
> force and encourages the increase of exports is total garbage, Bob?
Twisting what I said? You said National are negative. They most certainly
aren't. I haven't heard any politician much more positive than Rodney Hide.
Of course I thoroughly agree we have to export as much as we can to pay for
the import of things we need. We need an all round economy employing a very
disparate group of workers.
Your post as always is the product of an envy of success and dislike of the
free market especially when people cleverer than you make money and become
"rich".
Bob Howard.
Brian Dooley
Nope, it's what we get when we import more than we export.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Bob Howard
"Brian Dooley" <bri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:tre4k1dm4833upsve...@4ax.com...
Yes but why does that come about?
Bob Howard.
Bob Howard
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:50:45 +1300, "Bob Howard" <n...@spam.none.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3430404a1865,00.html
> >
> >That's what you get when you have a government of redistribution instead
of
> >growth. It's what you get when the government raises taxes instead of
> >lowering them especially on the higher achievers.
>
> The sad truth is that your dismal level of commentary is what you get
> when people like you demonstrate you have not one single clue about
> what happens to an economy when an amateurish "She'll be roight, mate"
> NZ business community has got its head jammed up its arse.
Rubbish once again! We are importing large volumes of domestic goods because
our dollar is high making them cheap. Why is our dollar high? Beacuse a
government agency, the Reserve Bank, puts up interest rates to the highest
in the OECD making our dollar attractive. Cut the interest rates in half and
imports will shrink while exporters will get more for their goods
encouraging more export investment. Yes I know National followed the same
policies to control inflation. That would bring imports and exports more
into line reducing the trade deficit.
Business is not amateurish. God forbid the socialists start directing
business.
Bob Howard.
Bob Howard
"thingy" <th...@nothere.commy> wrote in message
>
> yada...yada....dogma....dogma....it is not targetted, you think it might
> be re-invested, or someone might go get a new Alfa, or Merc every 2
> years instaed of every three......
>
> Giving tax cuts to the "rich" gives extra money to the
> > people who are more likely to invest in the economy.
>
> Maggie Thatcher tried this one, didnt work then wont work now.....
If you think that you have not been to England since Thatcher's time.
>
> If you have ever been
> > involved in a business even a small business you would know owners tend
to
> > invest their spare cash in new equipment or products to increase their
> > business.
>
> yes I have lots, and quite often they dont, usually it is invest the
> absolute minimum to take out the maximum.....dont send employees on
> training they might leave....(could always pay close to the going rate
> too keep them of course).
And quite often they do. Have you run a business? It is normal for people in
business to want to expand. Obviously I am not saying 100% of people will do
one thing.
>
> Even in a lawn mowing round the owner might buy extra equipment
> > and expand his services. Large companies do the same.
>
> Depends....you are automatically assuming more money = more investment,
> quite often its I can take more out.
Once again not everybody does the same thing but in general business people
want to expand.
That's a silly remark. Of course "it doesn't necessarily mean". But a lot of
switched on lawyers and accountants have sideline business interests.
>
> >>You can be a hard worker and work long hours and earn very
> >>little.....You can be a high achiever say a doctor and earn less than an
> >>accountant who just does the books....do we need that many highly paid
> >>lawyers? no, I would suggets offering them a plane ticket to OZ, NZ
> >>would benefit IMHO.
> >
> >
> > It is the achievers who create jobs and wealth. What has disparity in
> > earnings by profession got to do with anything? There are low achieving
> > accountants and high achieving accountants.
>
> The tax break you want does not traget those achievers, it just assumes
> because you have a big bank balance a bigger one is better.....
Rubbish! It means you get a proportion of tax cut in relation to what you
have paid. Labour's attitude is nothing more than theft from high earners.
>
> >>For me the difference in the Nats and Labour is attitude, for Nats it is
> >>incredibly negative, in fact strict accountancy rules and all that
> >>implies prevails...For Labour its positive, let us spend on the long
> >>term view to grow exports, the skills of the labour force, we wont see
> >>any direct benefit as its intangable but that is what good governments
> >>do......
> >>
> >>So yeah....3 more years.....
> >
> >
> > Total garbage.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob Howard.
> >
> >
>
> No reality, there are a lot of second rate business people about who
> seem to spend all day whining about how hard the Government is one them
> when in reality NZ is one of th easiest places to have a business and
> the tax rate is competitive with our neighbours.
>
> Instead of whining about tax breaks, they should be getting their ass
> into gear and spending the time improving their business.
So they make more money to be expropriated by the government. The top 20% of
taxpayers pay 40% of the total tax take.
>
> I have a relation who run bought a business, this new owner declined
> several times to do deals outside NZ when they were handed to him on a
> plate from the previous owner (a life long mate) He could have made
> money and grown the business instead he continues to run it down into
> the ground....
>
> Wont invest, wont plan more than 2 years out....the business was growing
> every year until he bought it, now for the last 10~15 it has
> shrunk....down to the last 1 or 2 employees when he bought it there were
> over 15....
>
> This is not the only sad case I have seen....
>
> So if giving tax cuts to help this lot is the anwser, we're screwed....
How he runs his business is up to him. Because he hasn't made the most of
his business you think it is all right to deny him tax cuts.
What is sad about this case? It is his business to run how he likes. What
would you say if I criticised you because you have not improved your house
when I would do a lot to it if I owned it?
Bob Howard.
--Newsman--
wrote:
>
>"--Newsman--" <sla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4340b066...@news.actrix.co.nz...
>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:50:45 +1300, "Bob Howard" <n...@spam.none.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3430404a1865,00.html
>> >
>> >That's what you get when you have a government of redistribution instead
>of
>> >growth. It's what you get when the government raises taxes instead of
>> >lowering them especially on the higher achievers.
>>
>> The sad truth is that your dismal level of commentary is what you get
>> when people like you demonstrate you have not one single clue about
>> what happens to an economy when an amateurish "She'll be roight, mate"
>> NZ business community has got its head jammed up its arse.
>
>Rubbish once again! We are importing large volumes of domestic goods because
>our dollar is high making them cheap. Why is our dollar high? Beacuse a
>government agency, the Reserve Bank, puts up interest rates to the highest
>in the OECD making our dollar attractive. Cut the interest rates in half and
>imports will shrink while exporters will get more for their goods
>encouraging more export investment.
>Yes I know National followed the same
>policies to control inflation. That would bring imports and exports more
>into line reducing the trade deficit.
So, what would happen to the exchange value of the NZ$ were interest
rates to be halved and...
... as a result, any idea what would happen to the NZ$ cost of
*essential* imports?
Any idea what would happen in the NZ property market - andmthe already
lunatic level of house prices - were interest rates to be halved?
Any idea what would happen to the cost of consumer credit were
interest rates to be halved. How do you think this would affect the
current level of borrowing and, ergo, the curent account deficit?
And the level of inflation..?
>
>Business is not amateurish.
So you're an amnesiac as well...
Do you really need to be reminded that Air New Zealand was brought to
its knees by a bunch of *total* amateurs, none of whom new anything
about running an airline? These same kooks were even so brainless as
to buy a dud airline from the Australians without properly examining
the books. But these very same incompetents are New Zealand
businessmen, Bob, and not only that, they are the so-called big guns
of the NZ business *corporate* élite.
> God forbid the socialists start directing business.
In fact, God may have to show a little indulgence - when did you last
take a look at the figures for the power generation companies or New
Zealand Post?
Or (shudder) TVNZ?
thingy
> "thingy" <th...@nothere.commy> wrote in message
> news:ko1713-...@katrina.thing.dyndns.org...
>
>
>>yada...yada....dogma....dogma....it is not targetted, you think it might
>>be re-invested, or someone might go get a new Alfa, or Merc every 2
>>years instaed of every three......
>>
>>Giving tax cuts to the "rich" gives extra money to the
>>
>>>people who are more likely to invest in the economy.
>>
>>Maggie Thatcher tried this one, didnt work then wont work now.....
>
>
> If you think that you have not been to England since Thatcher's time.
I was born there, I voted.
8><----
>>No reality, there are a lot of second rate business people about who
>>seem to spend all day whining about how hard the Government is one them
>>when in reality NZ is one of th easiest places to have a business and
>>the tax rate is competitive with our neighbours.
>>
>>Instead of whining about tax breaks, they should be getting their ass
>>into gear and spending the time improving their business.
>
>
> So they make more money to be expropriated by the government. The top 20% of
> taxpayers pay 40% of the total tax take.
That is life.
>>I have a relation who run bought a business, this new owner declined
>>several times to do deals outside NZ when they were handed to him on a
>>plate from the previous owner (a life long mate) He could have made
>>money and grown the business instead he continues to run it down into
>>the ground....
>>
>>Wont invest, wont plan more than 2 years out....the business was growing
>>every year until he bought it, now for the last 10~15 it has
>>shrunk....down to the last 1 or 2 employees when he bought it there were
>>over 15....
>>
>>This is not the only sad case I have seen....
>>
>>So if giving tax cuts to help this lot is the anwser, we're screwed....
>
>
> How he runs his business is up to him. Because he hasn't made the most of
> his business you think it is all right to deny him tax cuts.
Here you are claiming tax cuts will help him invest, it wont, he will be
able to take more out.
> What is sad about this case? It is his business to run how he likes.
Yes, therefore targetted exporter assistance, or other business help to
exporters will do more good for the Nation's GDP.
What
> would you say if I criticised you because you have not improved your house
> when I would do a lot to it if I owned it?
This is a different subject. I am answering your/Nats "lets give all the
hard working business owners a tax cut" my example would mean that you
would give a
tax cut to someone who is doing the minimum and taking out the maximum,
this money would not be re-invested it would be spent on more beer and
fishing....
Lets get away from the dogma of business owners are angels and their
employees are daemons it just does not work.
regards
Thing
WD
This has nothing to do with business owners or employees being angels
or demons. This is about human nature. People start businesses to
make a profit, not goodwill towards their fellow man. Your argument is
that if taxes are cut they'll just make more profit. And yes you are
right - they will make more profit. And that is what gives incentive
for more people to try and make it own their own and start their own
business. This is what makes a competitive market.
W.D.
Sue Bilstein
Hear hear.
But didn't you know, WD, people must be punished severely for making
money?
George.com
"Bob Howard" <n...@spam.none.com> wrote in message
news:dhtfef$9d6$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
inflation is fought using interest rates. Inflation is up, interest rates go
up. Interest rates go up, offshore money is transfered into NZ to take
advantage, demand for the kiwi dollar pushes the exchange rate up, lower
returns for exporters, imports are cheaper, balance of payments defecit
balloons. BOP defecit gets too big, people sell down the kiwi dollar and the
exchange rate goes down, exporters get benefit from a lower dollar but
imports get more expensive. More expensive imports (especially petrol as
present) flows through into inflation putting pressure on inflation.
rob
Janice
Bob Howard wrote:
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3430404a1865,00.html
>
> That's what you get when you have a government of redistribution instead of
> growth. It's what you get when the government raises taxes instead of
> lowering them especially on the higher achievers.
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of
the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their
respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they
respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ....[As Henry Home
(Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to] 'remedy
inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and
burdening the rich.'"
Adam Smith
:-)
Brian Dooley
<n...@spam.none.com> wrote:
>
>"thingy" <th...@nothere.commy> wrote in message
>news:ko1713-...@katrina.thing.dyndns.org...
snip---
>The top 20% of
>taxpayers pay 40% of the total tax take.
65% actually - and so what, that's only $40,000 and up.
Is that what you call high achievers nowadays, Bob?
Have you read 'The Peter Principle'?
Brian Dooley
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 21:38:09 +1300, "Bob Howard"
<n...@spam.none.com> wrote:
>
>"Brian Dooley" <bri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:tre4k1dm4833upsve...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:50:45 +1300, "Bob Howard"
>> <n...@spam.none.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3430404a1865,00.html
>> >
>> >That's what you get when you have a government of redistribution instead
>of
>> >growth. It's what you get when the government raises taxes instead of
>> >lowering them especially on the higher achievers.
>>
>> Nope, it's what we get when we import more than we export.
>
>Yes but why does that come about?
It depends eg have there been any large government purchases
recently?
The devil is always in the detail.
--Newsman--
And you only have to buy a new 747 or a new Strait ferry and it'll
show up big on NZ's balance sheet.
So many have yet to grasp just how miniscule the NZ economy really is.
John Cawston
Depends whether the 747 is an asset that will add to economic
performance long term, rather than the cost of the purchase.
JC
Brian Dooley
True - small but perfectly formed.
Brian Dooley
Only in the longer term ie after it starts making money, but in
the short term it just shows up as a contributor to the deficit.
The publication of the numbers should be accompanied by an
explanatory commentary, and they usually/always are, but the
media usually/always ignore them.