Comments on: Nats ignored Treasury’s warnings on cancelling Cullen Fund payments

By: Zetetic

Zetetic — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:24:48 +0000

Try reading the post genius. “overriding even the right-wing Treasury’s concerns”. Treasury is still a right-wing think tank. Even they got it right this time.

Trying to run a line that doesn’t stack up to a simple reading of the post. Do you realise how dumb that looks?

By: r0b

r0b — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:39:25 +0000

Do you realise how duplicitous this looks?

Don’t be daft.

What you’re suggesting is a purely ideological approach – “Always believe Treasury” or “Always disbelieve them!”. No brain necessary for that.

Treasury, like any person or entity, can give good advice and bad advice, and it is perfectly valid to try and work out and argue a case for which is which.

By: Nick

Nick — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:09:12 +0000

Classic. Treasury publishes advice that Labour despises and so Treasury is just a right wing think tank. But when it publishes advice Labour agrees with it’s all of a sudden a paragon of virtue.

In short, Treasury is wrong when we disagree but right when we agree.

Do you realise how duplicitous this looks?

By: Anita

Anita — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:16:22 +0000

National is busy telling the public to ignore a wide variety of public servants, why would I believe them in this case given their track record?

By: Rob Salmond

Rob Salmond — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:40:01 +0000

Hey check it out, it is one note burt. Burt doesn’t like talking about substance – he prefers trotting out old quotes to prove how cool he is. Good for him.

To answer your question burt, no I would not support National doing as you suggest. That is because I disagree with the substance of the decision National has made, for reasons given above.

By: Draco T Bastard

Draco T Bastard — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:21:46 +0000

Yeah, so does inflation and what Ari said.

By: burt

burt — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 07:54:05 +0000

So if National said Treasury had an ideological burp and it was right to ignore them would everyone support National's actions?

By: Ari

Ari — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 06:58:53 +0000

I have a family member who works at Treasury. Voted Labour all his life, lol Was just talking with him about how they opposed the 1990 cuts too.

By: Ari

Ari — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 06:55:55 +0000

Not when you run out of physical resources to do it with

By: gobsmacked

gobsmacked — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:50:39 +0000

More Treasury advice ignored by National:

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/06/27/1245b6b22e76

I’m starting to like those socialists on the Terrace …

By: Rob Salmond

Rob Salmond — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:39:35 +0000

All the compounding, of interest and growth and such, is built into Treasury’s NZSF model.

By: Tom Mathews

Tom Mathews — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:37:52 +0000

Don’t forget that growth also compounds

By: Daveski

Daveski — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:36:34 +0000

Best let not let facts and genuine analysis get in the way of criticism of the Nats.

Some good points raised regarding the affordability of super long term and lets not kid ourselves that the Cullen fund solved that problem.

Likewise, wouldn’t it make sense for the two partners to come to a sensible decision regarding capital gains tax rather than playing short term politics?

By: Rob Salmond

Rob Salmond — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:26:41 +0000

GC – First, the hole is actually $23 billion once you take the tax effects into account – see Keith Ng’s excellent math job on this. And second, the question isn’t really whether the now-missing money would have been a silver bullet that magically solves all superannuation affordability problems. Nobody is arguing that. But the left are arguing that the $23 billion would have helped quite a bit. Are you suggesting it would **not** have helped? Surely $23 billion buys a lot of cardigans.

By: Ari

Ari — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:22:29 +0000

8 billion dollars will represent less than 1% of GDP by 2023. If you believe that makes a vast difference to the ability to pay Superannuation costs then you’re naive.

Compound your interest and try again?

If National are naive to think they can cover superannuation at the current level of the average wage and at 65. That is clearly a naive position. But it is no more naive than those who blindly believe the Cullen Fund will off-set Superannuation payments to the extent that there will be no increase in the age of Superannuation; and the level of super.

Oh, I doubt they actually think that, they just don’t want to admit that even before they robbed the piggy bank we needed another eight or so of them in order to cover our current super commitments.

Of course in both cases. The truth lies in economic growth. If we can grow our economy significantly we will be able to keep Superannuation levels where they currently are. Hence why the Greens also didn’t see value in the Cullen Fund. http://www.greens.org.nz/node/15898 Scroll half way down.

Yeah, I’m sure when our economy explodes to be nine times its current size we’ll all be really thankful for your wisdom on this matter.