Labour vs National on economic vision

Written By: - Date published: 12:00 pm, July 15th, 2011 - 34 comments
Categories: capital gains, Economy, privatisation - Tags:



Hmm. I’m still not sure how English would guarantee the assets don’t fall into private hands and neither, clearly, is he. What’s his view on CGT? The truth may surprise you:

34 comments on “Labour vs National on economic vision ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. deemac 1
    15 July 2011 at 12:30 pm

    on Morning Report today, English said he was “concentrating” on improving the economy.
    I’d love to know what this “concentration” consists of – maybe the literal meaning, ie “thinking hard”? It certainly doesn’t seem to manifest itself in any actual plan.

    • Blighty 1.1
      15 July 2011 at 12:38 pm

      In fairness to English, he’s concentrated on the economy so hard that it’s now 2% per capita smaller than when he came to office. At this rate, we’ll be back where we started in 2014.

      • Rusty Shackleford 1.1.1
        15 July 2011 at 12:54 pm

        If Labour were still in power, would you be blaming them for a world financial crisis? (Not defending National in any way).

        • The Voice of Reason 1.1.1.1
          15 July 2011 at 12:55 pm

          “Not defending National in any way”
           
          Attack is the best form of defence, Rusty. But attacking Labour for National’s failings is just plain stupid. Watch the vid’s then comment, you’ll look less like a tool that way.

          • Rusty Shackleford 1.1.1.1.1
            15 July 2011 at 1:06 pm

            I’m not attacking Labour either. I’m just saying it is illogical to blame National for a recession that started before they gained power and affected economies of all stripes around the world.

            • freedom 1.1.1.1.1.1
              15 July 2011 at 1:05 pm

              no-one is blaming National for a global-crisis, they are blaming National for doing nothing constructive to help New Zealand get through the crisis with its head above water.

              • Rusty Shackleford …
                15 July 2011 at 1:12 pm

                What are they supposed to do “to help New Zealand get through the crisis with its head above water.”

                • freedom …
                  15 July 2011 at 1:35 pm

                  lets start with not giving guarantees and subsequently a billion plus to a finance company that Treasury told them was known to be in trouble

                  • Rusty Shackleford …
                    15 July 2011 at 1:41 pm

                    I agree. They should do nothing.

                    • freedom …
                      15 July 2011 at 1:45 pm

                      i wish they had done nothing, but the cuts to kiwisaver, the cullen fund, the borrowing $9billion USD during the bankers bailouts, the deconstruction of a succesfull adult education system, the ongoing manipulation of law and democracy, these are things they have done and now have to be undone.

                      The true costs of many of these policies are not even beginning to surface. When they do i am sure the Government of the day will be blamed, regardless of where the fault duly lies.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  15 July 2011 at 1:51 pm

                  What are they supposed to do “to help New Zealand get through the crisis with its head above water.”

                  Sell off our strategic state assets and transfer more tax burden on to the median and low income earner of course.

                  While cutting social service spending and adding public sector workers to the long term unemployment queues.

                  And of course borrowing far more than is needed, finding that international lenders actually like lending to NZ, even as English bleats that we have too much debt because of that no one will want to lend to us.

            • McFlock 1.1.1.1.1.2
              15 July 2011 at 4:28 pm

              That’s a wee bit inconsistent, Rusty – only a few days ago you were talking about how Harding ended the 1920 Depression simply by taking the oath of office, as in the recovery started before he could widen the tax base and continue Wilson’s balanced budget.

              By your logic, the continued stunted GDP growth *is* Key’s fault, regardless of the GFC. 

        • mik e 1.1.1.2
          15 July 2011 at 2:21 pm

          So who has borrowed all the money then, we didn,t need to borrow anywhere near what borrowing bill has borrowed ,for tax cuts for the rich now he,s got an excuse to sell of the highly performing assets which are returning 17.6% per annum to pay borrowings at 5.5% per annum which means in the long run the tax payer is subsidizing those asset sales for the benefit of only a few new owners. I wouldn.t mind so much if those assets were only returning 5.5% per annum it would make sense or if he sold them for their true worth but he is not , except maybe for Air New Zealand and Solid Energy .We have already seen whats happened with Air New Zealand if airlines go through another lean period who,s going to to front up withe money to keep it and our tourism afloat.

          • Hennie van der Merwe 1.1.1.2.1
            15 July 2011 at 5:33 pm

            mik e

            IMO it would possibly have made sense if one could pay off all one’s debt by selling off some assets, however to pay of a mere 10% by selling off around 50% of your income producing assets can never make any sort of sense.

  2. Blighty 2
    15 July 2011 at 12:36 pm

    Cunliffe and Goff are toying with English and Key now. Check out Cunliffe on Breakfast:

    “Some critics like Bill English say the problem is it’s not comprehensive enough – it doesn’t tax everybody,” he said.

    “(But) John Key uses the Chicken Little argument ‘the sky is falling in, he’s never seen such a big bad tax’, I think the Government needs to decide which side of the argument it’s on.”

    Cunliffe said he was not afraid of wealthy Kiwis moving away from the country.

    “You might go to Australia where the tax rate is 46 cents in the dollar, not 39 as we’re proposing, or where the Capital Gains Tax is 33 cents at the marginal rate not 15 cents… I don’t think so.”

    “We think we’ve hit a fair balance here. Most people won’t pay the (capital gains) tax, probably only 8% of New Zealanders in a given year. There’s no retrospective component, the family home is exempt and personal property is exempt. We’ve even got Canterbury out of the net for the next five years after the election.”

  3. chris73 3
    15 July 2011 at 1:19 pm

    Is it me or does Cunliffe look more…Prime Ministerial then Goff?

    Meaning if you look at both of them together one looks like a leader and the other looks like…a middle manager

    • Lanthanide 3.1
      15 July 2011 at 5:49 pm

      I think you’re just not used to seeing someone in charge of a finance portfolio that can do a decent job.

      • chris73 3.1.1
        15 July 2011 at 8:11 pm

        True, Cullen and Douglas were pretty hopeless

        • Lanthanide 3.1.1.1
          15 July 2011 at 9:24 pm

          That’s all you could manage?

          • chris73 3.1.1.1.1
            16 July 2011 at 8:34 am

            There are more?

            • Macro 3.1.1.1.1.1
              16 July 2011 at 8:33 pm

              Yes there were (are) more – although you obviously haven’t noticed them. Richardson, and English to name but two. Why haven’t you noticed them? Well Richardson just carried on the work of Douglas. And English? Well that’s just the point of this post – what HAS he done that is in anyway constructive?

      • Afewknowthetruth 3.1.2
        15 July 2011 at 9:29 pm

        ‘someone in charge of a finance portfolio that can do a decent job’

        Bearing in mind that the monetary system is based on fraud (creation of money out of thin air and charging interest on that money), how is it possible for anyone to do a decent job?

        The system is fraudulent, so surely anyone who operates the system must be a fraudster.

        Isn’t that the whole point about the western political-economic system: everything is based on fabrications and lies.

  4. randal 4
    15 July 2011 at 1:30 pm

    phil is the leader.
    no doubt about it.

  5. Jim Nald 5
    15 July 2011 at 2:00 pm

    Labour/Greens: Economic Vision
    National/ACT: Economic Voodoo

  6. Craig Glen Eden 6
    15 July 2011 at 2:50 pm

    Nice job by David Cunliffe on this mornings Business show and equally good job by Phil Goff on Campbell Live last night. No wonder the right are in a spin.

  7. chris73 7
    15 July 2011 at 8:12 pm

    Actually is it just me or does Cunliffe look a bit like Paul Ego?

  8. Tangled up in blue 8
    16 July 2011 at 12:00 pm

    Yep Labours economic vision is miles ahead of Nationals.

    Apart from the GST off fruit & veg.

  9. Tanz 9
    16 July 2011 at 12:07 pm

    Will this win Labour the election though? Key is just too popular, that has to be a factor. He can do no wrong, it seems. Key is supposedly the most popular PM of NZ, ever. I don’t get why though.

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      16 July 2011 at 12:26 pm

      OK perhaps voters will agree to make him host of NZ’s Next Top Model, and then we can get a proper PM?

      • chris73 9.1.1
        17 July 2011 at 2:15 pm

        Feel Goofy might be a better candidate since hes got more experience with hair dye and he’ll be looking for a new job soon…

Links to post