Economy healthier than expected

34 comments on “Economy healthier than expected ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Scribe 1

   4 November 2008 at 12:11 pm

   You must be getting dizzy, Steve.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10541052
2. randal 2

   4 November 2008 at 12:17 pm

   New Zealand supplies the world with high quality protein food so it is no wonder that we are ok
   Its only the New Zealand sux campaign led by John Keys and the Natoinal party that takes the opposite view
3. Steve Pierson 3

   4 November 2008 at 12:20 pm

   scribe, whats wrong it my analysis, apart from the that Herald’s sensationalist coverage has a different angle? My coverage is closer to the Treasury sec’s press release
4. yl 4

   4 November 2008 at 12:22 pm

   Scribe,

   The post says ‘healthier than expected’.

   There was talk of the books being 2.3bil in the red. Not the 0.8 that they are.

   Smile Scribe, we are in one of the best positions to pull through this mess
5. Scribe 5

   4 November 2008 at 12:34 pm

   Steve,

   My coverage is closer to the Treasury sec’s press release

   NBR and Stuff take similar lines to The Herald. Things are $1.7 billion — with a B — worse than expected just a couple of months ago. Forgive me for not seeing the silver lining.

   yl,

   Yes, we are in a good position. We’re about to vote in a centre-right government.
6. BeShakey 6

   4 November 2008 at 1:03 pm

   “Things are $1.7 billion — with a B — worse than expected just a couple of months ago. Forgive me for not seeing the silver lining.”

   A large amount of that will be losses in the Cullen fund, ACCs fund etc. Just like other long term investments, these are critical, but short term fluctuations in their value are not. Of course it’d be nice if they went up year after year, but any smart invester will tell you that isn’t the way long term investments work. As SP noted, for the short term, the OBEGAL is much more important.

   “Yes, we are in a good position. We’re about to vote in a centre-right government.”

   If only we’d voted them in in 2005. We’d now be in a much much worse situation and be about to vote in a centre-left government to fix the mess. I guess we’ll see on Saturday whether people really do get the government they deserve.
7. Stephen 7

   4 November 2008 at 1:09 pm

   Tax take was $500 million higher than expected due to higher-than-expected income tax revenue. That means more money was being earned from wages and salaries than Treasury had forecast;

   “Dr Bushnell said corporate tax and GST were $200m and $100m respectively higher than forecast, but that was due to reversals in accruals relating to an earlier period.”
   -Herald article

   Whatever that means, but apparently it’s significant.
8. randal 8

   4 November 2008 at 1:11 pm

   well they certainly dont deserve a swingeing, grafting, cheeseparing, hornswoggling, gerrymandering crew like the gnats who will smile as they rob everyone blind so they can build up their portfolios, tick their silly little boxes and retire to the south of france on yours and my money!
9. Steve Pierson 9

   4 November 2008 at 1:27 pm

   Herald and stuff the same NZPA report, scribe. And I’m not surprised to see the media being sensationalist or the NBR rightwing. I don’t take my analysis from the media, that’s why people come here because they want better analysis than they get from the media.
10. vto 10

    4 November 2008 at 1:44 pm

    SP your post is more about the government books than the economy. Two different things. One is the host and the other the epiphyte.

    But mixing them up is one of the reasons I struggle to bring myself to vote for labour. It reflects the obsession with carving up the pie rather than growing the pie.

    Best example is WfF – it is a sad day when people on the highest tax rate and incomes well over 100k require govt assistance to merely survive (and on the govt’s own admission!). It bothered me when it was introduced and it bothers me now. And that the left can’t see the fundamental flaw in this situation exemplifies the issue.
11. yl 11

    4 November 2008 at 1:55 pm

    Vto,

    your comment about working for families is misleading,

    A family with one child on 70000 doesn’t get any working for families.

    http://www.ird.govt.nz/calculators/tool-name/tools-c/calculator-wfftc-estimate-2009.html

    so pull the other one.

    I dont think anyone likes the fact that we have wff, but do we need it? i would say yes
12. Phil 12

    4 November 2008 at 2:01 pm

    Stephen,

    Tax take was $500 million higher than expected due to higher-than-expected income tax revenue. That means more money was being earned from wages and salaries than Treasury had forecast;

    “Dr Bushnell said corporate tax and GST were $200m and $100m respectively higher than forecast, but that was due to reversals in accruals relating to an earlier period.’
    -Herald article

    Whatever that means, but apparently it’s significant.

    What that means is Treasury got 300mln that was supposed to arrive in the coffers at some point in the past, which means they were actually very close to forecast, and their assumptions about the underlying economy are probably about right.
13. dave 13

    4 November 2008 at 2:05 pm

    I don’t take my analysis from the media, that’s why people come here because they want better analysis than they get from the media.

    Oh that’s just so funny Steve.
14. Scribe 14

    4 November 2008 at 2:11 pm

    Steve,

    I don’t take my analysis from the media, that’s why people come here because they want better analysis than they get from the media.

    But meanwhile, just an hour or so earlier….

    My coverage is closer to the Treasury sec’s press release

    I’m sure the Treasury’s thankful that you’re drinking the Kool-Aid.

    [the Treasury are the experts. I’m quite comfortable when I read the source data and my conclusions are the same as the experts’ (before you say anything, that doesn’t mean I always think experts are right but they’re more likely to be right than media who want to cause a fuss. SP]
15. Lampie 15

    4 November 2008 at 2:26 pm

    yl

    No wonder some are voting National for all the wrong reasons
16. yl 16

    4 November 2008 at 2:28 pm

    Lampie

    “yl

    No wonder some are voting National for all the wrong reasons”

    sorry i dont follow?

    captcha: off trolley (me!)
17. cocamc 17

    4 November 2008 at 2:35 pm

    yl – i used the calculator and with one child on $70k of annual family income i do get a credit $14 per week
18. yl 18

    4 November 2008 at 2:39 pm

    Sorry i just ran it too,

    you are correct the cut off is 74001. Still it is misleading.
19. vto 19

    4 November 2008 at 2:40 pm

    yl, the fact that WfF is needed at all speaks the largest volumes re Labour’s failure to provide an economy that can provide. And it is Labour who claims the last 9 years economy.

    p.s. it is not misleading at all. the govt offers assistance to some families with well over 100k income.
20. yl 20

    4 November 2008 at 2:44 pm

    vto,

    i would argue that it is still there because we have not recovered from the effects of the 1990’s.

    There are 50000 more children now living above the poverty line since 1999, so that is good and because of wfftc.

    have you ever tried to put toothpaste back into the tube. It is easier to do something than under do something. Clearly we still need wfftc,
21. Steve Pierson 21

    4 November 2008 at 2:44 pm

    vto. WFF is tax breaks for families.

    less than $10 million from the 1 odd cost of WFF goes to families with incomes over $100K.
22. Daveski 22

    4 November 2008 at 2:45 pm

    Borat is rumoured to be our next Minister of Finance under a Labour-led govt:

    NZ slipping behind Botswana and Borat

    I think this is vto’s point at 1.44.

    Captcha – la punting

    Indeed, I will be before 5 pm 🙂
23. vto 23

    4 November 2008 at 2:55 pm

    Hey, I hear the various things you are saying but you are avoiding the fundamental flaw that WfF exposes – namely that Labour’s introduction of government assistance to help out those who are on very high incomes and the labour govt’s at the time recently introduced 39c tax rate (they can afford it! remember?) is an admission of systemic failure.

    On the one hand the labour govt says these people are rich and should be taxed at the highest rate, yet on the other hand the labour govt says that they need govt help to merely survive!

    I mean, what does it say about the economy (that labour claims)?

    If everyone requires govt assistance then who supports the govt?

    It is a little like the recent govt bailouts of financial institutions. Effectively everyone has underwritten everyone. Doesn’t take an einstein to realise that these situations are unsustainable, or rather, fundamentally flawed.
24. vandem 24

    4 November 2008 at 2:55 pm

    vto – While WfF for families with incomes over 100k may look inequitable at first glance, this is a balance against “Effective Marginal Tax Rate” or clawback. It’s a classic welfare policy dilemma. You either set a low entry point (and/or high exit point) and low marginal clawback rate, or higher entry point (and/or lower exit point) and higher marginal clawback rate.

    I haven’t done the math, but suspect that if WfF has a lower top cap, say 60k for family of 4 children, marginal clawback rate (= tax + reduction of WfF) would be 100% or more of any extra $ earned in wages / salary.
25. BeShakey 25

    4 November 2008 at 2:56 pm

    “Borat is rumoured to be our next Minister of Finance under a Labour-led govt:

    NZ slipping behind Botswana and Borat”

    Sigh. How come the supporters of the party that is supposed to be more focussed on the economy know so little about economics? Economic growth is much easier to achieve in third world countries. Obvious if you think about it – build a few roads in Botswana, and improve communications, for example, and you’ll probably see a large jump in the economy. The same thing in a first world country wouldn’t be noticable. I personally don’t like OECD rankings for comparing countries (it’s like the idea that parents should all complain if their child isn’t top of the class), but NZ does very well compared to other similar countries.

    “I think this is vto’s point at 1.44.”

    I think his point was that the government books aren’t the same as the economy. If you read SPs post I think his point was more that the books reflect certain parts of the economy (eg if unemployement skyrockets the books will take a hit). The fact that the books look good is a reflection of strength in the economy, not that they are the same thing.
26. Daveski 26

    4 November 2008 at 3:16 pm

    BS the broader issue is that our economic performance continues to decline year on year, even allowing for 9 years of the good Dr’s medicine.

    I agree the accounts are in relatively good order given what’s happening else where. But Cullen can’t take the credit for this given the reason for our stability here is a lot of the changes made in the 1980’s and 1990’s that many here would like to see turfed out.

    I accept the link is a slight digression. However, it provides some stats to support the view that NZ needs to do better (apparently having a view that NZ can do better is the same as saying “NZ sux”).
27. Lampie 27

    4 November 2008 at 3:27 pm

    sorry i dont follow?

    Some who vote National are basing it on misleading information such as vto here and his idea of wff
28. randal 28

    4 November 2008 at 3:32 pm

    well Keys whole schtick is lies and misinformation with a cocodile grimace wrapped round his otherwise surly mug so dont expect too much from his followers…this years angry mob…rebels without a clue
29. Steve Pierson 29

    4 November 2008 at 3:35 pm

    vandem. you’re exactly right. that’s what bill english was talking about in the first secret agenda tape when he said key didn’t understand kiwisaver

    vto. government receipts, seeing as taxes are collected as percentages of other economic measures, show us what is happening with those other measures.
30. vto 30

    4 November 2008 at 3:53 pm

    Lampie, how do you know who I vote for? I don’t follow your post.

    Mind you, nobody seems to have followed the main thrust of my posts. Or perhaps they have simply refused to answer the elephant in the room.
31. BeShakey 31

    4 November 2008 at 4:00 pm

    “BS the broader issue is that our economic performance continues to decline year on year, even allowing for 9 years of the good Dr’s medicine.”

    The point I was making was that, using the measure suggested, this is false.

    I agree the accounts are in relatively good order given what’s happening else where. But Cullen can’t take the credit for this given the reason for our stability here is a lot of the changes made in the 1980’s and 1990’s that many here would like to see turfed out.

    Not just here that you are in a minority with that opinion.
32. Chris G 32

    4 November 2008 at 4:38 pm

    vto: “Or perhaps they have simply refused to answer the elephant in the room.”

    Hah, no. I just read your deluded views on WfF and why it came about, laughed, continued on with my business.

    Definately no elephant in the room.
33. vto 33

    4 November 2008 at 4:53 pm

    so ChrisG you see no fundamental flaw in increasing the top tax rate to 39c on those earning over 60k ‘because they can afford it’ and then later offering those on EVEN HIGHER incomes government assistance ‘because they need it’?

    Nobody has answered it including you (other than a deluded claim which is a bit useless)
34. Ianmac 34

    4 November 2008 at 5:23 pm

    Rumour: Bill English leaked the E-mails for the Hollow men.
    Winston has been cleared by the Police.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS