Labour Programme for 2011 - 2014
peterwn
Capital Gains Tax
More power to unions to screw employers
More tax
No GST on fresh fruit and veg (presumably only if purchased raw)
More tax
More penpushers
Schools run to the wishes of PPTA and NZEI
More tax
Less elective surgery and longer treatment times (the money to pay for
the penpushers has to come from somewhere and in any case doctors will
be fleeing to Australia to escape higher taxes)
More career paths opened up for leftwingers (eg making student
associations compulsory again)
More tax
Cheaper power (perhaps) - people will waste it requiring big capex on
power stations and hence more borrowing
Unintended consequences:
More unemployment
Recession
Stagflation
Flight to Oz of people and money
Fred
"peterwn" <pmil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6e755a46-08ef-4a6e...@b19g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
Program for Labour 2011-2014.
Contine burbling wanky policies designed to screw everyone, including their
own supporters who are too blind to see it, while they look for some policy
to gain some traction; while at the same time they try and promote a new
leader to attract the masses lost by
Goff. All rhis while still in opposition. Their immediate problem though is
how to distance themselves from Helen Kelly without killing their finances
from the unions.
ChristianKnight
Unions help put food on the table.
Not every employer is a sant.
Individual contracts stray far to easily from justice and
disproportions based on age, family relations, gender, language
andeven accents , diascrimminate far to easily with individual
contracts.
Scape goats and family favorites do an injustice to individual
contracts.
Production goals do hold a fairer account and can be serviced with
performance bonus's
Christ's love
hellicopter
Higher income tax is part of package called progressive taxation
that holds to the ideal that the rich owe something more because
the society have allowed them the benefit of great wealth.
Our competitors have Capital Gains Taxes, the wealth in NZ need to
justify why we should keep no tax on Capital Gains.
The right argued that tax drop increased revenue, but when the
back drop was increasing oil supply and cheapness, was this any surprise.
No.
It does not follow that tax rise now will mean less tax, or less
activity, in fact its now about stress on government to do governing
better in the leaner times. The era of theory based tax cuts is over,
now government must govern better. National supporter suggest by their
continue adherence to false economics that National is incapable of
governing efficiently.
OZ, UK have GST off food, books, child goods. It seems that the kiwis
in OZ and UK working in those industries are quite capable of calculating
the how to work out how much GST will be on the goods.
Society in leaner, high cost dense energy times, will require better
government that slogans and sound bite politics.
Please peterwn, keep up the politics of stupid more people will
hold their nose and vote Labour, Green, NZF just to give National
a reality check.
peterwn
>
> Higher income tax is part of package called progressive taxation
> that holds to the ideal that the rich owe something more because
> the society have allowed them the benefit of great wealth.
and put up with it, and choose either to not bother or to live
elsewhere.
The other problem with this 'ideal' is the money which is the target
of the punitive taxes is frequently re-invested in the economy. If
taken as tax, it is merely spent and there is nothing to see for it.
So while the golden goose can be forced to lay more eggs for a limited
period, its egg laying capacity will soon start diminishing, and the
money to pay benefits, the money wasted on public service and
education featherbedding, etc just will not be available.
In the post WW2 era of crippling high progressive tax rates in UK and
NZ, the governments had to allow no end of tax breaks to allow
businesses to be established and operate. In NZ these 'breaks' were
dismantled in favour of a simpler tax system. If higher income tax
rates are hiked excessively, there will be economic disaster in the
absence of accompanying tax breaks for business.
One only has to look at the demise of Ansett Airlines in Australia to
get an idea of the problem. It was badly 'featherbedded' and the
unions thought it had the owners over a barrel. Rupert Murdoch saw the
light and could not believe is luck when he sold it to Air NZ for a
great price. The unions and federal bureaucrats then thought they
could really put the boot in, then found to their horrorthat they had
kicked it to death, much to QANTAS's glee, and to the wailing and
gnashing of teeth from the unions.
hellicopter
> On Oct 24, 8:37 am, hellicopter <stonesn...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> Higher income tax is part of package called progressive taxation
>> that holds to the ideal that the rich owe something more because
>> the society have allowed them the benefit of great wealth.
> 'Ideal' being operative word. This assumes that the 'rich' sit there
> and put up with it, and choose either to not bother or to live
> elsewhere.
Yes. They could move to a Capital Gains tax regime in a modern
first world economy. I think we should see the rich as a
resource, not as individuals, a under utilized resource if
not used enough, or if over paid. At present due to the
shrinking future value brought on by the limits of nature
and energy its clear there is a huge excess of value (money)
in the world economy. A mismatch between past market expectations
and future realities. Lower taxes for the rich was justified
in the past to create efficiencies in the economy, but its
not a universal ideal law that raising taxes should harm the
economy.
The rich are idle, with lots of capital but the opportunities
are expensive and shrinking.
If we don't stress them, they won't want to get milked
and will go dry after a period of getting used to not being milked
for their obvious experience at moving money around.
Crony capitalism has taken a different form in NZ, than in
the UK and US.
>
> The other problem with this 'ideal' is the money which is the target
> of the punitive taxes is frequently re-invested in the economy. If
> taken as tax, it is merely spent and there is nothing to see for it.
> So while the golden goose can be forced to lay more eggs for a limited
> period, its egg laying capacity will soon start diminishing, and the
> money to pay benefits, the money wasted on public service and
> education featherbedding, etc just will not be available.
The rich are not a golden goose, even in a gulag there were those
who had more because of their own capacity. The argument used
against the poorest who claim benefits is that they have to carry
their weight, well the richest also have to carry their weight.
Just as there are growing number of barriers to the poor, so
there are defenses the rich put up to secure their wealth.
The present reality of global markets is the wealth train has
come to a break in the rails and governments are rushing in
to keep the rails open, some suggest we make it easier for them,
I suggest we reflect the narrow gauge of the new tracks.
That some shrinkage in the rich and a expansion of the middle
is likely to be necessary.
I was listening to how the markets need to manage better outlier
stats, that events don't follow a bell curve. I couldn't help
think that the distribution was structurally dependant, that
when we've had thirty years of marching on one neo-liberal
direction, that it has exposed a lot more outlier events
from the common herd all marching in lock step with the rich.
I think the correction is now in, and economists are having
to add the neo-liberal decades into the stats to create the
expose the new risks. Stress testing the rich.
>
> In the post WW2 era of crippling high progressive tax rates in UK and
> NZ, the governments had to allow no end of tax breaks to allow
> businesses to be established and operate. In NZ these 'breaks' were
> dismantled in favour of a simpler tax system. If higher income tax
> rates are hiked excessively, there will be economic disaster in the
> absence of accompanying tax breaks for business.
I disagree, after the war the economy of the west had accommodated
a new economy, power and money flowed into the hands of every
consuming citizen in order to fuel a economic oasis. As US
oil hit peak oil then oil companies rushed to bring on tap the
middle east oil wells, the seventies oil shock. The internet,
the technology of the last thirty years has only been possible
because of middle east cheap oil and loose finance. But this
doesn't deal with the problem, that now we've reach middle
east oil peak with nothing to replace it. Either stagnation,
or changing to low energy lifestyles. Internet, less daily travel,
and much more local economy. We need to retool our wealthy to
think in terms of the new economy, or we lose BOTH! The
unions who represent the rich, the wealthy, are too capable
of arguing and winning their causes, this is the problem.
Exposing them to more worker unionism might shill them a bit
but I suspect with the stick we also need the carrot, someone
to take the wealthy down before they jump and send the world
economy into a suicidal spin, a depression with no world
wars, and no economic oasis on the other side.
> One only has to look at the demise of Ansett Airlines in Australia to
> get an idea of the problem. It was badly 'featherbedded' and the
> unions thought it had the owners over a barrel. Rupert Murdoch saw the
> light and could not believe is luck when he sold it to Air NZ for a
> great price. The unions and federal bureaucrats then thought they
> could really put the boot in, then found to their horrorthat they had
> kicked it to death, much to QANTAS's glee, and to the wailing and
> gnashing of teeth from the unions.
Different times. Murdoch isn't walking away he's going down with the ship.
Different horses for different courses, Murdoch was the nag you would
have backed thirty years ago if you had clairvoyance. I think Murdoch
is tired, old and the past now. Though to be a watched, how he jumps
off the titanic global economy might be interesting.
George
"Fred" <r...@parachute.net.nz> wrote in message
news:i9un9f$fr6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "peterwn" <pmil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6e755a46-08ef-4a6e...@b19g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
>> Higher income tax
>> Capital Gains Tax
>> More power to unions to screw employers
>> More tax
>> No GST on fresh fruit and veg (presumably only if purchased raw)
>> More tax
>> More penpushers
>> Schools run to the wishes of PPTA and NZEI
>> More tax
>> Less elective surgery and longer treatment times (the money to pay for
>> the penpushers has to come from somewhere and in any case doctors will
>> be fleeing to Australia to escape higher taxes)
>> More career paths opened up for leftwingers (eg making student
>> associations compulsory again)
>> More tax
>> Cheaper power (perhaps) - people will waste it requiring big capex on
>> power stations and hence more borrowing
>>
>> Unintended consequences:
>> More unemployment
>> Recession
>> Stagflation
>> Flight to Oz of people and money
Labours economic direction:
An acknowledgement that the dogma NZ, and the western world has followed,
has failed.
Some solutions to the recession
A long term plan for savings
A long term plan on monetary policy
Debate starting on long term plans for industry development
Higher wages
Sustainable growth
vs
More of the same from the current government and no idea or plan or thought
to move the political-enviro-economy any further along, aside from a few
cycle ways.
Yes, thanks for the debate Peter.
Labour has some key planks to put in place however it is good to see they
are starting to build toward a better plan for NZ. The other lot are doing a
lot of smiling and waving and having holidays overseas.
rob
WorkHard
These days, Goff is very relaxed and stands arounf with hands in
pockets. It's his 'new' image, you see.
But man with hands in pockets feel cocky all day.
George
"WorkHard" <w...@workhard.org> wrote in message
news:CICdnYlt7eTwJV7R...@giganews.com...
you'd be able to advise people about that, in a small way.
PMSL.
rob
Fred
"George" <rob...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ia08uq$v00$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Which doesn't explainhow or why living standards have never been as high as
they are now, particularly for those at the bottom of the heap. Still - if
youd rather follow the Eastern type of progress I suggest you spend a few
months wandering around Asia first.
hellicopter
Cheap oil and loose finance made it easy to grow inequalities while
hiding them. Now the tide has gone out on easy cheap crony capitalism
we are seeing the real problems again, the flood is over, of course
it would not ran and ran for as long useless people did well out of it,
turned off their vomit boxes because it was like magic, we were all
getting wealthier weren't we brilliant. Vote for those who keep the
status quo! Now across the world there is a seachange, the electors
want to move away from the rich prick socialism of far right
parties and too a moderate right of center business party, yet
social leaning left of center party. But all they have are stupid and
dumber. The stupid National party who can't tell the wind's changed
and their peeing in their own faces, and the dumber Labour party
would can't seem to grab for the center right business conservatism
because their far left wings still look at workers as union fees
rather than capitalists. If the left got its finger out and started
create co-ops, insurance company, mortgage companies, etc, then the
left would be doing us all a favor. Its the failure of the left to
embrace capitalism (due to soviet communists want to infiltrate
during the cold war). We are all capitalists now, and capitalist
revel in the ability of the next fight, and they hate the rightwing
locking down, and locking out the citizen from engaging in economic
activity, which would create the invisible hand of Adam Smith fame.
SO its not Goff's fault he's on the right of the Labour party,
its Goff's fault he doesn't know how to pitch a message without
scare-ing off all the stupid people who still believe that more
stupid will work now oil is running down, and loose finance
has to be reined in. And who is filtering out the message of
peak oil, the media, and why are they, because they are fools.
Pooh
Labour can't distance themselves from the unions. They're siamese twins
joined at what is called a brain in most sensible people.
Pooh
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Where on earth you get that idea from I have no idea, Fred? Were you
reading something written in 2007?
We certainly know that for the majority of people, living standards
have reduced sinc National/ACT came into government - we expected a
small reduction as the global financial crisis worked through, but
what Nat/ACT have done is made the top 3% better off at the expense of
the majority, so living standards are dropping sharply.
peterwn
> >Which doesn't explainhow or why living standards have never been as high as
> >they are now, particularly for those at the bottom of the heap. Still - if
> >youd rather follow the Eastern type of progress I suggest you spend a few
> >months wandering around Asia first.
>
> Where on earth you get that idea from I have no idea, Fred? Were you
> reading something written in 2007?
>
> We certainly know that for the majority of people, living standards
> have reduced sinc National/ACT came into government - we expected a
> small reduction as the global financial crisis worked through, but
> what Nat/ACT have done is made the top 3% better off at the expense of
> the majority, so living standards are dropping sharply.
Are there statistics which show this, or is this something left
wingers like to think is the case. If this is the case, perhaps
militant unions are contributing to this - eg The Hobbit being under
threat.
Richard McGrath
> that holds to the ideal that the rich owe something more because
> the society have allowed them the benefit of great wealth.
> I think we should see the rich as a
> resource, not as individuals, a under utilized resource if
> not used enough, or if over paid.
> The rich are idle, with lots of capital but the opportunities
> are expensive and shrinking.
Priceless quotes, helli. I do wonder though - what should 'society' do
with someone who has the knowledge and energy to create vast wealth
for himself - for instance, by developing a new drug that could save
thousands of lives - and chooses not to work and create this wealth?
Should they still be taxed to some degree for refusing to work?
After all, as you imply, 'society' owns this person.
Or if this person were to do the research and develops this drug, but
then refuses to share the knowledge and destroys all records of her
research? What should 'society' do to her?
You insist on throwing these 'lifeboat' situations at me, how about
answering this one?
hellicopter
>> Higher income tax is part of package called progressive taxation
>> that holds to the ideal that the rich owe something more because
>> the society have allowed them the benefit of great wealth.
>
>> I think we should see the rich as a
>> resource, not as individuals, a under utilized resource if
>> not used enough, or if over paid.
>
>> The rich are idle, with lots of capital but the opportunities
>> are expensive and shrinking.
>
> Priceless quotes, helli. I do wonder though - what should 'society' do
> with someone who has the knowledge and energy to create vast wealth
> for himself - for instance, by developing a new drug that could save
> thousands of lives - and chooses not to work and create this wealth?
> Should they still be taxed to some degree for refusing to work?
First off the poorest are taxed more here than in the UK or OZ,
taxation starts on the first dollar in NZ, and GST is on everything
here. Wheres in OZ, or UK, the lowest tax band is 0%, and there
is no GST on food or books, or baby items. So why should you expect
answers when you are clearly clueless. Look first in the mirror
at your own assumptions, they are obvious making you look gormless.