Bridges believes in trickle down

Written By: - Date published: 10:58 am, May 14th, 2018 - 199 comments
Categories: Keynes, national, same old national, Simon Bridges, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, uncategorized, wages, workers' rights, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

Simon Bridges bull

National’s strategists must be shaking their head.

Simon Bridges believes in the power of trickle down, that is the transfer of wealth to the already wealthy in the hope it will then trickle down to the less fortunate.

I can’t think of a more loaded statement to use or a stranger belief to publicly confirm, let alone have. And Bridges uttered it in that “what did he say” way he is becoming too famous for.

From Newshub:

Simon Bridges says he still believes in trickle-down economics, despite a damning report that suggests Aucklanders are facing the worst inequality since World War II.

Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development’s new Prosperity Index found while northern and eastern areas of the city are doing fine, residents in the south and west aren’t reaping the benefits the so-called ‘rockstar economy’.

Trickle-down economics is the theory that reducing the tax burden on the wealthy will prompt them to invest more in the economy, leading to increased wealth for all. It was popularised in the 1980s by right-wing leaders such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and the implemented here in New Zealand by the fourth Labour Government as ‘Rogernomics’.

The theory has been widely questioned in recent years, with inequality in the UK, US and New Zealand growing in the decades since.

“I think there is some trickle-down effect actually, and a lot of people say no, no no,” the National Party leader told The AM Show on Monday morning.

And in part of the interview he bordered on being incoherent.

“I live in Tauranga, we’re seeing [homelessness] there – it’s very worrying. So I say you know, money, but more than that you’ve got to get in and do the smart stuff. We’re talking to the Prime Minister and the Government about that when it comes to the Child Poverty [Reduction] Bill.

“Because at the moment the fear is it’s just the money, it’s just that the targets, actually you’ve got to get in there and do the hard work that’s required, otherwise it’s… intergenerational… If you’ve grown up in a gang lifestyle… it’s very hard to get away from that, isn’t it?”

It must be clear to National strategists that Bridges is no John Key. When Key first appeared he talked about the underclass and homelessness and how something had to be done to address these most urgent of issues.

But not for Bridges to share such lofty ideals. Instead he is happy to continue to utter right wing banalities that three generations on are shown to be completely unworkable.

Good luck to National sorting this problem out. I hope it continues for a long time.

199 comments on “Bridges believes in trickle down”

  1. cleangreen 1

    “trickle down” is a coin phase set up by the Globalists to sell the notion that selling your country’s assets, you still get the rewards of financial spin off of “trickle down” of the overseas investors big money buyouts.

    Historically this “trickle down fake notion” has been proven to be an absolute failure and ruin of many economies.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85

    Quote;
    “The richest 85 people in the world have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5bn. That should be a wake-up call to the deepest sleepers”

    • Gosman 1.1

      The phrase “Trickle down” was not created by anybody except for people trying to discredit policies they disagreed with. Bridges is an idiot if he was suckered in by a question asking whether he supported the idea.

      • tracey 1.1.1

        He wasnt “suckered in by a question”, he lacked knowledge on the topic. The way you phrase it almost makes him sound like a victim.

        • Gosman 1.1.1.1

          No, he was an idiot for stating what he did. I only assume he was asked about ‘Trickle down economics’ by the interviewer as he would be an even greater idiot for bringing it up himself as it is a left wing trap.

          • tracey 1.1.1.1.1

            A trap, poor Simon, being ensnared against his will, oh, still a victim yet you say he wasn’t.

            Do you have proof that it was asked as part of a left wing trap?

            • Gosman 1.1.1.1.1.1

              The concept of ‘trickle down economics’ is a trap. Basically it is a Strawman argument created by left wingers to try and show Right wingers want to give money to rich people in the mistaken belief that this will help the poor.

              • Sacha

                Nothing strawman about it. Interesting origins though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

                • dukeofurl

                  Sacha is right
                  Trickle-down, or its wearing a suit version ‘supply side’

                  “It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down,’ so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory.

                  — David Stockman, The Atlantic
                  Reagans Budget Director

              • tracey

                So you are saying Bridges was the victim of a leftist trap, even when you said you weren’t regarding him as victim

              • Gabby

                Right wingers really just want to give money to rich people right Gozzer?

              • tracey

                “Daniel Hannan is a Conservative Member of the European Parliament and blogs at http://www.hannan.co.uk. “

                • Gosman

                  Yeah and so? The argument is that Right wingers are proponents of ‘Trickle down economics’. I gave you a right winger who has highlighted why right wingers are not a proponent of ‘Trickle down economics’.

                  I am quite happy to advocate for lower taxes without resort to arguing that it increasing the wealth of the poorest in society. If you want to address that you should focus on barriers to social advancement and social welfare. It is two completely different arguments.

                  • tracey

                    Are you saying that you do not believe that one reason to support growth in the economy, supporting businesses to make profit, cutting business tax, etc… is that the money generate will filter down in its effects on those at the poorer ends of the machine?

                    • Gosman

                      There is no guarantee (nor do people argue) that cutting taxes will lead to increased wealth for all in society. There is a good argument that increasing growth in the economy allows for greater opportunity and room for social spending but you still need to do other activities if your goal is to help the poorer sections of society.

              • Chris

                “The case against trickle-down, then, is pretty clear. But who exactly is making the case for it? Where are the economists, the politicians, the commentators, arguing that we should give more to the rich? Who avers that the best way to stimulate the economy is for plutocrats to have more to spend on their Lamborghinis and swimming pools?

                “Well, here’s an odd thing: I can’t find anyone. Which is, when you think about it, pretty astonishing.”

                Is this what you’re relying on? First he misrepresents what tricledown means and what critics of tricledown say, then assumes what he says is true to support the view that nobody subscribes to the theory. FFS.

                • Gosman

                  Well first off what do you take to mean as ‘Trickle down economics’ to ensure we are on the same page.

                  I take it to mean that cutting the tax burden for the wealthy will indirectly lead to the poorer off in society getting wealthier as a result.

                  Do you have another definition?

                  • Chris

                    No, but your man in the link does. He’s saying that it means increasing the wealth of the plutocracy so they can spend more on luxuries, and that nobody subcribes to that view. And if you think I’m splitting hairs and that of course he means cutting the tax burden for the wealthy will indirectly lead to the poorer off in society getting wealthier as a result, then his claim that he can’t find anyone who subcribes to that view is disingenuous.

                    • Gosman

                      That is your opinion. Other than the idiotic response from Simon Bridges this morning I have yet to see Right leaning politicians argue they support ‘trickle down’ economic theory. They might support smaller government or a lower tax burden or more private sector involvement in the provision of goods and services but they won’t promote it as trickling down to benefit the poor. The overall economy may well benefit but there are sections of society who are likely to be worse off as a result. That is where social policy has to step in.

                    • Chris

                      How is “supporting a lower tax burden” not part of trickledown economic theory? Or the political rhetoric against raising the minimum wage, for that matter?

                    • In Vino

                      Intended as reply to Gosman at 12.02am:

                      He did it more subtly than that. He dismantled NZ Rail: instead of taking on the railway union, he destroyed their jobs, and consigned many to unemployment. Socially destructive, but policies favourable to the rich. Union pretty well destroyed nevertheless.

                  • tracey

                    Here is an example fa left wing politician (although I use left wing with hesitation cos it is Cullen) attributing a trickle down theory to national party. This supports your view.

                    But the same article also suggests that cutting taxes for the top end earnings and growing the economy will get the results for “everyone”. IOW if we put more wealth in the hands of the wealthy the poor will benefit. Help the wealth and the benefits will move down to help the poor.

                    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=1392418

                    • Gosman

                      Ummm… you have really shot yourself in the foot over that link Tracey.

                      Not only is it Cullen who uses the term ‘Trickle down’ (therefore confirming it is a left wing attack term rather than a serious right wing policy) but this is what Bill English stated in that article:

                      “We will look separately at supporting families and children and households on low and middle incomes,” Mr English said.

                      This shows that they were not just expecting their proposed tax cuts to help low and middle income earners which is what they would be arguing if they were proponents of ‘Trickle down economic’ policies.

                      Your link has essentially made my argument for me. I can now rest.

                      Thanks for that.

                      🙂

                    • Chris

                      “This shows that they were not just expecting their proposed tax cuts to help low and middle income earners which is what they would be arguing if they were proponents of ‘Trickle down economic’ policies.”

                      So you must agree, then, that a policy of easing the tax burden on the wealthy is an aspect of trickle down theory.

                    • Gosman

                      I don’t agree there is such a thing as ‘trickle down theory’ outside the confines of left wing attack points.

                    • Nic the NZer []

                      “I don’t agree there is such a thing as ‘trickle down theory’”

                      Yeah, it probably went missing. Especially as there was never much to it.

                      https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/us/politics/arthur-laffer-napkin-tax-curve.amp.html

                    • McFlock

                      At least one right wing politician disagrees with you. The leader of the opposition.

                    • tracey

                      Did you read my post? How can I shoot myself in the foot when I made the very point openly?

                      I conceded that Cullen made the comment. Note how I wrote, “this supports your view”. Yet you still had to indulge in smug self-righteousness, nonetheless misplaced.

                      But it doesn’t change that a right-wing politician in that article is proposing that putting more money in the hands of the wealthy will grow the economy and result in benefit accruing to the poor as result. Ergo he is saying make the wealthy wealthier and the poor will get a smattering of relief as a by product (some might say a trickle)i

                      You are splitting hairs. I have said it is irrelevant whether it is a theory but they certainly espouse the notion of give more money to the wealthy and the poor will get collateral benefit (wealth trickles)

                      “National is promising to slash tax on businesses and the highest paid 8 per cent of income earners next year as part of a long-term plan to lower taxes.

                      Leader Bill English yesterday conceded that the plan would be controversial.

                      But he said the measures, estimated to cost $815 million next year, would help to lift economic growth and therefore benefit the whole country.”

                      Give more money to the wealthy and others benefit as a by product (the impact moves down through the wealth stages, or trickles)

                      Please do rest because you seem to be only partially reading things.

                    • Gosman

                      Yes and refer to my previously stated views on that.

                    • Gosman

                      Tracey

                      “We will look separately at supporting families and children and households on low and middle incomes,” Mr English said.

                    • In Vino

                      I have to call bullshit on Gosman here, through personal experience. I am in my 70s, and distinctly remember discussions in the Rogernomics times (I also remember Roger himself saying that NZ must not become a low-wage economy, and then doing everything to destroy unions, deregulate, and ensure that it would) – discussions with his supporters where they clearly argued that a small bit of a bigger pie was better than a bigger bit of a tiny pie, and I am sure that the term ‘trickle-down’ was used.
                      It is not a recent invention of the Left at all.
                      Now that the theory has failed, certain righties are claiming that they never used the term.
                      Hogwash! They did.
                      I wish I had tape recordings…

                    • Gosman []

                      What policy did Roger Douglas implement that was anti Union?

          • Greg 1.1.1.1.2

            Just proves national are still working to the bankrupt theory’s from the Chicago school no bridges must worship Milton Freedman

      • Michelle 1.1.2

        I think he is standing too close to that cow and the only thing that is trickling down is the cows shit the same shit that is coming out of his mouth the problem with this guy is he believes his own shit

    • Gosman 1.2

      Why does it matter to you how much wealth the richest 85 people have? How does it impact YOU directly?

      • Barfly 1.2.1

        I m ok F the rest of the world is that the gist Gosman?

        “Why does it matter to you how much wealth the richest 85 people have?”

        Thinking about it – perhaps I do have a soul – maybe that’s why it bothers me.

        • Gosman 1.2.1.1

          Okay then. What does it matter to the rest of the World how much wealth the richest 85 people have?

          Have you got evidence that somebody is suffering as a result of Bill Gates having a lot of wealth?

        • Gosman 1.2.1.2

          Bill Gates is incredibly wealthy and this impacts the poorest 3.5 Billion how exactly?

        • Gosman 1.2.1.3

          Bill Gates has made his money off software mainly and selling that software (and associated services) to generally well off individuals and companies. How are the poorest 3.5 Billion impacted by this?

          • ankerawshark 1.2.1.3.1

            Share that 3.5 billion around. Given it to the poorest, so they can advance themselves, get medicine, don’t have to work as slaves or prostitutes…………..

            Yes that would help

            • Gosman 1.2.1.3.1.1

              Bill Gates is already doing that.

              https://www.gatesfoundation.org/

              • ankerawshark

                Yes Gosman, That is seriously good stuff. What do you think about that?

                I am not sure how much of their vast wealth goes to the poor, but I am a great believer that we only need a reasonable amount of money to make us happy, and there is good evidence that supports my view…………..

                Conversely what do you think of Trump giving the richest Americans a tax cut????? There is only so much money one can spend in one’s lifetime…………..

              • Brigid

                But why didn’t he pay his code monkeys better so as not to accumulate such wealth. Wouldn’t have that been fairer?

                Having captured the market, why didn’t he sell his OS cheaper, so as not to accumulate such wealth.
                Why did he need so much money?

                Perhaps he could also have paid for the systems he stole.

                • Jeremy

                  Margin, and by extension the price system, indicate how resources can be most efficiently directed within an economy, and without a clearly defined profit motive, the people allocating resources are shooting with a blindfold on (see: every communist economy).

                  It’s obviously horrendously complicated, and there are many phenomena that retard the price system’s effect (which I sure will be sited below ad nauseam as reasons why free markets don’t work) but it is the reason you have an affordable personal computer that allows you to post the above comment.

                  • Brigid

                    “it is the reason you have an affordable personal computer that allows you to post the above comment.”
                    Oh please!!
                    BYT I am proud to declare that I have not bought any microsoft product since 2000.
                    And before 1990 I used OS that were developed before the advent of the horrible windose. From which of course a damned good portion of the microsoft os was copied.

      • tracey 1.2.2

        If they are not paying the same percentages of tax as me then it means they are driving on roads they didn’t pay for goddamit, while lobbying our government for more of them 😉

        • Gosman 1.2.2.1

          How do you know what tax rate they are paying? Regardless that isn’t how the issue is being portrayed. You might have a point if it was stated as the richest 85 people pay less tax than the poorest 3.5 billion but it isn’t.

      • Draco T Bastard 1.2.3

        Because those people are destroying our society and yes it does affect me directly. The destruction of society to make a few wealthy will do that.

        • Gosman 1.2.3.1

          How is Bill Gates wealth impacting YOU Draco?

          • Draco T Bastard 1.2.3.1.1

            By skimming the wealth from those that create it he’s creating poverty and poverty affects everyone. It will eventually destroy society completely.

            That’s what capitalism does.

            • Gosman 1.2.3.1.1.1

              How many Microsoft employees are poorer now than before?

              • Draco T Bastard

                How many other people are poorer than before?

                It’s not just the Microsoft employees that he’s skimming from.

                • Gosman

                  Who else is he skimming from?

                  • Stuart Munro

                    The general public.

                    When I first went to China the latest legal version of Windows there cost $US 30. In NZ it was about $250 at the time.

                    There’s no relation between production cost and retail, rather, like most monopolists, Gates charges what the market will bear, imposing significant deadweight costs on consumers.

                    He could still have been very wealthy indeed charging half that.

                    His recent charging model for office – a yearly subscription fee – is classic rentseeking. It’s not enough for consumers to pay once every five years or so for a word processor – Gates wants that slice every year, though consumers do not require substantial updates on the scale he charges for.

                    • Gosman

                      Yes. It is called demand and supply. If you don’t want the product at a certain price don’t buy it.

                    • Gosman

                      Noone forces you to use Microsoft products. You choose to do so. The reason you choose to do so is probably because you think you receive some sort of benefit from them. If you don’t think you get any benefit from them then stop using them.

                    • Stuart Munro

                      That’s just childish Gosman – why should I pay the NZ price, not the China price? Do you know why the China price was so much lower?

                      Pathetic apologist for untrammeled greed – supply and demand is neither here nor there.

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      Noone forces you to use Microsoft products. You choose to do so.

                      Wrong.

                      When I apply for a job I have no choice but to apply in MS Office format because businesses won’t accept anything else.

                      That means that I have to have MS Office whether I want it or not.

                      I’d much prefer to use LibreOffice.

                    • Gosman

                      Don’t apply for a job at places that require MS Word.

                    • McFlock

                      Don’t apply for a job at places that require MS Word.

                      I’m sure that’s an approach that went down well with social warfare over the last decade or two /sarc

                    • Gosman

                      Pretty sure MSD would help you create your own CV if you didn’t have MS Word. It wouldn’t cost you a cent directly.

                    • Andrea

                      Bill Gates is not Microsoft.

                      Microsoft is a company and an entity in its own right.

                      People at Microsoft, perhaps with a personal interest in the wealth and benefits that flow from working there, will be making these decisions for charging and creating a subscription model and so forth. That’s normal business practice.

                      It would be surprising if the founder was taking that level of interest in the day-to-day decisions.

                      If those decisions fit the long term mission and business model of the company they will be implemented. Just like political policies.

                      To Draco – I think there’s a feature in Libre that lets the document be read/used by Word. Could be worth another look.

      • ankerawshark 1.2.4

        Gosman it disgusts me that a very small number of people have so much wealth and the vast majority of others through out the world are struggling with not enough food, decent sanitation, access to medical care and in NZ lack of adequate housing. It sickens me. Deeply. And my own position is that I don’t struggle financially I am moderately well off, very lucky. So it doesn’t directly effect me.

        Except I have a conscience and empathy…………………I regard this as a very good thing……………So it will never sit well with me that while some have so much, others lives are blighted by their circumstance.

      • tracey 1.2.5

        Leaving the capital letters off, it remains that over decades some politicians have clearly favoured and believed the concept that wealth will move down to the poor.

        By all means muddy the waters by saying that as a theory it never existed etc etc but as a way to describe a belief about certain policies it certaily does exist.

        We hear it all the time here… IF businesses don’t grow and make profits and etc etc etc how will workers get wage increases. Leaving aside that in good times and bad we hear arguments from business about why wages have to stay the same, except for high management.

        http://rollsoffthetongue.tumblr.com/post/151476209425/trickle-down-economics-origin-late-19th

        • Gosman 1.2.5.1

          You misunderstand Right wing economic policies if you think they have ever been sold on being the best for the poorest section in society. I don’t remember the last National led government stating that they were going to help the poorest simply by economic policies alone. In fact they stated they were looking to use social policies to do that coupled with a strong economy. It was never a strong economy on it’s own that was going to solve social issues.

          • tracey 1.2.5.1.1

            Yes it was, and is because their ideology/policies state the strength of growth in the economy determined the resources they would or wouldn’t put into those areas.

            They believe that a “fast” growing economy produces the revenue to do the other stuff. So by putting more wealth in the hands of the wealthy or well off, the poor with gain benefit…. the wealth trickles down

            https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=1392418

            • Gosman 1.2.5.1.1.1

              Are we going to have a ‘Yes they did, no they didn’t’ argument here Tracey? If you have evidence that they promoted economic policy alone as a solution to social problems then show that.

              • Barfly

                No Gosman I believe they were also big on punishment, harassment ,degradation for the worst off whilst promoting wealth for the richest – lovely bunch of people you seem to be endeared with.

              • tracey

                I am not going to post all the links where right-wing NZ politicians chant grow the economy, raise GDP, grow the economy, as a response to

                homelessness
                poverty
                housing affordability
                health service lacks
                Teacher shortages
                Midwife shortages

                They are VERY clear that they consider GDP to be almost a panacea but very much a cornerstone of ANY economic policy or governmental stance.
                The National Government’s record over the last nine years in relation to

                7000 teachers short
                Midwife shortage
                Declining hospital facilities
                Insufficient health care service provision (and Princess Margaret Hospital)
                homelessness
                poverty

                make sit abundantly clear that having a surplus and GDP growth is by some large measure their main priority goal and from that they consider all things flow, notwithstanding decade sof GDP growth suggesting that must no longer be the cornerstone policy

                • Gosman

                  Refer to your link to the article from 2002.

                  “We will look separately at supporting families and children and households on low and middle incomes,” Mr English said.

                  • tracey

                    Refer to the link which makes it clear that he means that by putting more money in the hands of the wealthy the economy will grow and hey presto he has increased resources to fix social problems. BTW the evidence is he didn’t even touch the surface of fixing them… so we get back to the lie

                    nats believe in putting more money in the hands of the wealthy and to hell with social issues other than as window dressing but tell us if we just grow the economy a little bit more the poor will get some help

                    • Gosman

                      Ummm… what does look separately at supporting families can households on low and middle income mean? What is it separate from?

                    • tracey

                      Where does the money allegedly come from ? He is saying that if the wealthy have more money the government can help the poor which means there, at some point, must be an increase in govt revenue ( not from tax surely but he must be cos that is the source of govt revenue).

                      He is clearly espousing the notion that if you put more money into the hands of the wealthy it will indirectly get back to the poor Gosman. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

                    • Gosman

                      You are inferring that. He didn’t claim that at all.

                      Regardless he is not claiming that poor and middle income earners will be better off simply by allowing the wealthy to keep more of their money. He acknowledges that there will need to be increased spending to help.

      • mac1 1.2.6

        How does it impact me?

        “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me.”

    • Observer Tokoroa 1.3

      “And the winner is: “Gosman”

      In view of the fact that Gosman plays willfully and adeptly with words and logic, it is simply ridiculous to discuss anything with him / her. He is as cute as a little girl on a trampoline.

      His friend Simon Bridges is very aware that his one and only task is to bring additional personal wealth to each every member of the National Party Caucus. He is to achieve this by robbing the poor and the low waged. He owes it to Satan to do the Trickle Down Act – Night and Day.

      As did John Key and Billy English. Simon will be raising GST as soon as gets an opportunity. And raising the Fees on State Schools.

      Congrats to Gymnast Gosman – a true waste of time.

  2. patricia bremner 2

    Well Bridges just showed he’s as necessary as a bridge over said trickle, ’cause we know it doesn’t trickle, it’s forming a wealth lake somewhere else!!

  3. Adrian Thornton 3

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but National voters are still at about 44% even though it has become quite apparent that their party have left the country in a complete and utter mess… what does this tell you?
    !. National and National voters don’t give a flying fuck about anything other than their own perceived class and self interests.
    2. Labour will never get the soft National vote, because there isn’t one.
    3. Labour can only ever gain a populist margin to bring about progressive change if they turn Left (re;Labour UK) and mobilize the ‘missing million.
    4. The above ( unfortunately ) cannot ever happen while Labour remain captured by a neoliberal economic ideology.

    • bwaghorn 3.1

      As long as labour dosnt burn it’s coalition partners like national does .national at 44 is my a big worry

    • tracey 3.2

      Do we have all the questions from those polls? How many were polled? and so on…
      Who paid for the poll. Who owns the company/entity requesting the poll?

      • Gosman 3.2.1

        You mean like the UMR poll that tried to show that most NZer’s were willing to pay higher taxes?

        • tracey 3.2.1.1

          Exactly like that Gosman, I mean you have regularly drilled down these poll results that show nats at 40+ %, right?

          Are you quickly searching a link to show me you have done it for every such poll right?

          • Gosman 3.2.1.1.1

            Why would I do that? I’m not arguing any poll involving National Party support at 44 % is valid or not.

            • tracey 3.2.1.1.1.1

              How convenient. You just read it, agree with it and move on, only questioning that which you don’t agree with. hence your latest piece of “evidence” is from “Daniel Hannan is a Conservative Member of the European Parliament and blogs at http://www.hannan.co.uk. “

              • Gosman

                Yes. He highlights why Right wingers DO NOT Support the idea of ‘Trickle down economics’. You are arguing that we do. All you’ve got so far is Simon Bridges idiotic interview response.

                • tracey

                  BS. I have decades of right wing politicians saying “tighten your belts” the good times will come, let’s get on with growing the economy and then the benefits for the poor will flow… we need businesses making money and profits and if we do that the wages can rise, conditions improve, poverty fall. It might not be espoused as a theory but what they are saying is support the wealthy and the wealth drivers and eventually all that ills you will improve.

                  Yet in hard and good times businesses and politicians can argue for wage growth to stay low. So in that sense, they are both saying hold on til the benefits flow down (see how I didn’t say trickle) and on the other saying “no it’s not that time yet”. So you may be right and wrong all at once

                  • Gosman

                    Again you misunderstand the policies you are discussing. Nobody I have ever seen has argued that austerity won’t hurt the poorest sections of society the hardest on a proportional basis. They do argue that Austerity is often the best way of tackling the problems of an economy in a high debt / low growth trap.

                    • tracey

                      NO, I haven’t misunderstood Gosman. I am saying that there does not need to be a sanctioned, spoken from their mouths by the right theory of “trickle down economics” for them to false dangle that notion as a result of some of their policies.

                    • Gosman

                      It is YOU who are claiming the policies are attempting to achieve something that they are not designed for. The right aren’t generally arguing that. Austerity is not designed as a poverty alleviation policy in the short to medium term.

                    • tracey

                      I wasn’t talking, ever, in this thread about austerity Gosman, I was talking about putting more money in the hands of the wealth by way of tax cuts and the lie that goes with it, that by growing the economy the poor will reap some benefits.

                  • Gosman

                    If you want to improve the lot of the poor then use Social welfare transfers to target those sections in society. Attempting to increase the tax burden on richer people isn’t usually going to achieve that affect.

                    • tracey

                      Do you not want to improve the lot of the poor Gosman?

                    • Gosman

                      I’d like an environment where all can improve their lot Tracey.

                    • tracey

                      is there a rolling eyes gif?

                    • dukeofurl

                      Burden on rich people ?

                      if only they paid their share
                      http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3778429/Surgeons-avoided-tax-court-finds

                      One of those 3 surgeons was craftier and avoided their trust scheme being struck down- manily because thats how senior judges arrange their affairs with things like horse breeding.

                      Anyone in small business has tricks and ruses offered to them all the time to avoid paying any tax at all.

                      The gift tax was eliminated even though it was mostly ‘evaded’ because the Foreign trusts tax industry, which was championed by ‘Keys lawyer’ needed a tax free way to move money from the trust into the hands of the real owner of the assets/money .

                    • KJT

                      Where is the money going to come from for your “social welfare transfers” Gosman?
                      The wealthy, or the already overtaxed, lower middle class PAYE payers, who already pay most of the total taxes,

                  • Herodotus

                    Then why is Labour % of GDP falling ?
                    There was a graph that supported one Authors post on this site many years ago that from memory was dedicated to this dramatic drop that “workers” were receiving from the GDP pie, the analysis was that the difference was going to coy owners in the form of dividend/profits
                    https://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/92627/david-chaston-explains-why-our-current-economic-growth-probably-good-it-will-get
                    https://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/research-who-benefits-from-productivity-growth.pdf
                    If trickle down worked then there should be a minor delayed in the uplift of workers share. Many are still waiting from the initial trickle down from the Reagan period of the early 80’s !!

                    • tracey

                      Donyt call it trickle down. Call it divert more money to the wealthy by way of tax cuts to grow the economy and thereby indirectly improve the lives of the poor. Otherwise Gosman goes off again.

                      And forget that until Ardern starting rising Labour in the polls Nats didnt accept there were poor in NZ

                    • Gosman

                      Who is arguing that ‘trickle down’ works in the way you are claiming it should (other than possibly dunderhead Bridges)?

                    • McFlock

                      the story so far: tax cuts don’t grow the economy and create jobs, thus lifting people out of poverty, and to claim tax cuts have this effect is a kooky straw man promulgated only by deranged leftists and the current leader of the National Party…

                    • Gosman

                      Where has anyone claimed Tax cuts alone will lift people out of poverty? Do you have an example?

                    • McFlock

                      Hey, I’m agreeing with you. Tax cuts don’t do anything to help poor people.

                      Although I’ve yet to see any economic policy proposed “alone” – that’s you’re own straw man there…

                    • Gosman []

                      But that is how the trickle down theory is presented isn’t it?

                    • tracey

                      Tou bloody che mcflock

                    • McFlock

                      But that is how the trickle down theory is presented isn’t it?

                      Which bit: that tax cuts stimulate economic growth, or that economic growth means jobs, including for poor people?
                      Because I agree that there’s a break down somewhere between “tax cuts for the rich” and “helping people who need it”.

                      You’re preaching to the leftist choir on this one.

    • JanM 3.3

      “!. National and National voters don’t give a flying fuck about anything other than their own perceived class and self interests.”
      Indeed – while some of them are educated and have reasonable intellectual IQs, they almost universally have very low emotional IQs. You can see it in the approach their apologists on this website take, for a start

  4. Draco T Bastard 4

    Probably worth putting this in the article:

  5. One Anonymous Bloke 5

    Simon Bridges getting mocked for his religious beliefs is only fair considering how many people are harmed by them.

  6. Adrian Thornton 6

    @tracey Who care’s whether it’s 40 or 44% National still appeal to about 40% of active voters, as does Labour, all this while daily on the news we all get to see the depth of National’s destruction of the very fabric New Zealand’s moral and ethical structure.

    Why did National undertake this path of dismantling and destruction…because their economic ideology demands that they do.

    Yet Labour has undertaken to abide by what are essentially the same set of economic principles…their so called ‘Budget Responsibility Rules’
    https://www.labour.org.nz/labour_and_greens_commit_to_rules_for_responsible_financial_management

    A sure sign of insanity is to keep on doing the same actions and expect a different result…yet here we go again.

    Turn Labour Left.

    • tracey 6.1

      I wasn’t disagreeing with you. I never believed labour in most of their promises hence I didn’t vote for them.

      I was referring tot he long thread dissection of a UMR poll the other day and await the same dissection and calls for the veracity of these polls showing nats untouched since election…

      Labour spawned ACT, not national spawned ACT. This Labour think they have gone left.

      • patricia bremner 6.1.1

        Tracey, the fact that Prebble and Douglas were renegade Labour, does not make Labour liable. Every party has had defectors who popped up to embarrass the parent party.

        Recently two Green members did just that, now they are linking with National.. does that mean the Greens were at fault?

        As for not believing Labour’s promises… Let us wait for the Coalition’s first budget ok?

        • tracey 6.1.1.1

          You only name Douglas and Prebble? Geesh the list is much longer and includes the current mayor of Auckland. Robertson has already signalled that pursuing surplus is a prioty so we are not that far away from prior govt ideology yet

          If the budget delivers on all election promises, which they have already said it won’t, because “national” and “worse than we thought” is that when it is ok to criticise and hold them to account for their promises?

  7. Sacha 7

    Poor Soimon claiming that poverty is because of gangs and intergenerational dependency and that paying poor families money is not the answer – when there is plenty of evidence he is flat wrong.

    Same with trickle down. What a clown.

    • tracey 7.1

      Next someone will say jobless are all drug users and that is why they can’t work, so we should drug test them… oh wait

  8. David Mac 8

    I believe in a trickle down theory of sorts, I have to, chasing trickles is how I make a living. Major capital investment creates peripheral opportunities, trickles. I pick up my bucket and chase them about. I wouldn’t want a business selling 2nd hand Jap import cars but VIN’ing them for traders/NZ roads could be a goldmine, a tasty beneficial trickledown.

    I think it’s unrealistic of me to place my bucket beside me as I sit on the couch and watch TV and expect it to fill up on it’s own accord, my quality of life getting a boost without me raising a finger. I would be anticipating next to no change in my life.

    • tracey 8.1

      Isn’t it cool that we all have the same size bucket and couch and shoes though to chase the trickles

      • David Mac 8.1.1

        Hi Tracey, yep I think we all have something of value to bring to the party and we need to get better at identifying and utilising that value. Make the most of the trickles, fit spreader nozzles.

        • tracey 8.1.1.1

          We do all have something of value to offer but we do not all start at the same starting line, have holes in our buckets, no couch and worn out running shoes.

          While I am grateful for my current state of health and wealth I do not suppose that everyone has the same opportunities or advantages as me and so I work to try to give extra support to those who need it rather than indirectly suggesting to them that it can all happen for them, like me, if they work hard enough and chase the trickle. Cos that is a fallacy.

    • Draco T Bastard 8.2

      I think it’s unrealistic of me to place my bucket beside me as I sit on the couch and watch TV and expect it to fill up on it’s own accord, my quality of life getting a boost without me raising a finger.

      But that is capitalism. Being able to not produce anything of value and get richer while doing it.

  9. Wayne 9

    Labour is the government. Simon is not. So the real acid is on the current government. They are not changing income tax rates. CGT did not affect house prices in Aus, and it won’t here (assuming Labour introduces a CGT).
    So the basic wealth distribution is not going to change. Getting more people into house ownership will help, but if people stay as permanent renters they will always be at the bottom of the wealth curve.
    The basic distribution of wealth in Auckland will not change, unless house prices are crashed. And that only happens in a depression.
    Labour’s (or any other party) only realistic path to change wealth distribution to any extent at all is to get more people into home ownership. And they will need to guarantee the interest rate for that to be a safe option for people with small deposits.

    • tracey 9.1

      Being in opposition gives you carte blanche to be clueless, is that what you are saying? Cos he kind of did that when he was in Government too? Lost those Northland bridges, suppressed the kiwirail report…

      Do you believe in trickle down as a concept of wealth distrubution too Wayne? I deliberately put it without capital letters.

      You seem to be suggesting that doing more of the same will get us a different outcome from today.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2

      You’ve conveniently forgotten their policy of taking a response to the findings of the tax working group to the electorate in 2020.

      Also, measures to increase wages.

      Also, thanks for admitting that the status quo is broken. Pity you didn’t mention it when you had the chance.

    • David Mac 9.3

      I agree Wayne. Home ownership is the mother of neighbourhood pride.

      There are aspects of the current solution that border on the absurd.

      If most of us went to our Fathers and said “Great news Dad, I’ve sorted out my family accommodation issues, got the kiddies in 2 motel rooms right on Sandringham Road. Costs $2500 a week, pretty good eh?”

      Our fathers would respond. “That’s more than enough to service a mortgage son, get your own place in a quiet street with a safe backyard.”

    • Draco T Bastard 9.4

      Labour’s (or any other party) only realistic path to change wealth distribution to any extent at all is to get more people into home ownership.

      Home ownership is the problem and thus not the solution.

      In fact, private ownership of the nation’s wealth is the problem and thus not the solution.

      Private ownership is what allows bludging by the rich so that they can get richer while creating poverty.

    • Carolyn_Nth 9.5

      Labour is the government. Simon is not.

      And yet, in the 9 years of the Key government, the MSM and right wing social media spent a lot of time attacking policies and comments of opposition leaders: see David Cunliffe, form letters, etc; Metiria Turei on welfare, etc.

      Meanwhile there was constant cheerleading of Key’s government and limited attempts by the MSM to hold that government to account.

  10. Wayne 10

    Carolyn_Nth

    Of course I expect The Standard to attack Simon.

    But given Labour is the government, what is their answer to this issue (which seems to be portrayed as substantially reducing the wealth gap. I suspect, given their policies, probably not much.

    In my view the issue is not the overall wealth gap, but rather the situation of the people on the lowest incomes. Lifting up their situation, which the current government claims to be their main priority, will largely revolve around making it easier to buy a home. And I guess the minimum wage. However, National’s social investment policy was also making a difference for many low income families and it would be a pity if all that was lost.

    There seems to be a view on the left, especially the further left one goes, that the main solution to the wealth gap is make the rich poorer. That is difficult to do without very high taxes and economic destruction. Much easier to lift the poor, which is the essence of what Simon was proposing. More jobs with higher skill level is far and away the best way to improve the lot of people.

    • Gosman 10.1

      Wayne,

      Do you agree that Bridges is foolish being drawn in to trying to argue for a left wing attack point against right leaning policies?

      • dukeofurl 10.1.1

        Such much diverting , so little time?

        Do you agree the ‘left wing’ name trickle down is really called supply side economics by more careful right wingers.

        “Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.”
        — John Kenneth Galbraith

        • Gosman 10.1.1.1

          It isn’t Supply side economics because Supply siders don’t (or at least shouldn’t argue) that the benefits of their economic policies will ‘trickle down’ to everyone. The policies are not designed in that way.

      • tracey 10.1.2

        Gosman, there is a job waiting for you at UMR

      • KJT 10.1.3

        Wayne continually repeats the arguments and policies driven by the trick me down principles. Just in different words. A typical right wing supporter.
        Which makes a nonsense of your claims. Gosman.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.2

      There seems to be a view on the left, especially the further left one goes, that the main solution to the wealth gap is make the rich poorer.

      That isn’t how Bob Jones calls it. He says the “stultification” that accompanies National governments provides “acquisition opportunities” for the big end of town. The corrolary being that everyone else gets poorer. How much worse off was the big end of town in 2008 compared to 1999?

      “It seems” that your weasel words have no foundation in reality.

    • tracey 10.3

      Then you will be very interested int he Stuff focus this week Wayne.

      Much easier to lift the poor… and yet until Ardern polled well no one in National believed we even had poverty, so who to lift?

      The Right seem to believe that employees are the enemy and any move to increase wages is an attack on the very fabric of the economy. The sky will fall if

      minimum wage rises
      another week of holiday pay
      sick leave
      tea breaks
      and on and on and on

      Oh God, not more jobs… so far the new jobs are going to immigrants, how is that helping the NZ poor Wayne? You are of course entitled to your mantras, the flip side of the mantras of the left you decry but please do not pretend it is a position that is shown to “work” and fix the problem or lift the poor because there is so much evidence that those policies have harmed those people. You are as ideologically driven as those of us you disdain. If I hear just grow the economy as the “solution” one more time as we did from Bridges today, I will scream. It is patently obvious it is no panacea. Surplus plus grow the economy is lazy no matter which party says it.

    • Gabby 10.4

      Making a difference wayney? How so?

    • tracey 10.5

      “More jobs with higher skill level is far and away the best way to improve the lot of people. ”
      Like when Natioal cut training grants to solo parents to help them retrain? That kind of helping the poor to get high skill level which is “easier” you mean?

    • Sacha 10.6

      “National’s social investment policy was also making a difference for many low income families”

      Do you have any useful links with evidence of that?

    • Incognito 10.7

      There seems to be a view on the left, especially the further left one goes, that the main solution to the wealth gap is make the rich poorer.

      Yep, we all love the story of Robin Hood: steal from the rich to give to the poor.

      And the right all seem to think that Tax is legalised theft.

      Crikey, Wayne, if you’d call this a debate between mature grown-ups I’d say you have a wicked sense of humour.

      Much easier to lift the poor, which is the essence of what Simon was proposing. More jobs with higher skill level is far and away the best way to improve the lot of people.

      Yeah, if it were so much easier it could have been done in the last 9 years, don’t you think?

      No, people don’t need get higher skill levels to get those mythical highly paying jobs. Instead, people should be paid a decent wage for the hard work they put in regardless of their skill level or any identity trait (or class!). I believe I’m a closet socialist after all 😉

    • KJT 10.8

      The “trickle down theory” in other words.
      It hasn’t worked, Wayne.
      Reducing taxes to the rich, and lowering incomes of the less well of has harmed, not helped, the economy as the wealthy have hoarded, taken offshore or wasted the extra money, instead of investing in New Zealand.
      After all. Why invest in a low wage economy, where most people cannot afford to buy anything.

    • Andrea 10.9

      Labour is NOT ‘the government’. It is a coalition arrangement and it’s time we saw more of that collaboration.

      A change in modus operandi, however awkward it may be at first.

      Could coalition partners act as a ‘senate’ or ‘House of Peers’? We surely do need something like that. A dead person switch or brake that kicks in to stop the perpetuation of stupid policies.

  11. Gosman 11

    Anyone who wishes to argue the term ‘Trickle down economics’ is a serious right leaning policy platform please refer to Tracey’s link.

    https://thestandard.org.nz/bridges-believes-in-trickle-down/#comment-1484013

    • tracey 11.1

      And make sure you read all of it, unlike Gosman, so you see that English thinks if you just give more money to the wealthy, you will grow the economy, generate more revenue for the govt to help the poor. So that more money to the wealthy = poor improve as a by product. By the way, it doesnt work that way but shhhh Gosman thinks that is a win for Right supporters because there is no Trickle Down Economic theory per se…. it doesnt matter to him that a rose by any other name…

      • Gosman 11.1.1

        Ummm.. no. He states quite categorically that low and middle income earners will get extra support beyond tax cuts.

      • Gosman 11.1.2

        Ummm.. no. He states quite categorically that low and middle income earners will get extra support beyond tax cuts.

    • KJT 11.2

      Don’t need to. Just have to read Wayne Mapp.

  12. mac1 12

    Simon Bridges said the Government is “doing a bad job” on jobs and housing.

    The Newshub article then says.

    “Unemployment is at a nine-year-low, falling to 4.5 percent in the December quarter and 4.4 percent in March – the lowest it’s been since the end of 2008.

    How can Bridges reconcile those two statements?

    Bridges further said. “We’ve got an incredibly proud legacy in terms of growing the economy and all those things… We had great solutions, actually solutions this Government’s taking up.”

    What were these solutions?

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/05/trickle-down-economics-still-works-simon-bridges.html

    • Gosman 12.1

      What policy has the current Government implemented that has had a direct impact on unemployment?

      Has there been a noticeable change in Housing affordability and accessibility yet?

      • Poission 12.1.1

        Has there been a noticeable change in Housing affordability and accessibility yet?

        It seems to have stabilized after a 79.5% increase under national.

        RBNZ.

      • mac1 12.1.2

        Gosman, ask your questions after the Budget, the first to address a long list of mismanaged, misappropriated, misdirected policies and action, inactions and failures to act from that last nine long years of National government.

    • Wayne 12.2

      mac1

      The main specific policies that helped lift growth to among the highest in the OECD
      1. Keeping a tight control on government expenses
      2. Freeing up employment law (many different elements)
      3. Streamlining the RMA (a long way still to go)
      4. The 2010 tax package, which had a tax neutral shift between gst and income tax
      5. Tightening up on welfare eligibility
      6. Keeping the economy going during the depth of the GFC by heavy borrowing (which meany also controlling government expenditure to keep the debt at manageable levels)

      Basically all these things helped to increase employment so that New Zealand has one of the highest participation rates in the OECD, and one of the lowest unemployment rates.

      I appreciate that to the left, these are all bad things. But looking at all OECD countries, those with less restrictive regulations are also the ones with the highest growth rates and the lowest unemployment.

      • Gosman 12.2.1

        Wayne, those policies are not ‘trickle down’ are they?

        • KJT 12.2.1.1

          No. They are trickle up. Carefully hidden by the right wing myth of “trickle down”.
          It is obvious that Wayne believes that cutting pay to workers, allowing destruction of the environment, removing regulation, “cutting business compliance costs etc will magically result in a healthier economy. Never mind it is simply transferring costs from business, to the community as a whole.

      • mac1 12.2.2

        Wayne, we of the left might want to nationalise the breweries, but we do appreciate a lower unemployment rate and increased work opportunities.

        I’m afraid that i don’t feel so keen about freeing up employment law considering what i’m hearing about so many employers who are so tight arsed that they can’t pay their employers to spend time at work-related meetings or cashing up after work.

        Whilst there are many people avoiding tax, including farmers shifting cattle outside of the NAIT system as part of the black market, then we still need further tax reform. Somewhere between 1.5-7 billion per annum avoided in NZ.

        Tightening up on welfare eligibility. Don'[t mind that so long as the other tax-avoiding bludgers in the paragraph above are also well and truly tightened.

        Borrowing to maintain essential services also is OK, but borrowing overseas to pay for tax breaks for the well off was not a good move.

        So, how do we give a good mark to the last nine years of National when we see the neglect of social services, the run down of infrastructure as in hospitals and schools, the long term effect of overstretched teachers, nurses etc who deserve good pay increases?

        How can Bridges claim, because it’s not been addressed, that under Labour a bad job is being done on jobs when there is now huge pressure for wage increases and the unemployment figures are as you say the lowest in 10 years?

      • Craig H 12.2.3

        High labour participation rates are not automatically good, for example if the increase is caused by paid work replacing unpaid work.

      • Ross 12.2.4

        2. Freeing up employment law (many different elements)

        What are those elements, apart from the iniquitous 90 day trial law?

      • tracey 12.2.5

        Tightening up welfare elgibility. That was certainly an easier way to lift the poor out of pverty during the job losses of the GFC, oh wait…

      • tracey 12.2.6

        And the result of that growth Wayne?

        homelessness increases
        poverty rises
        housing affordability lowers
        health service deteriorates
        Teacher shortages
        Midwife shortages
        Highest youth suicide rate

        Luckily you and no other Right wingers ever said any of these measures would help alleviate those problems ey Wayne?

        7000 teachers short
        Midwife shortage
        Declining hospital facilities
        Insufficient health care service provision (and Princess Margaret Hospital)

        So we can both agree that economic growth measured by GDP cannot possibly be the answer to those problems

      • tracey 12.2.7

        ” Streamlining the RMA (a long way still to go) ” Yes we havent fucked up all our rivers yet… and we only have leaky homes and failing EQC repairs to show the flaw in speeding up consents and deregulation. We probably need something more to show Developers and the Building Industry cant be trusted to behave well

        • Gosman 12.2.7.1

          Where are the 100000 houses Labour promised going to come from Tracey?

          • tracey 12.2.7.1.1

            You know I didnt vote Labour Gosman so ask someone who believed they coukd deliver on all their promises cos that isnt me.

      • Pat 12.2.8

        you neglected to mention the main driver Wayne….rampant immigration

      • KJT 12.2.9

        Good bullshitting Wayne.
        We all know that without excessive immigration, house price rises and natural disaster insurance income, growth would have been negative.
        And National kicked the can down the road by underfunding essential infrastructure and services, as well as tolerating massive and shameful poverty. The scary thing about people like you, Wayne, is you probably believe your own bullshit. Like those who claim Pinochet and Chicago school economics was good for Chile.

        • Andrea 12.2.9.1

          We also suspect that rampant house prices are some sort of Ponzi scheme supported by banks. Local government may also have a hand in this silly-go-round. And retirement funds aren’t exactly local or national, either. Plump internationals moving vast amounts of money every night and day. Greater than all our GDP.

          Banks and big funds. The true insiders of the financial world.

          The old adage is ‘follow the money’. Who is profiting? ‘Rich people’ is the wrong answer. They can influence, of course. Yet they are not the full board of directors, or the senior management, or the other bright things of the financial world.

          Sometimes it’s like the story of the missing icing from the birthday cake: lots of little pieces taken by many people.

          Taxing rich people might feel the proper thing to do to humble them yet – they still know how to replace that money – and the innocent folk, the Havenots, will still be as financially ignorant as when that teeny dollop of gruel went into their tin bowls.

          This is a systemic flaw and must be solved as such. And there are many pieces to it.

          Gentle warning: If you want to play, want to restructure these entities, be knowing that they are fully lawyered up. They have deeper pockets than any single government. They know how to fight dirty. They’ve been around for longer than most nation states. They can bring entire countries into whimpering submission. They are survivors. Servants that went rogue. Hope for a vulnerable spot.

      • dukeofurl 12.2.10

        ” The 2010 tax package, which had a tax neutral shift between gst and income tax”- says Wayne

        That was laugable as Treasury papers from that time dont agree with you

        ‘Note that the current base scenario package that is being considered results in a
        revenue shortfall of approximately $690m in 2010/11 and $245m in outyears.

        https://treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2010-07/b10-bn-minsg-tm3-22mar10.pdf

        I Key and English hadnt loaded the tax cuts to the rich ( and delayed the recovery) it might have been revenue neutral.

        Not surprising people like Wayne who were in Cabinet at the time dont know this, as of course the triumvirate made all the decisions.

  13. NZJester 13

    The only thing that trickles down with trickle-down economics is yellow rain and that yellow rain is not made of gold!

    They have no incentive to reinvest that money back into the economy as it will make them far more money locked away in long-term investments basically sucking all that money out of the economy slowly stagnating the economy.

    When you put the money into the hands of the poorest on the economic chain, however, those at the top of the chain need to invest what money they do have in the economy to get their share of that money as it makes it’s way up the chain and that helps keep the money circulating.

    You want true economic growth you need to put the money in at the bottom and tax those at the top higher.

    • KJT 13.1

      Successful countries have a Government share of the economy greater than 50%.
      Cutting taxes for the rich, and wages, means money is forever lost to local communities.
      Compare California and Alabama.
      “Trickle down” is exactly the process, the lunatics in charge have been following since 1984. It doesn’t matter what euphemisms they use to hide it. It has not worked anywhere for a country. Except for making a few rich at everyone else’s expense. Which is exactly the point.

  14. Jackel 14

    The bull in that photo looks more conscious than Simon Bridges. There’s plenty of bull in trickle down. The rich may always be with us but it’s good knowing basic economics is wrong, money can’t buy happiness.

  15. Grey Area 15

    Why do people bother interacting with Gosman? It’s an exercise in futility. This whole thread is a waste of time that luckily I didn’t spend.

  16. R.P Mcmurphy 16

    bridges is a boy in mans clothing.
    he has never worked and he has no economic nous whatsoever.
    and he is a liar.

  17. Kat 17

    Of course Simon Bridges believes in “trickle Down” how else does he explain the droplets on the floor.

    • dukeofurl 17.1

      Galbraith said in his early days it was called the ‘Horse and sparrow’ theory and later became known from as ‘trickle down’ from a very apt comedian. The conservatives now call it Supply Side Theory.

      Still the same thing

    • tracey 17.2

      LOL

  18. JustMe 18

    JIm Bolger advocated and worshipped the “Trickle Down effect’.
    It turns out, and as per usual, the Bolger government of the time, copied and pasted the “trickle-down effect’ that former US President Ronald Reagan advocated. What Bolger claimed was ‘NZ made’ was in fact a typical American import even when it came to the so-called “Trickle Down Effect’.
    It never ceases to amaze me how many times a National government “MUST ALWAYS’ copy and paste an American political idea and call it their(National’s)own.
    But as my brother-in-law(who is American)told me at the time(in 1994)the so-called “trickle down effect” started at the top of the very high income earners and remained at the top of the very high income earners. Donald Trump being one of those elitists who made money during the Reagan administration.
    History has proven through-out the world that the so-called “Trickle Down effect’ is nonsense. But for Simon Bridges to believe in such fables certainly brings into question whatever little credibility he had left. He however makes the NZ National Party look like an huge joke when all history lessons considered.
    And so my advice to Simon Bridges is if you continue preaching about how good the “Trickle Down effect” is and in turn it relegates the NZ National Party to Comedy-land then please continue your excellent work at discrediting the NZ National Party. In other words keep up the good work at ruining a political party once and for all.
    We NZ taxpayers all need a political party to laugh at and what better party to focus the laughter at than the NZ National Party.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Government ropes in livestock rustling
    Justice Minister Andrew Little today introduced a supplementary order paper (SOP) on the Crimes Amendment Bill to crack down on livestock rustling. ...
    5 hours ago
  • Small business the focus of Australian talks
    Efforts to progress a seamless trans-Tasman business environment will take another step at a ministerial roundtable meeting in Sydney tomorrow. Small Business Minister Stuart Nash and Australian Assistant Treasurer Stuart Robert will co-host a roundtable meeting of senior government and ...
    1 day ago
  • Andrew Little – Speech to Amnesty International event to mark the 70th Anniversary of the Univ...
    ANDREW LITTLE - SPEECH TO AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL EVENT TO MARK THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ON WORLD HUMAN RIGHTS DAY, PARLIAMENT, WELLINGTON ...
    2 days ago
  • Tax reforms focus on fairness
    New tax legislation has been introduced to Parliament to ensure greater fairness in the way the tax system shapes commerce, investment decisions and social policies. Revenue Minister Stuart Nash has introduced the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2019-20, GST Offshore Supplier ...
    1 week ago
  • Preventing death and injury on our roads
    Police Minister Stuart Nash and Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter are encouraging road users to be alert to a new safety campaign launched today by Police and the NZ Transport Agency in the lead up to the Christmas. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • New comms centre improves public services
    A new digital services and communications centre opened on the Kapiti Coast will help transform the way Police connect with the public and work to make communities safe. Police Minister Stuart Nash has officially opened the Police Digital Services Centre, ...
    2 weeks ago