Written By: - Date published: 11:19 am, May 2nd, 2008 - 57 comments
Categories: economy, election 2008, same old national -
Tags: 'new zealand sucks' campaign, economy, election, national
National is a party weak on policy. It has had to drop nearly every one of its principled but unpopular policies to get itself in a position to win an election. This raises the question of why someone would vote for National, rather than keep the current lot. One of National’s answers is to claim that New Zealand needs National’s supposedly superior economy management because the economy is going down the toilet. To further this claim, National and its allies need to talk down the economy.
It’s a strategy that National and business have employed in each of the last three election years. Proclaim a coming recession, blame the government, say that only National can save us. Enough repeating of dire economic warnings and the media will pick it up, the public will start to believe the spin, and you might just get the downturn you’re hoping for. When poor hapless old Bill English tried it in 2002, the economy grew at 5.1%. Don Brash and John Key tried it on again in 2005 but the economy was too resilient and maintained a 2.7% growth rate. Even their gleeful predictions of recession in 2006 only came to two quarters of 0.1% growth in the end.
This year, the economy is facing real difficulties and this has encouraged National to push the ‘recession’s coming, elect us’ line harder (because we led New Zealand during its last two recessions?). Doom and gloom predictions of doubling unemployment are being bandied about by National’s allies. But don’t be fooled, things are not as bad as they would have you believe. Yes, there has been 6% inflation in food, the housing market is static, and petrol is up. But New Zealand is going into this rough patch with record low unemployment, strong wage growth, a mammoth dairy payout, business tax cuts in place, and income tax cuts coming. In fact, the economy is in such good shape that growth accelerated throughout last year and totalled 3.1%. Unemployment is not going to grow substantially because low unemployment is self-reinforcing employers are afraid to let staff go during soft patches in case they can’t get them back when things pick up and lots of people in work means lots of domestic demand.
So, watch National try to talk down the economy as the election approaches, but don’t believe them. It’s just the same old National up to the same old failed trick.
And remember who really has the better record on growth.
(data)
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
this election so far has been meedia driven to the max. now that the Nats cannot buy the votes one way they are using the other and if that doesn’t work they will find another way of trying to win power for their own agenda…and the meedia is infantilised to boot and are lending their assistance because a) they have been instructed to and b) they always go for the new and improved version of anything without asking any questions…rewind to infantilisation.
What you say about National trying to talk down the Labour-led governments economic performance makes sense. Then again I guess if the shoes was on the other foot then Labour would be doing exactly the same thing. Clearly many economic indicators have improved during the Clark reign though my right bias demands I say “correlation does not prove causation” :-}
Unfortunately the confidence numbers seem to confirm that individuals and business are not feeling particularly confident about the future and that can not be good for the lefts chances of re-election.
Roy Morgan consumer confidence here:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2008/01/02/chart-roy-morgan-consumer-confidence/
National Bank business confidence here:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2008/01/02/chart-national-bank-business-own-activity-outlook/
randel. why ‘meedia’?
Well there’s many reasons why I’d vote for National and not Labour if an election was held this afteroon. But I’ll give you one example as I have just returned from the supermarket from my weekly shopping. As a modreate income earner who is severely overtaxed relative to what I get for my taxes and is striving to save ahead under my own steam and without the yoke of the state, I don’t deviate from my fixed $80 p/w spend at the New World. As recently as 6-8 months ago that bought me enough food and supplies to last me a week. Now that same spend will last me about 5 days. As a humble citizen with no political ties, I see a GOVT that couldn’t give a stuff about this issue and the similar horrendous rises in living affecting ordinary kiwis who the Labour movement is supposed to be representing (that’s a great oxymoron that one). This GOVT is weary and is too corrupted by their own selfishness and worldview to continue in office. I’m only the average guy in the street but I tell you that another term in GOVT for Labour will be dettrimental to the future of NZ and its people. Especielly if the Greens are alongside them.
Steven, what are you suggesting the government should do about international food prices?
I’m also interested in your claim that you’re ‘severely overtaxed’. I know that’s what National is telling you, but the OECD begs to differ.
Why are you catpitalising govt?
Usually, people would capitalise WEARY CORRUPTED or whatever the National line of the month is at the time.
Steven. If you have a family, you’ve got tax rebates from Labour (which National opposed) through Working for Families. If you own shares or your own business, you just got a reduction in the corporate tax rate (= bigger profits) which National also voted against. If you’re really on a moderate income, ie between $12 and $15 an hour, you can thank Labour for pushing up the minimum wage every year since it came to office, moving up that wages of not only people on the minimum wage but also people earning a little above that amount.
“As a modreate income earner”
How many times the median income do you earn?
Nice use of selective data, Steve – you shopuld get ajob working for the Nats with data like that!
I note the Wage/Salary data is not in the excel workbook you’ve used as a source. I found your real source anyway (same site different location) and it shows you haven’t adjusted for inflation. In real terms, the rise in average hourly earnings is the same under both Govt’s
Tane,
Food price rises have been a recent phenomenom. Non-tradable inflation (influenced by things like govt charges and otehr domestic price pressures) has been consistenly running at about 4% for the last few years – much more than the traded component.
Thanks Phil, yeah I’m aware of the distinction. But I’m guessing Steven is talking specifically about rising food prices, which are driven by an international market. There’s not a lot the government can do to reduce prices in that area.
Tane and Steve
The reality to most New zealanders is that they are feeling the squeeze in their pockets, (actually) watching family, friends and colleagues disappear overseas in greater numbers and feeling more at risk of being victimes of crime.
By saying “here are some graphs that show you are just imagining it” or “tough luck there is nothing the Government can do about it” is not addressing the very real concerns of the electorate in a very clever way.
I love the claim “that I getting taxed way more than I get out of the tax system”.
This is archetypical thought train of a neo-liberal. In fact, a majority of taxpayers are required to contribute “more than they consume” simply because in part the progressive tax system covers a lot of bases.
For example, if you are sick, you get cheap (relative to actual cost) doctors visits. Obviously if you are not sick – you don’t get “full value” of out your tax contribution – just like private health insurance. Sure you might claim, “but I don’t get sick – what about the birth of your children, your own birth, vaccinations – for the most part these are provided free of charge”.
The state-provider models eliminates the stress from the threat of – “what does my provider cover?”, and refrains from placing higher burdens on the most vulnerable, as they are typically more likely to go without insurance in private-provider models because they simply can’t afford it. Not mention avoids big costs at a time for young families when they are at their most financially vulnerable.
I have no problem with paying more than I will ever get out, simply because that is a necessary price for living in a politically and socially stable country.
Joker, dont forget there is the filter of mass media between you and ‘most new zealanders’
Phil. National’s record on wages is pathetic compared to Labour’s – we’ve provided graph data on it in the past.
fuller analysis here http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=527
Joker. i can’t magically make the media do a better job of covering these issues, nor can I magically make the Government adopt policy. What I can do is explain underlying facts. You can choose to ignore them if it suits your prejudices.
Steve,
You say “nor can I magically make the Government adopt policy” this implies that you actually believe there are problems that exist that Government policy needs to address.
However the theme in the presentations of your “underlying facts” always seems to be “no issue here, nothing to see”.
But you are right I do read this stuff with prejudice. Perhaps the same prejudice you exercise whilst writing them.
hey Steven I hear on the grapevine that Key is going to offer a general wage order of 10%…and its very anal to stick to a predetermined $80 budget…get some variety in your life dude…shall I come round for a baloney slicing party???????
joker. no, the opposite prejudice.
saying ‘I can’t magically make the Government adopt policy’ means just that and nothing more.
You’re resorting to the old tory line: when the facts don’t suit you say ‘well, no-one cares about the facts’. Ol’ mike is a great one for that, it’s all about perception to him, whether there are actual problems and who really has the best solution doens’t matter – it’s just perception, perception, perception. Anything to get back into power.
“joker. no, the opposite prejudice”
Yeah, thats what I was trying to say. Whilst coming here after a long lunch might make me more berligerent it does nothing to make me more comprehendable.
Anyway the perception stuff only resonates with the electorate if there is some beef behind it.
I don’t accept your way of thinking. Perhaps you all live under rocks or are rich pricks and are sheltered from everyday living? I’m living under a regime that takes 30-35 percent of my hard earned income and as a single 30 yr old Eurpean male I don’t see a cent of benefit of any of it. I would literally prefer to take it and throw it away in the wind. At the same time my cost of living down here in the real world is rising accross the board everywhere I turn and once this climate change rort kicks in it’s only going to get worse. It’s all very well to quote facts and figures and graphs and data but its what is happening in reality that is the true indicator. I’ll just move to Australia next year if there is no change in the election, I’ve got family there.
Steven – have you considered asking your employer for a pay-rise?
Steven- to be paying 30% tax you would have to be earning $100,000 a year. To pay 35% tax you’d have be earning $200,000.
I’m not going to even bother with the rest of your comment. You’re just a whinger who has all his facts wrong.
I don’t see a cent of benefit of any of it.
Just the education you received, the health system you use, the roads you drive on, the other infrastructure that you use, superannuation when you retire, defence, international trade and relations, that sort of thing.
You don’t exist as an island, you are part of and nurtured by a cooperative society.
Steven, if you think your ethinic orgins have anything to do with the ammount of tax you shoudl pay, we woudl all welcome you moving to australia. PFO.
This is interesting – one can complain bitterly about being over-taxed without actually knowing how much tax one is paying. Steven says he is paying 30-35%, if he doesn’t know how much it is how can he know whether he is ‘overtaxed’ or not? And how much would be not overtaxed?
Of course, like James points out – you’re not paying 35% income tax until your income is $200,000
check it out for yourself: First $38,000 at 19.5%, next $22,000 at 30%, any more at 39%.. add it all up, divide by total earnings to get your total percentage tax.
What about if you chuck GST into the mix?
Steve “I’m living under a regime … I don’t see a cent of benefit of any of it.” – so you’re not living in NZ then?
Or just go here- https://www.ird.govt.nz/cgi-bin/form.cgi?form=incrates
‘Steve Pierson
May 2, 2008 at 3:55 pm
This is interesting – one can complain bitterly about being over-taxd without actualyl knowing how much tax one is paying. Steven says he is paying 30-35%, if he doenst knwo how much it is how can he know whether he is ‘overtaxed’ or not? And how much would be not overtaxed?
Of course, like James points out – you’re not paying 35% income tax until your income is $200,000
check it out for yourself: First $38,000 at 19.5%, next $22,000 at 30%, any more at 39%.. add it all up, divide by total earnings to get your total percentage tax.’
This is something I have suspected for a long time, I think what he really means is the media has told him hes being taxed too much, and hes just pissed off that he cant buy a ferrari ect.
sorry, Steven not Steve in my comment above.
I just ran the numbers: you have to earn over $235,000 a year to pay 35% tax.
Joker. He’s not talking about GST and you would have to make assumptions about spending in individual cases. But Tane posted a link eariler a link to OECD table on the tax wedge,
http://www.oecd.org/document/17/0,2340,en_2649_34897_38148433_1_1_1_1,00.html#Table_O_1
oh god, where’s David Farrar on this thread? How can he watch every piece of anti-Labour pseudo-economic hysteria he has beaten up ove the last three years be so soundly trounced. It must be very painful for him to read.
Pain is no worries woger nome.Nice pill was it?
steve pierson…meedia? …whine not?
You people need to pull your heads out of the sand. Kiwi’s are hurting. Mortgage rates are high, food prices are high filling the car up is expensive and the one response we hear from the left is …it is still better than if National was in government.
You may well honestly believe this but you have to realise things are grim out here in the real world.
I am not blaming Labour for all the things that are wrong. Quite clearly they cannot control Internationa Prices. But blindly harping on that National is bad is falling upon deaf ears. We all know what Labour has done, what we want to know is what they are going to do in the future to get us out of this. Where is the next big bold policy. Something along the lines of of WFF that will help those young couples that are about to find they have negative equity in their homes. I don’t want to see blue v red graphs showing what happened 15 years ago. I want answers for tomorrow.
National may not be showing any vision either but after nine years I am ready to throw the dice, take a gamble and give them my vote. Times up Labour, lets see if the other team can deliver.
We all know what Labour has done
I know what I think are the many good things Labour has done RL – I’ve posted often on it. But I’d be interested in your take. What do you see as the achievements?
rOb. I believe Labour can claim some credit. On their watch unemployment has dropped considerably and I think it would be churlish to say they cannot claim that as an achievment.
I am also fan of Kiwisaver. I think that will pay dividends in the future.
WFF has arguably delivered what it set out to do. I think an easier way to provide tax relief to working families is to simply cut their taxes, but hey lets not have that argument.
So I am not a completely blind. There have been successes.
But it is also obvious the world economy has been strong for the past decade with cheap credit financing our lifestyles. Those days are now over and I want to know what is Labours plan to get through this economic storm . Simply going on about past succeses and past National governments will not win back the support they have lost in the past 2 years.