- Date published:
6:00 am, July 18th, 2017 - 241 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
Labour opposed to the Green’s plan to increase benefits.
Rather disappointing that despite their rhetoric (and so close on the heels of the Children’s Commissioner advocating the indexing of benefits to the average net wage to help address poverty) Labour have declined to increase benefit rates.
What happen to a fairer go for everybody?
Not much of a ‘fresh approach’ for beneficiaries.
The MoU is in tatters.
Labour is being responsible.
Meteria and the Greens will be fuming.
The left is starting to look like a dogs breakfast.
The Greens have just been given a left hook by Labour and about time to.
“Labour is being responsible.”
Failing to help address poverty, thus save the country money and improve living standards, education and health outcomes, is far from being ‘responsible’.
“The Greens have just been given a left hook by Labour…”
It was far from supportive, that’s for sure.
I have to disagree … both parties have laid out policies that will improve the plight for the poorest. The Greens’s policy will provide more than Labour’s policy. There is a sweet spot between the two which both parties can agree on.
The trick is to get them both elected and not have to rely on NZFirst.
And it’s not like Labour could rewrite their policy between Sunday and now.
But any chance to get the boot into Labour. Or the Greens. It’s like people don’t want the left to win if it means cooperating.
The real trick is to get polling traction for Labour, won’t happen whilst the MoU is around its neck.
IMO Labour will only get upwards traction if they dump on the Greens and Winnies party.
Labour should and probably does know that but it seems head office timidity and adverse risk leadership is a problem.
Time will tell, but I expect the sideways attacking of Labour will continue by Winnie and the Greens.
“The Greens’s policy will provide more than Labour’s policy”
And now is the time to let Labour know we expect more if they want our vote.
And if Labour genuinely care about the plight of the poor, why not swiftly act by increasing benefits?
They need all to pull together for the goal of expelling this corrupt administration from our shores forever the sellouts.
TOGETHER WE STAND; – DIVIDED WE FALL.
once and for all.. the MOU never meant labour and green policies would be the same. Do try and pay attention
“The MOU never meant labour and green policies would be the same”
The problem for them is the differences between them makes it difficult for voters to envision the two coherently working together.
Not really. If the goal is the same then agreement can be reached.
Sure. It’s just the differences take a number of voters back to that ad with them all in the rowing boat, rowing different ways trying to get there.
A very small number of NACT voters will go back to their comfy blanky.
Like the Maori Party, ACT, UF and National?
With the Nats having the far larger number, voters feel far more comfortable with such a coalition.
Only those voters who have difficulty understanding the concept of “working together” as opposed to “do what I say”.
Keep it up bearded git the RWs will I hope never get to throw acid at the left, but they do want to dowse the flame of goodness and vitality rising on the let.
thanks grey…..I’m very hopeful for 23rd Sept.
Labour has finally worked out that a simple message plays well to the public, their “Ditch the Tax Cuts; Education, Health, Housing and No to Poverty instead” message is coming through well.
You mean a right hook, billmurray. It seems there will be only misery for you this coming election.
I said a left hook and meant a left hook.
They need to throw a few more to knock some reality into the Green “10%’s we rule the world mentality”.
The Greens may be sincere and of course they may dream, but they will turn this election into a nightmare for Labour with their antics.
Time will tell.
Have you read Chris Trotter’s column yet, Bill?
I’d like to hear your views on it.
You really believe The Greens think they rule the world?
Playing the game with zest doesn’t translate to delusions of omnipotence, in my view. Your people need to pull something out of the hat, Bill, as mine are doing with consummate ease. In any case, any party’s performance can only be sheeted to itself; stop bagging the other players and start adding something to your team’s chances. They, btw, chose to have an MOU with The Greens as did The Greens with them. Do you have no faith at all in your party’s management? I’m backing mine; I reckon they’re smart. If you can’t back them in their shared decision, perhaps politics is not for you?
yes I have read Chris Trotters article, a worthy piece of writing.
But I am afraid that is all.
Look at reality;
Winnies bottom lines, referendums on Maori and number of Parliamentry seats, which will have both Labour and the Greens turning somersaults, They are both keeping quiet about Winnies bottom lines, perhaps stunned into silence?.
Winnie will not announce until after the election who he will coalition with and it will probably take months. He could well go with National, only he and now likely Shane Jones knows.
Labour’s polling is pulled back by their Green party MoU, IMHO.
For the sake of our country’s stability and future Labour needs to be the biggest stakeholder. They have form.
Meteria’s ranting of largess is not going well with taxpaying working people in a 2017 year of elections. Which is by far the largest number of people in NZ. (source MSM and blogs). Labour have already distanced themselves from this economic sorcery. ( I will be surprised if the polls lift up much for the Greens and because Labour has only short bursts of energy they will probably go down against the Greens ).
They Greens are about 10%-12$ in polling they only rule themselves, that’s all.
But they and you do not seem to understand that fact
Bill, I reckon that the comment “the only flash of colour I’ve seen from any party in this grey, grey campaign has been from The Greens” (Metiria’s “confession”) is on the button, so far as I’m concerned. It’ll take some vivid splashes to change the grinding inevitability of a beige result, so I’m 100% with Metiria, The Greens and any others willing to spill primary colours across the muddy goop that’s being offered.
What of the Green’s proposal now?
Labour gave a stern no to increasing benefit rates, thus gave no indication of making concessions for the Greens proposal.
Therefore, unless the Greens secure a good number of seats, their proposal to increase benefits by 20% seems to be a dead duck.
“Labour gave a stern no to increasing benefit rates, thus gave no indication of making concessions for the Greens proposal.”
No, they didn’t. Little just said it’s not their policy. Which makes sense when you think that they already had their policy about to launch when the Greens made their announcement on Sunday. It’s not like Labour could have rewritten their policy in 2 days.
There was nothing stern about it. That’s you and your incessant negativity about Labour. Not for the first time I’m wondering if you are a long play subtle anti-left troll. Always undermining, never offering anything constructive.
there is nothing subtle in the chairmans opinions
True, but the trolling is of the more subtle kind. As opposed to say Red who just runs round with their anti-left position tattooed on their forehead. TC will of course deny they are anti-left.
“TC will of course deny they are anti-left.”
It was only the other day I suggested Labour should run with and build upon the Children’s Commissioner’s proposal of indexing benefits to the average net wage to help address poverty.
I’ve also touted for Goverment to fill private sector voids and help correct market shortfalls, putting forward a number of proposals. Thus, I’m far from right wing.
I didn’t say you were right wing.
“No, they didn’t. Little just said it’s not their policy.”
He gave a stern no stating it’s not what they are promising or what they are planning, thus gave no indication of making concessions for the Greens proposal.
“Which makes sense when you think that they already had their policy about to launch when the Greens made their announcement on Sunday. It’s not like Labour could have rewritten their policy in 2 days.”
With the MOU in place one would expect the Greens would have given Labour notice (and no doubt the opportunity to join along) of their intention to announce one of the most significant changes to our welfare system in a generation.
“That’s you and your incessant negativity about Labour. Not for the first time I’m wondering if you are a long play subtle anti-left troll. Always undermining, never offering anything constructive.”
Why are you attempting to make me the topic?
Because you’re the one who doesn’t understand that “working with others” involves “compromises” which involves “doing something less or more than was promised or planned prior to the event that the promises or plans were contingent upon”.
“Why are you attempting to make me the topic?”
because I’m sick of your incessant negativity and undermining of the left.
“With the MOU in place one would expect the Greens would have given Labour notice (and no doubt the opportunity to join along) of their intention to announce one of the most significant changes to our welfare system in a generation.”
See you can’t even be honest. *you expect that, but as others have explained ad nauseam that’s not what the MoU was designed to do.
“Because I’m sick of your incessant negativity and undermining of the left”
That may be the way you see it, however I see it differently.
Let me explain why.
In this instance, I support the Greens proposal to increase benefits.
Therefore, I believe if we on the left fail to make Labour aware of our disappointment, the less encouraged Labour will be to concede in negotiations on this policy with the Greens.
Being silent doesn’t bring about change.
“See you can’t even be honest”
Me? Have you forgotten the No Surprises policy in the MOU?
Pretty sure that if Labour are reading this post today, they’re scrolling past this particular conversation.
“Being silent doesn’t bring about change.”
I’ve never said you should be silent. I’ve said I’m sick of your incessant negativity. There are plenty of ways to speak to Labour’s policies and positions without actively undermining the left.
“Me? Have you forgotten the No Surprises policy in the MOU?”
Unlike you, I read the MoU as a whole. It doesn’t say that L/G have to work on policy together. It doesn’t say that the Green have to give Labour enough headsup on major policy so that Labour have enough time to consider if they want to change theirs. ‘No surprises’ means that Labour get informed before the policy announcement so they’re not surprised by it.
So yes, you are dishonest. You want Labour and the Greens to have a different MoU than they have.
“There are plenty of ways to speak to Labour’s policies and positions without actively undermining the left”.
I try to avoid undermining the left but as Labour and the Greens sometimes undermine themselves, it’s hard to talk about things openly without somewhat undermining them.
“Unlike you, I read the MoU as a whole. It doesn’t say that L/G have to work on policy together.”
I didn’t say that. However, it gives them scope too. Thus, with such a major announcement, it would be surprising if Labour weren’t invited to join in.
Nevertheless, the No Surprises policy specifically states prior notice is required to be given.
“You want Labour and the Greens to have a different MoU than they have.”
I said and implied no such thing.
Once again, punctilious correctness combined with saintly sanctimony. Chairman, you are known by your deeds, which Weka has described perfectly. You are a concern troll who fakes his sincerity with earnest endeavour. But you do not convince.
Andrew said that they had a different way of addressing poverty. He didn’t say he “opposed” the Green’s approach.
It wasn’t a direct quote. Nevertheless, Little did oppose the Green’s plan to increase benefits, stating Labour had a different approach. But it doesn’t involve increasing the rate benefits are paid.
Which makes them another Labour Party that won’t restore benefit rates.
TC and BillM getting in early for some trolling. The increasingly frantic response to the Greens policy from the right suggests they are getting worried.
Tell me Karen, do you agree with Bill (Labour is being responsible) or with me?
Don’t tell him, Karen! Let him stew in his own pompous pontifications.
“Let him stew in his own pompous pontifications.”
That has been my policy for some time now.
Lol. I think TC’s question is very telling. His agenda is to undermine the MoU and the potential coalition. Agree with him or bill, works either way.
“Andrew said that they had a different way of addressing poverty”
Yes, but it’s a real shame Labour didn’t opt to build upon the Children’s Commissioner’s recent proposal and work along with the Greens.
Cash transfers are one of the most efficient ways to help address poverty. And as the structure is already in place, it could virtually be done overnight. Instantly improving peoples living standards.
How long will Labour’s approach take?
It will be interesting to see what approach voters prefer.
“they had a different way of addressing poverty”.
I certainly hope so. The Green way, as expounded by their female co-leader simply seems to be steal whatever you want.
Are people really happy that, were Labour to lead a Government, they would happily include in Cabinet a self confessed and apparently unrepentant fraudster?
John Key took a principled approach in 2008, before that year’s election. He said he would not go into Government with Winston Peters because he did not think he could trust him. Winston may have changed but Key was right then.
Why does Little not show some courage and state that fraudsters will not be allowed into any Cabinet positions in a Government he might lead?
Can he really be so desperate that he doesn’t care who he lies down with?
Metiria Turei’s admission was poorly timed and will no doubt have ramifications for her and the Party going forward.
It will put a number of voters off her and the Party. On the other hand, she has mustered some support for being so open.
It will make Labour further question the public perception of them working with her.
But it’s unlikely Labour will get into Government without the Greens. Therefore, unless she stands down, Labour will have little choice but to work with her if they want to be in Government.
I wonder how many Maori people felt affinity with Metiria following her disclosure? I’m guessing many and I’m also guessing that they’ll be inclined to vote for her and her party as a result.
Edit: particularly in response to the breathless umbrage being taken by the privileged sector of the community, as displayed here.
“I wonder how many Maori people felt affinity with Metiria following her disclosure? I’m guessing many and I’m also guessing that they’ll be inclined to vote for her and her party as a result.”
Do you think this will be enough to take the Maori vote off Labour?
The Greens recently said they would be seeking the progressive vote, do you think this will help them secure it?
Surely this will eat into Labour’s support.
And with Peters opposing neo-liberalism, no doubt he’s also going to eat into Labour’s vote. Seems Labour may be in trouble, who will they turn to for support? Move more to the centre?
The Greens eating into Labour’s support is meh, it only makes a difference at the individual MP level.
Winston eating into Labour’s support, on the other hand, is a gift to National. Labour needs to start making clear that a vote for NZ First is a vote for keeping National in power, because it is. After the election, NZF will be on sale to the highest bidder, and National will be the highest bidder just like it was in 1996.
“The Greens eating into Labour’s support is meh, it only makes a difference at the individual MP level”
It will strengthen the Greens when it comes to party negotiations.
Moreover, with Labour polling so low, it will add to the possibility Labour’s vote will fall so low Little won’t get in.
“Winston eating into Labour’s support, on the other hand, is a gift to National. Labour needs to start making clear that a vote for NZ First is a vote for keeping National in power…”
The problem Labour will have with that strategy is the voters most concerned with Winston opting to go with National are most likely to also be the ones more likely to be enticed by Peters anti neo-liberal stance, thus disappointed with Labour’s Budget Responsibility Rules.
NZF have a number of left leaning policy, thus Labour have a good opportunity to offer them a better deal than National. However, Little publicly calling Winston a blowhard isn’t constructive. Nor was giving the Greens the nod to call him a racist.
NZF have a number of left leaning policy, thus Labour have a good opportunity to offer them a better deal than National.
If they were negotiating with New Zealand First, that might count for something. However, they’ll actually be negotiating with Winston Peters, a conservative authoritarian with little taste for left-leaning policies and a great interest in “baubles of office.” So their opportunities to offer a Winston-friendly deal will depend on how little integrity they have. National’s always going to win that game.
The problem Labour will have with that strategy is the voters most concerned with Winston opting to go with National are most likely to also be the ones more likely to be enticed by Peters anti neo-liberal stance, thus disappointed with Labour’s Budget Responsibility Rules.
If it came down to it, it would be better that these people decided not to vote than that they vote for National via a vote for NZF.
Those moved by Metiria’s disclosure might well be wouldn’t-vote-otherwisers, therefore, a gain to the left. That’s how I see it.
“Those moved by Metiria’s disclosure might well be wouldn’t-vote-otherwisers, therefore, a gain to the left.”
I suspect that a lot of people felt affinity with Metiria after her disclosure. A hell of a lot of people know just how bad it can get on welfare in this country.
I really hope you don’t mean this in the way it comes across.
Do you really think that Maori, in general, have an affinity with those who deliberately break the law and then boast about it afterward?
I suppose you also think that everyone with any Maori heritage is a member of a gang?
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is just a careless wording problem.
1. A large number will sympathise because they’ve spent time in the same position due to the rich fucking over society
2. Metiria wasn’t boasting – just stating facts.
I just wish he had said something like “a lot of beneficiaries” rather than “Maori”.
Using Maori tends to imply that ALL Maori feel that way.
Beneficiaries probably do feel that way if dealing with WINZ is anything like as bad as people say.
I had sympathy with Meteria when I first read this. Then I discovered that, although she has now got a very large income she has made no attempt to repay the money that she had defrauded.
There is an enormous difference between doing it when she couldn’t manage, or didn’t have the budgeting skills, to get by on what she had then and hanging on to it when you had become, by most peoples standards, very wealthy.
Māori do over represent in the lower socio-economic sphere.
It’s as bad as they say. The stress that comes from having to deal with them probably reduces peoples lives by years.
I don’t see that it makes any difference as it was the policies of the government that put her into a position that she had to lie. If any one should be paying it it should be the National Party. They should also be paying out for all that stress that they’ve caused with their physiologically damaging policies.
Well said Alwyn.
National has systematically depressed us all with their sinking lid economy called Austerity a word they refuse to use but carry it out thinking we don’t know it.
“I had sympathy with Meteria when I first read this.”
Why was that, alwyn? What did you see in her story that made you feel sympathy?
Sending that poor British fellow to the Australian penal colony for stealing a loaf of bread; was that you or one of yours that did that, Alwyn?
I presume there is something rattling around in your head to cause you to come out with this non sequitur.
I can’t see the relevance of it myself.
Are you related to this Guyton perchance?
Nope. But I am closely related to this Guyton.
That’s not fair. You have a sense of humour and are a gardener to boot. I shall be forced to be less judgemental than is my wont.
I now feel guilty for suggesting that you could be related to someone who appears to be anything but a good conservationist.
My impression is that your true guilt runs far deeper than that, Alwyn. Cleaving to the evil philosophy of capitalism and personal greed, with that hypocritical pretence of defending right against wrong whenever any new ideas question the system that favours the select (filthy) few…
Kind of you to say that, alwyn. I was quite appalled by the toothfish story, to be frank. The people of Nelson have not endeared themselves to me, one of their sons, by their behaviour at the fish shop.
And yet Key (who got rich with a long con using other people’s money) picked Bill DoubleDipton as his deputy?
It’s maybe preferable to a cabinet replete with smugglers, fraudsters, extortionists, blackmailers and thieves who never confess to anything no matter how blatant.
Are people really happy that, were Labour to lead a Government, they would happily include in Cabinet a self confessed and apparently unrepentant fraudster?
Well, you seem OK with having Bill English as Prime Minister, a position Turei may not even aspire to, so why would you think Labour voters would be different?
In any case, I prefer honesty. English hasn’t even confessed, just paid it back (some of it, at least) while pretending that what he did was within the rules. And Paula Bennett is being unusually careful in her choice of words to describe her own dealings with WINZ – give me people who’ll tell you the truth any day.
“give me people who’ll tell you the truth any day”.
Even if it takes 15 years to fess up?
I am inclined to accept the view that someone had leaked Turei’s history to Winston. She was simply trying the Donald Trump Jr approach of get it out yourself first. Didn’t really work for him. I don’t think it is going to work for Turei either.
I am personally of the view that 3 terms is enough for any Government. I happily voted for Helen Clark in 1999 and equally happily against her in 2008.
Unfortunately there is no alternative that exhibits any competence at all at the moment. To go with the shambles of a NZF/Labour and possibly Green coalition doesn’t really hold any appeal.
Labour should have stuck with Shearer. He displayed a bit of amateurishness but he had actually had experience of doing real work. The Labour leaders have got worse and worse since he was stabbed by Brutus Cunliffe and then an even less competent Little was imposed on the Caucus by the Union movement.
Perhaps after the election they will get Grant as leader. He does waffle a bit, and he is totally unsuitable as a Finance spokesman but he at least shows some signs of being a possible competent PM.
“I am inclined to accept the view that someone had leaked Turei’s history to Winston. ”
Then your inclinations are toward making tenuous links and accepting rumour without much application of thought, not especially sturdy blocks on which to build political opinion.
I think Maori will feel affinity with Metiria because she is Maori, exhibits a respect for Maoritanga and for the many Maori people who are poor and who feel they have been treated poorly by the Government.
“..imposed on Caucus by the Union movement.” Dream on…
Have you done an assessment yet? It might turn out to be ‘pretty legal’.
John key’s principles are about having power, status and control. that’s why he wouldn’t go with NZF in his first term.
Key may well try to stay within the law, but ethics are a foreign country to him.
Better than $25 some time never … like next April …. who did that?
Labour’s approach or the Green’s approach? Which do you prefer?
I love both!!
Good read and well worth thinking about
thanks for that heads up – puts clear words to the confused mass of consciousness that circle round us like bacteria, infecting and alerting our immune systems to a Babylon of blandishment, bribes, ballyhoo and ultimately brutal effect.
++ 1 from me too. Great read and consolidates the core ideas tightly.
Time to get
I’ve decided to party vote green – gonna be a green day after a bit of rhapsody first.
I was involved in a ‘survival camp’s with some scouts on top of the tararua.
We were sorely tested, gale force wind driven rain, and the scouts in bivoaucs they had built.
At 3am we found ourselves, a mass choir of 14, singing bohemian rhapsody.
A highlight referred to by the youth years after the event.
That was very cool thanks
A review of the New Zealand First conference from the weekend:
It is revealing. The party sounds it’s full of disaffected Labour supporters keen to create a second Labour Party, but Winston Peters is classical National – a conservative authoritarian who favours government intervention in the economy for conservative authoritarian reasons (ie, he shares Muldoon’s view that the government can just order the economy to behave as the government would like).
The party members are deluding themselves. After the election, Winston will form a government with whichever party Winston wants to form a government with, and that party’s very unlikely to be a combination of the Labour and Green parties. All these remits the party have passed are irrelevant to that process.
Yep. This bit,
Peters told the audience he wouldn’t let New Zealand be dictated by “foreign ideologies and foreign economics”.
Straight out the window if he goes with National.
The polling evidence (NZ Election Study … Colmar Brunton vote switching and so on) suggests former Labour supporters comprised the lion’s share of NZF’s 2011 & 2014 voter-base and that a majority of NZFers prefer a Labour-led Government.
Winnie’s already won over a segment of the more morally-conservative Left & might just continue making in-roads 2017
Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says
A relatively small number of fossil fuel producers and their investors could hold the key to tackling climate change
100 companies responsible for 71% of the global emissions!!!!
why didn’t they put that over the corporate MSM?
Oh silly me they own the media too right?
Neoliberalism has conned us into fighting climate change as individuals
Stop obsessing with how personally green you live – and start collectively taking on corporate power
“METIRIA TUREI has rescued the 2017 General Election from the timidity and moral squalor into which it was fast descending. In a speech that brought tears to her listeners’ eyes and cheers to their throats, the Greens’ co-leader carried her party out of the shadows of moderation and into the bright sunlit uplands of radicalism that have always been its natural habitat. The Green Party’s AGM of 15-16 July 2017 will go down in history as the moment when it repudiated the “Insider’s” devilish bargains – and reclaimed its soul.”
Disagree all she has done is move the deck chairs amoung the left, and thrown more votes to peters, some here have a vain hope she has appealed to the missing million ie increasing the left pie As the last 9 years has shown this is very unlikely, labour need to grab national swing voters of which they are totally incapable of doing and are hamstrung in strategic no mans land appealing to no body but hard core loyalists
“Disagree” – really! That’s not like you, Red, you’re usually so accommodating of the views expressed here. You are also usually wrong, so I guess at least you are being consistent and you are quite wrong about this issue: I feel your thinking lacks flexibility, where Metiria’s represents the state. Loosen up a little, Red, un-clasp and relax your crabbed grip on your stale old ways. Plus, sweeten yourself up a drop before venturing out in public. You leave a sour taste.
+1 very eloquent
Stale sweat with an acidic whiff- most unpleasant. Better wash your singlet, shirt, socks and especially your underpants Red.
Thanks for the feedback Robbo and greywhateva I am glad you are both taking notice and an avid consumer of my posts, if only a small bit sinks in my job is done
yours truly 😀
Game changer from Morgan and the Opportunities Party, free $200 a week for all 18 – 23 year olds. If I was in that age group I know who I would be voting for.
That goes alongside their other policy of $200 a week for families with a child under 3.
I get it that Morgan’s abrasive presentation and economic framing don’t appeal to many here. That’s fine I’m 100% supportive of them continuing to vote Lab/Grn as they wish. But at the moment it’s TOP that is making all the interesting and radical running.
I think its good policy and puts TOP in the box seat to capture the youth. $200 a week for kids leaving school, a lot of which aren’t that sure what they want to do career wise. Gives them 5 years of some security, explore what they want to do, relieves pressure off them at a critical stage. All round good for society.
And means testing elderly people as well as cutting parts of Super.
Is the youth UBI on top of welfare or instead of? Can’t see the detail on their website, and IME once you start scratching the surface of TOP policy, there are problems underneath.
From the TOP policy page:
In other words if Super is your only income at present, I read this as meaning you will continue to be ‘topped up’ to your current levels. No change, no-one worse off.
If you receive other income then this will likely abate your ‘top up’ down to the level of the UBI. Seems fair.
Note also the current policy also abates Super at a rate of 70% down to a minimum of about $100 pw. So on the face of it TOP’s policy is more generous.
Youth UBI details here:
The idea is to cut super from the richest who don’t need it, there has been no talk of cutting essential super.
I would also hope this initial UBI doesn’t replace the benefit, both are needed. But when Morgan was talking about a UBI across the board a couple of years ago the idea was to replace benefits with it.
If they’re so rich they don’t need it, they’d probably be paying it back on higher tax rates anyway (or have well-subsidised many others over their careers). They can always give it to charity if they feel guilty.
Automated tax returns are much simpler than signing up, declaring changed income, processing the changes, and auditing for discrepencies.
It’s a bit like in the early 2000’s when I was at a group meeting with the head of winz student services at the time – she outright said they had no idea whether universal student allowances would be cheaper to implement than the means-tested, application/updated circumstances regime we have.
It’s very attractive to say that things should be targeted, and that people who don’t need something shouldn’t automatically get it. But we should double-check to see if the nice idea is more trouble than it’s worth.
And that’s before we get into the “slippery-slope, who sets the abatement threshold” debate.
And if you have ‘other income’ above about $5000 pa then your current Super is rebated at 70% in the dollar anyway.
The horse on your ‘abatement rate setting’ has long bolted down a slippery slope.
has it? Bugger. That’s something to corral again…
RL, I’m pretty sure that abatement provision is limited to the rare situation where a person eligible for Super has a partner that is not eligible, but the partner has other income (overseas pensions are usually cited as the likely source of this other income).
For instance, I have a brother who has a Swiss partner. They are contemplating retiring to NZ. He will be eligible for Super, but she will not until she clocks up another seven years of residence. But her Swiss pension payments will be high enough that the abatement provisions would apply to his Super payments.
If someone is eligible for Super and an overseas pension, the Super is reduced dollar for dollar by the overseas pension. So my folks’ Super is actually mostly paid by their Social Security payments from the US.
But most ordinary Kiwi recipients of Super, the Super is just the same as any other income and taxed at the same rate. No special high abatement rates.
On the other hand this seems fairly clear cut:
The key qualifier in that link is:
“If you have a spouse or partner who doesn’t qualify for their own New Zealand Superannuation, you can choose to include them in your payments. If you do this, any other income either of you earn could affect how much you get.”
Fuck I hate govt gobbledegook.
It isn’t all overseas pensions. It is only those that are provided by another Government.
The really silly part is that they make you apply for any overseas pension for which you “might” be eligible. This includes Australia if you ever worked there. You have to fill in about 46 pages of bumpf.
You then apply, get turned down because you fail the asset test limit and you simply continue here as if you had never worked there.
The really nasty part is that if you qualify for even the tiniest amount of Australian super you are required to tell them of any change in your circumstances. Say you inherit $1,000 from a great-uncle. You have to tell them so that they can reduce the amount they pay over to the New Zealand Government. Your shares rise by $200. Same thing.
If you think that dealing with WINZ is tough you have clearly never had anything to do with the Ozzie equivalent.
Never had to deal with the Aussie Government except as a tourist. I’d never want to go work there. It’s not bad as a place, but it’s full of Australians.
On the other hand, living in the US meant some truly awesome tax return paperwork. My worst was one year I had the federal returns including the forms for capital gains on selling a house and 2 lots of moving expenses, plus state returns for Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and California, plus another lot of paperwork to reconcile US stuff with Mexican stuff coz I was working in a factory in Mexico owned by a US company. It all added up to a stack thicker than the old-school Auckland phonebook.
In general the idea in the long run seems to be an Universal Income set at relatively low level that everyone accesses. Whether you are in work or not. Initially available to youth, families with children and the elderly. The goal in the long run is to make it genuinely Universal
For those not in work, or retired, the UBI would be ‘topped up’ to current levels. So in essence it would ‘replace’ the first $200 or so of a benefit, without eliminating them completely.
Seems a flexible and fair approach to me. And the unconditional security of the UBI is way more attractive than the current capricious and precarious benefit system.
“The idea is to cut super from the richest who don’t need it, there has been no talk of cutting essential super.”
There is a lot of space between richest and essential. I think you will find that like with other social welfare, means testing and abatement is problematic for many reasons. I don’t want elderly people subjected to that.
“I would also hope this initial UBI doesn’t replace the benefit, both are needed. But when Morgan was talking about a UBI across the board a couple of years ago the idea was to replace benefits with it.”
yes, that’s right. Morgan wants to scrap social welfare entirely and replace it with an low rate economic UBI and personal responsibility. He’s clueless about what welfare is and what role it plays in society and how his policies would make many vulnerable people worse off. He doesn’t like welfare and wants to get rid of it. Welfare is critical to society, a UBI can’t replace that. We need both.
Super ALREADY is abated from anyone with income over $5kpa at a rate of 70%. The idea that Super is currently not subject to ‘means testing’ or ‘abatement’ is just wrong.
And if you want to quibble the difference between ‘means testing’ and ‘abatement’ then be my guest.
Morgan wants to scrap social welfare entirely and replace it with an low rate economic UBI and personal responsibility
You were wrong about TOP policy making elderly people worse off, so now you shift the goal-posts.
Welfare is critical to society, a UBI can’t replace that.
Why not? In the short term it makes sense to have both; but in the long run if the UBI was proven successful it could easily replace targeted welfare.
TOP wants to tax the assets of elderly people. It wants them to hoop jump. It wants to reduce some of their income. I think there are better ways of managing all those things.
I’m not shifting the goal posts, mauī was talking about a UBI replacing benefits, I responded with the problems with that. I’ve always pointed to one of the major issues with Morgan’s UBI is that it fails to take into account that welfare is a crucial part of any caring society.
“Why not? In the short term it makes sense to have both; but in the long run if the UBI was proven successful it could easily replace targeted welfare.”
‘Targeted welfare’ isn’t the same as social welfare. Social welfare is the state’s fundamental position that people deserve to be looked after. Targeted welfare is the extreme bastardisation that comes about when neoliberals don’t have enough power to remove it completely.
As you well know, Morgan’s UBI fails to provide for the most vulnerable. He sets the UBI at a rate that’s not liveable, and he bases that on the idea that everyone can work. He seeks to remove income from people that can’t work. He’s reasonably honest about the removable of the safety net and that this needs to be replaced with personal responsibility. He has some vague ideas about how the non-working poor can manage and be supported but nothing that’s even close to credible policy. He also acknowledges that some people will do it tough. All of that is unacceptable and unnecessary. There are far better ways to design a UBI.
TOP wants to tax the assets of elderly people. It wants them to hoop jump. It wants to reduce some of their income.
Wrong. ALL assets would be taxed, not just the elderly. The only people who are significantly affected are ‘asset rich/cash poor’ who can postpone the liability and pay it from their estate. This really isn’t much different to an estate tax in some ways, and not too far removed from the same system which will recover rest home care costs.
Absolutely it does not reduce their income one cent. Wrong again.
Targeted welfare is the extreme bastardisation that comes about when neoliberals don’t have enough power to remove it completely.
Wrong again. ALL welfare that has some pre-requisite condition to qualify for it, like being unemployed or disabled is by definition ‘targeted’. And with that brings with it a host of toxic problems that you posted about just yesterday.
By contrast a UBI is ultimately intended to be unconditional. It has to be the ultimate, broadest expression of the idea that everyone deserves to be looked after.
that is what they don’t talk about.
Gareth Morgan and his paid for vanity party want to means test elderlies for super.
So your nana has a wee house, worth all about 35thousands on a plot of leased land, but hey she can sell the house and live of that before getting super. Cause she and the likes liker her will be the only ones suffering from the ‘its not fair i get super ‘ policies. Gareth Morgan, has enough houses and enough money to pay an accountant to make sure he will not have enough ‘income’ and receive super in full.
Super, like unemployment benefits and the dole are -prepaid- services. We are paying taxes to raise funds that can be distributed among those that have lost their jobs – unemployment, or that are too old for working – super annuition. These programs are not charity, they are not a hand out. Working people paid for these programs via their taxes. But then, Gareth does know nothing about paying taxes, Gareth knows about paying accountants to help him avoid taxes.
Suckers are born every day.
Care to back up any of this bullshit with references?
Funny how plans like Morgans just make for a more bloated and ineffective managerial class to manage these vanity projects.
Nah you’ve lost me there. Right now the single most ‘bloated and ineffective managerial’ cockup in the country is WINZ. And Morgan proposes in the long run to close it down.
Nor can the idea of a UBI that has been around for at least 500 years, and is being explored in many countries, be scarcely described as a ‘vanity project’.
i call his party a Vanity Project, or maybe its just a tax write of?
Do you think a UBI is just Gareth Morgan’s ‘vanity project’, ‘tax write off’; or does it have a respectable 500+ year history you just don’t want to know about?
Morgan doesn’t own the UBI concept. People are objecting to Morgan’s ideas and TOP’s policies.
That’s OK … I just object to your ongoing misrepresentation of them.
Morgan possibly first to make UBI a reality in NZ. That’s a good thing, you could call him a pioneer.
Morgan is in zero position to make a UBI reality in NZ. That will be Labour and the Greens who both already want to do this. I will be working hard to make sure they use a model that is designed around wellbeing not economics. Easy with the Greens, more of a challenge with Labour.
There are other non-govt people working in UBI in NZ. You might want to ask yourself why Morgan is seen as the pioneer and they’re not.
A UBI is also fundamentally an economic tool. Designing one without reference to economics is like designing a sailboat without reference to the sea.
Of course Morgan doesn’t own the concept; but after decades of the idea being firmly stuck in obscurity, he’s given it the oxygen it desperately needed. At least in NZ.
Of course I’m happy to debate the merits of TOP policy detail; nothing is ever perfect on the first attempt … but misrepresenting it leads to ill-formed debate.
I haven’t said design it without reference to economics. You’re really not paying attention to what I am actually saying here Red.
On the contrary I am listening very closely. You should know me better by now. 🙂
Consider this … you know I have never had a bad word for the Greens, that I have voted for them the past 4 elections at least and they carry a very fond spot in my heart.
My partner and I had the privilege of attending Rod Donald’s memorial service at Parliament and we both wept along with everyone else. It’s a vivid memory.
So when I say that I strongly identify with the spiritual and moral foundations of the Greens, with their community and people based vision … please I ask you to accept this at face value.
Now at the same time though I ask you to accept that I ALSO believe that we cannot minimise the economic dimension. That the gross inequality of wealth, the class warfare that grinds so many people into submission and despair, has it’s roots deeply embedded in bad economics. Now while Steve Keen is probably an economist closer to my tastes than Gareth Morgan, TOP is nonetheless presenting policy that goes a long way in a direction I like.
And emphatically there is no particular reason why these two visions should be mutually exclusive. While I fully accept the Greens and TOP frame their ideas and visions differently, I see far more potential common ground than conflict. I’d go one step further, the Greens may well have more underlying purpose and vision in common with TOP than they do with Labour.
Are you living under a rock? Seriously the whole managerial class in this country from the public sector to the private is a joke in this country. I’m guessing you don’t have to deal with many government departments or their managers. Nor have much experience with the private sector their Redlogix, please prove me wrong. I’m seeing you single out work and income (it ‘ant been winz since the disaster in beige with bangle earrings) shows a level of ignorance, or a desire to push a certain agenda.
Ok so which rock was I under here?
Worked mostly in the private sector and some in the public over 40 years now. But my agenda around WINZ does indeed come from direct family experience …
But I do struggle to see how we can pin the blame for all this on Gareth Morgan.
No, but he is part of the problem.
Or it’s just another Muppet polishing the same turd.
Look we agree work and income sucks, the left hand does not know what the right is doing in that place.
My issue is that top is just more of the same liberalism crap. And yeah I don’t see the point discussing it. Capitalism is a cancer.
I think you are making the common mistake of thinking that all economic activity is definition ‘capitalism’.
In any conceivable system I can think of money will remain a feature, and the using money to invest in future productivity will also remain an enduring feature. Thus all reasonable alternatives will have some aspect of capitalism.
Indeed you hit on an interesting metaphor; cancer is the normal and vital process of cell growth and replacement gone rogue. What you object to is not ‘capitalism’ per se, but the unregulated, out of control version of it we have come to know as ‘neo-liberalism’.
And I’d argue if you read TOP policy with an open mind you see Morgan harnessing normal economic mechanisms to regulate and moderate capitalism into a form that serves all people equitably, rather than the privileged few who’ve captured it for their own benefit.
The defining part about capitalism is private ownership and that’s not needed to run a business. Make the business self-owned and run by the people who work there. Neither capitalism nor communism but still a market system.
The problem with that idea is that it can’t actually work. We see, as per Piketty’s work, that ownership always results in a few people having control of the resources of a nation resulting in the inevitable collapse of that nation.
Capitalism doesn’t work and never has done. Time to try something new. Something that ensures that no one is in poverty, rewards people for their work and doesn’t reward people for owning stuff.
Not going to argue with you in principle … but hell it’s like herding cats to get people on board with a baby steps UBI much less the utter transformation you’re describing here.
Actually Redlogix I’m a Christian Anarchist who opposes capitalism in all it’s forms, and it’s why I used the words liberalism and capitalism. I’m no wet. And I think people who support capitalism in any form are the enemy.
So it’s not about an open mind. It’s about politics, or more specifically – political economy.
So capitalism is a cancer, which has held back humanity, and worse is actually making the biosphere we live in uninhabitable for future generations.
So yeah, nah. Like I said, top is another liberal party – shining a turd.
Oh good luck to you then. Which ‘Christian Anarchist’ party are you going to vote for again?
Because from where I’m sitting I really don’t see any party of significance who have a detailed policy position around dismantling the entire economic system and replacing it with something completely novel, untried and untested.
Because while I agree with you that unconstrained capitalism is a disaster; this does not automatically mean that any random alternative you can dream up will automatically turn out to be better.
So for you following the same thing that produces the same dire results, no matter how many angles people try, is perfectly logical?
Seriously how many times has capitalism got to be reformed until we try somthing new? Socialism works if it is not authoritarian, just the people with money use violence to make sure that it appears not to work. A good example is Venezuela, not the basket case the press would like you to believe. Rojava is doing well. So are some other socialist countries in South America.
As for the whole party thing, you might want to try some reading to help you with that fetish. You know, in the past the same fetish was what prince did you bend your head too, or support, if you were wealthy enough.
So your argument is that Morgan is nowhere near radical enough, yet you cannot name anyone who might tick enough of your boxes to vote for.
Unless of course you get off your arse and start your own political party. But wait …damn.
I dunno maybe you should keep typing.
T Draco T B.
“The defining part about capitalism is private ownership and that’s not needed to run a business. Make the business self-owned and run by the people who work there”.
What on earth do you mean by “self-owned”. The only possible interpretation is that it is owned by the people who work there. That is still private ownership.
The only alternative ownership is being owned by the state.
There is a legal fiction that a business is a person but it is still only a fiction. A business can’t go to jail. It can’t pay a fine. It can’t be punished. It can’t make decisions. Only the people who work there or the owners can do those things.
He’s clarified that a yearly property/estate tax would be paid at the end of someone’s life so elderly people aren’t having to re-mortgage homes and sell up when they are asset rich but cash poor.
He also says in his speeches he doesn’t want a cent of his and his wife’s $40,000+ a year in super because they don’t need it. That is slightly different to what you’re saying which is that he will screw the system to gain as much wealth out of it as possible.
The idea of an asset tax is an extremely important one to restore equity to our tax system. New Zealanders have for so long gotten away without much in the way of capital or estate taxes that we struggle to get our heads around this.
Maui, feel free to vote for him.
but there is not a word or thing or newspaper article or other that you could utter that would make this man palatable to me. I consider him the NZ answer to Trump.
Most elders that i know, are neither asset rich nor cash rich. They, own a property – some with small mortgages on them – and they manage on their super or still work at 70. the very small subset of filthy rich ‘elders’ would be voting for National.
But i agree with Gareth Morgan, he should not be receiving super, as he is not paying income taxes or any taxes as he so proudly keeps proclaiming. Or as he said to me, Wage slaves should be revolting.
TOP is Act in a different colour.
but there is not a word or thing or newspaper article or other that you could utter that would make this man palatable to me.
In other words facts are irrelevant to how you form an opinion. Good oh.
i have followed him, had conversation with him on FB and i have come to the conclusion that he is a major fuckwit. An entitled, vain, prickish type of fuck wit.
and i have read his positions and i am old enough to know what happens to poor people when rich people come and say i have a solution that will make you money 🙂 Nothing will happen, cause Gareth Morgan can only be rich by screwing over people to give up their money, their assets and what ever else they have that might be worth a penny.
now, if he were to put his ‘untaxed’ income to where his fat mouth is, now we could be talking.
But he ain’t helping poor people, he ain’t providing shelter for homeless people, he ain’t writing cheques to have homes build, he is not supporting some trap/neuter groups that want to control the feral cats of NZ. Nah, he wants to means test you, so that he won’t be getting super . Chutzpah by any other word.
go vote for him. but me, i’ll vote for Labour/Greens. thanks.
“An entitled, vain, prickish type of fuck wit”.
Couldn’t agree more with this description of Gareth Morgan.
And I was told The Standard had to clean up it’s act, cut out the abuse and personal attacks so that more women would feel comfortable commenting here.
I think we are extremely lucky to have Gareth Morgan in New Zealand.
Plenty on this site have talked about forming a new political party.
He has the courage to do it. He will fail this time, but that’s not the point.
The first point is he thinks. And writes policy.
The second point is he’s organized and funded. On his own terms. He’s a mensch.
The third point for me at least, is that he sounds like the Labour Party, if it only had a brain.
We need a lot more Gareth Morgans in this country. We would all be the better for it.
Yes … a realistic appraisal is that TOP won’t get over 5%. But neither is it impossible.
I’m a dreamer, but one that realism has pounded more than a few dents into. But recent political events have proved the pundits don’t have a monopoly on foresight.
Well if you want some facts, Gareth Morgan’s wealth arose when TradeMe was sold to Fairfax. Feel free to explain how that was a ‘screwing over people to give up their money’.
And also more facts:
And if you engaged Morgan on FB the way you do here, I’m not surprised he gave you the bums rush.
Don’t forget the reason he was able to pump a fair bit of dosh into TradeMe was Infometrics. Then there was Gareth Morgan Investments as well.
Gareth Morgan and i we both speak as we think. I don’t like Gareth Morgan because he is an epic fuckwit, with no social conscience.
He wants to ride on our roads, but he does not want to pay to pave them. That is why i don’t like him ,and i have told him as such. Biker to biker you know. I consider Gareth Morgan and the likes like him parasites on society. They use up resources and they pay not for upkeep or maintenance and in order to extract another penny or two they would kill the host if need be.
So this is your idea of a man (and his partner) who has no social conscience?
gareth and sam have done an environmentally intrusive subdivision development at the mouth of rhe cardrona valley near wanaka….went to the high court to overturn an environment court decision in the process….he will never be getting my vote
Do you mean this?
So ‘less than minor’ adverse visual effects trumps transforming the lives of children in Timor. And other projects I could link to going back at least 15 years.
I doesn’t really seem to be worthwhile to do such things in New Zealand.
Look at Mr Mark Dunajtschik. He is giving $50 million for a new Children’s Hospital.
About 90% of the comments on here were abusive to him.
As I recall it, most of the commenters were of the view that we shouldn’t be in a position of relying on the charity of the wealthy to fund children’s hospitals. It’s beyond me how anyone could argue against that view.
And if you asked Mr Dunajtschik he’d likely tender much the same view himself.
Apparently that’s being abusive to rich people /sarc
I also like that Alwyn brings up a guy about which most people know two things (he’s rich, and he did a really nice thing for kids) to compare with Morgan, who’s beliefs and attitudes are pretty prominent.
I dunno anything about Dunajtschik. Morgan strikes me as being a bit of a dick.
Yes he is an unreasonable man at times. But if you want things changing you know who to employ.
Oh and I’ve linked above to a UNICEF program the Morgan Foundation is supporting … that really does ‘nice things for kids’ in Timor.
But in most people’s eyes here that makes Gareth and Jo total arseholes apparently.
No, that doesn’t make them arseholes.
It makes them complicated.
Oh, and the idea that you need a dickhead to get stuff done is a failure of imagination.
“As I recall it, most of the commenters …….”
Oh sure. How about these ones as examples of my point
If that isn’t attacking him because he is wealthy, and generous, I don’t know what is.
Last few years I’ve been working for a man who’s built a highly innovative and energetic company from almost nothing to over 160 employees with a global presence.
I’m certain you’d label him a ‘dickhead’ as well … but hell he got things done few other people did. I do get that this isn’t the only possible leadership model, but in my experience people who successfully turn big dreams into big results, have charged their way through endless naysayers and challenges to get there.
They really tend not to tolerate fools well. If you want to label this ‘dickhead’ then be my guest … but I’d call you out on a certain failure of imagination too.
And Psycho Mil – what’s the bet when the hospital is opened with the ribbon to be cut and all the MP’s in creation there it will be the PM (whoever he/she is) beaming and trying to hog the cudos trying to cut the ribbon. I am like you – ashamed that we have to rely on charity to build a kid’s hospital. People pay taxes so that great and good things for the greater good are created – but it seems that we are not doing the job and charity has to pick up the tab. Disgraceful.
I mean this in a kindly way, but there should be an extension to Godwin’s law. Instead of just automatically invalidating your argument by mentioning Hitler, it would be comparing any politician to Trump for no particular reason, other than the go to bad dude.
To his credit, Gareth Morgan has actual policies he appears to believe in and have thought about.
He has started some conversations around housing and education.
He also presents a good alternative for young smarty pants urban professionals who could so easily be pulled to the dark side of National.
Really, Gareth has far more in common with Hillary et al.
TOP is a vanity party, and NZ First is a vanity party. Trump was/is a vanity candidate. Neither of them will do good to anyone but them in the short and long term.
see my post above
“as he is not paying income taxes or any taxes”.
He hasn’t said anything like that. The most he has claimed is that he pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than people with much lower incomes.
If he spends anything at all in New Zealand he is certainly going to have to pay GST.
The New Zealand GST system is one of the best planned taxes there is. It is almost impossible to avoid without reducing your expenditure to nothing. It is a superbly designed, and very simple system.
he has screwed the system so far, up until now, and will in the future so as to extract as much wealth for him as possible. That is why he is currently not paying taxes, but you do. 🙂
“He’s clarified that a yearly property/estate tax would be paid at the end of someone’s life so elderly people aren’t having to re-mortgage homes and sell up when they are asset rich but cash poor.”
Or when they move into a smaller home, or a rest home? Sorry, but I think generic taxing of non-wealthy elderly in this way is unethical and problematic. Put a CGT on assets that aren’t the family home. Tax high income earners. Tax corporations. Put in a Financial Transaction Tax. Tax polluters. Lots of things that can be done without going first for poor people.
@ WEKA Put a CGT on assets that aren’t the family home. Tax high income earners. Tax corporations. Put in a Financial Transaction Tax. Tax polluters. Lots of things that can be done without going first for poor people.
thank you for stating it so much better then me.
he is not proposing a single tax on him. He is proposing to means tests us, so that he and his can’t get super. Let him and his wife have super, and tax the hilt out of them.
“he is not proposing a single tax on him. He is proposing to means tests us, so that he and his can’t get super. Let him and his wife have super, and tax the hilt out of them.”
The weird thing is, I learnt about taxing higher incomes earners in order to fund a UBI from Red Logix. But that’s not what Morgan is doing exactly. He has a philosophical/ideological approach around tax, and thus fails to design well for poor people. He can tack on all the addendums he likes, but it’s still blatantly obvious that while he has some good ideas his starting points are wrong. We shouldn’t have economists designing society.
Any scheme that applies a CGT but excludes the family home, and means tests the Super but excludes the family home will be like the system they have in Australia. It is a disaster.
Basically you are stupid to retire with assets, excluding the family home, that are more than $400,000 and less than about $1,500,000.
You will lose part of your Super on any amount greater than $400k and lose the lot if you have more than $800k. It will take you the $1.5m to get an income equal to what you would get with a complete Super payment and $400k savings.
If you reach 65 with, say, $800k the best thing is to spend the extra $400k on either getting a new house, expanding your existing house or going on a long, luxurious, world trip.
That is precisely what many Australians do. They are being completely rational to do so.
He is not proposing to means test the UBI. It will mean exactly what it says.
Gareth isn’t forced to collect Super. You have to apply for it and if you don’t apply you don’t get it.
Bob Jones doesn’t get it you know. He says he doesn’t need it and he never asked for it. Pity some of our richer ex-politicians like Jim Anderton never followed his example.
Put a CGT on the family home too. But include a rollover provision for the family home. A family home exemption gets really messy, I’ve seen that in the US.
What I mean by rollover is: say a family buys a home for $500k, then a few years later sells it for $1M to buy a new home for $1.3M. Without a rollover, they would be liable for CGT on the $1/2M capital gain. With a rollover, they pay no CGT now, but the cost basis of their new home is the $500k they paid for their old home plus the extra $300k for the upgrade, for a total of $800k. So if they had to immediately turn around and sell the new home for $1.25M (say coz they were transferred overseas), they would pay CGT on $450k capital gain ($1250K sales price less $800K cost basis). That explanation ignores the reasonable deductions that should be included in a CGT, like selling expenses, cost of capital improvements etc.
If an elder person has just sold their home for $300,000 or say $500,000 and they’ve been living rent free for a number years and earn over $300 a week in super I would count them as well off.
I can’t see why a good slice of estate tax can come off that sale. It seems quite similar to a capital gains tax in that sense.
It treats homes as investment assets, which underpins the whole housing crisis. Home simply shouldn’t be taxed that way. If someone is buying houses and selling them to make money, sure tax the sales. But taking a % of wealth off low income people is not a good way to approach social security.
We shouldn’t be going after the generic elderly and treating them as if they are like younger people. I hope I don’t have to explain the rationale behind that.
Homes shouldn’t be treated as financial instruments, right up until the moment they become purely a financial instrument. That moment happens at settlement of the sale.
Exactly … and if it’s estate sale, then I’m sure the erstwhile owner isn’t all that fussed anymore.
Of course their potential beneficiaries may well be, and I do get the sense this is the real issue here.
but how would rich people get richer.
surely not by taking money from rich people to give to the poor.
no its poor people paying taxes on their ‘assets’ so that people like Gareth Morgan don’t have too.
The principle idea is to tax wealthy assets and redistribute that money into tax cuts for low income earners. Again it’s hard to see how Gareth does well out of that.
that is not was Mr. Morgan is proposing innit?
Exactly. weka is projecting a pretty weird idea of ‘poor’ here.
Keep in mind that many might be living in homes worth the thick end of $1m and may have a number of ways to turn some of that asset into cash during their lifetimes.
So design a policy that is fair then. It’s not that hard.
Replace the loaded word ‘fair’ with ‘equitable’.
There are two kinds of equity you can think of; vertical equity which means treating small and large instances the same. In brief this is one of the simple outcomes of flat taxes and a UBI, the outcome is progressive but whether you are a paper boy earning your first dollar, or a CEO on millions … you are being treated exactly the same by the tax system. That’s one sense of fair.
Horizontal equity means that all income whether in cash or in kind regardless of source is treated the same. The huge issue for NZ is that we have been privileging housing and property over cash income for a very long time. This is why our economy is now so grossly distorted.
The best taxes are small, simple and universal. This means there is no incentive or opportunity to evade or work around misdirecting investment for tax reasons rather than productive ones.
While it’s reasonable to quibble the exact structure and details of TOP’s proposed Asset tax, the fundamental idea of it is sound.
On the contrary, it’s the fundamentals I have a problem with. They don’t get welfare or its value and hence they’ve designed policy around economics. That serves economies. I want the people to be served.
Yet the odd thing is that the most common objection I hear from people when I first mention UBI, is along the lines “It makes beneficiaries of everyone!” … as if that were a very bad thing.
Frankly I struggle to understand this big distinction is that you are making between say $200pw income from a welfare benefit and $200pw income from a UBI.
Except that the former is something you had to line up, fill out paperwork and grovel for … while the latter is by right and unconditional.
Of course in the short term introducing a UBI to fully replace Welfare isn’t reasonable. Never said it was and that is clearly not TOP policy. The initial proposal is to make it available to youth, families with young children and the elderly and combine it with existing Welfare.
In the longer term if the UBI was successful and demonstrated the positive outcomes I believe it could have, then an expanded UBI could become truly Universal for everyone. But even then I doubt it would ever fully replace targeted welfare.
Reshaping an economy so that it works to serve people in the way you have in mind, would be a gradual transition. It could take a generation or more. The idea of slam-bam shock policy died with Roger Douglas.
I’m supportive of a UBI if it’s designed around wellbeing. That’s not what Morgan is doing. He’s designing from an economic perspective and adding in the nice social bits as he goes. This is why The Big Kahuna fails to address the topup issue meaningfully and leaves it as a side bar to sort out later. That’s dangerous.
I don’t know anyone that can live on $200/wk. I’m sure there are some people, but they’re generally people that have other resources e.g. no rent.
You seem to think welfare is about a sum of money. It’s not, it’s about caring for people when they need it. Morgan is pretty clear he wants people to be personally responsible and for the state to radically lessen support. So bad luck if you can’t manage on what Morgan deems sufficient or in ways that Morgan deems as reasonable or normal.
Considering that there’s really only one way to do it it’d take five minutes.
1. Stop banks from creating money
2. Implement a UBI and government spending as the only way money enters the economy
Done. You really can’t do it any other way because all other ways require looking for ways to pay for the UBI which can’t be done. This way the UBI pays for the economy and we end up with an economy that’s stable and works for everyone.
Of course no-one is expected to live on $200pa.
If you have no other income and you qualify for welfare, TOP policy has clearly evolved to a position where your income would be the unconditional UBI plus a conditional top up welfare benefit to at least current levels.
The Big Kahuna was published some years ago now; the issue of ‘top ups’ has now been addressed in detail. How ‘dangerous’ was that?
You seem to think welfare is about a sum of money. It’s not, it’s about caring for people when they need it.
Yet whenever we’ve discussed this in the past this is EXACTLY what you brought it back to … how to bridge the gap between the UBI and current benefits. Now it’s clear the welfare top up mechanism would fill that gap just fine, you move the goal-posts again to demanding that state needs to be ‘caring’ as well.
If your idea of state ‘care’ is the status quo welfare system; well you have me stumped.
Morgan is pretty clear he wants people to be personally responsible and for the state to radically lessen support
IF at UBI with it’s myriad of benefits really did transform society in the way many people hope, and that people really did find it much easier to find ways to support themselves in ways that suited them and fulfilled their dreams in life … why would this be such a bad thing?
If a UBI really did eliminate the poverty trap, toxic dependency, reduce the number of people who needed support, what exactly are you objecting to here?
Why represent this as binary choice between ‘collective caring’ OR ‘personal responsibility’ … when surely a blend of the strengths of both might be an ideal worth thinking about?
Love ya mate 🙂
You always make me feel so conservative. But on this I largely agree with you. Creating credit is a necessary economic function and using the UBI to generate a large fraction of it, instead of the allowing the banks to have a monopoly as they do now, is a very interesting idea.
But as always principle and pragmatism should never try to gatecrash the same party. Ends in tears.
If you have no other income and you qualify for welfare, TOP policy has clearly evolved to a position where your income would be the unconditional UBI plus a conditional top up welfare benefit to at least current levels.
The Big Kahuna was published some years ago now; the issue of ‘top ups’ has now been addressed in detail. How ‘dangerous’ was that?
Really? Because as far as I can tell the TOP ‘UBI’ currently is on top of existing benefits. Are you suggesting this is the plan for a full UBI eventually?
What’s the ‘conditional topup’?
I’ve not seen anything credible from TOP on supplementary benefits.
As for the rest of your comment, you appear to be arguing with me as if I’m against a UBI. I’ve said multiple times that I’m supportive of a UBI but that I think Morgan’s one is seriously lacking. When you start hearing what I am actually saying and engaging with that I’ll reciprocate.
actually people might be living in an asset worth of a million if they find a buyer who will give them a million dollar. Until then the house is only ever worth what someone pays for it, and that might be nought.
where i bought my house the average price for house without land is around 60.000$ The land then comes in at another 50.000 or so, so the average house / land here sells around 80 .000 – 120.000 . These people surely are rolling in cash. Lets means test them, lest they get to much right?
but I agree, Mr. Morgan should be paying taxes as he has several million dollar properties that – as per his own saying – he keeps empty and thus not profitable to ‘protect the carpet’ from the tenants. He should be paying a lot of taxes on his empty investment properties until it becomes so unprofitable for him to have these properties empty that he either sells them for someone to live in or rents them for someone to live in.
I side with Sabine. Morgan screwed the dirty system to the max when he was young and greedy, then, after making enough money, went into semi-retirement, travelled around a bit, and began to gain a glimmer of social understanding. Now he masquerades (even if he believes in his own myths) as a philanthropic worker for the social good. Like that American mogul Carnegie, he does good works that I think ring hollow.
I used to think that the ‘politics of envy’ was a right wing myth … but watching more than a few people here I’m beginning to think they may have been correct all along.
I am NOT envious of Morgan, nor of his fortune. Please don’t make me use capitals again.
And that’s the usual response too.
As you wish. But how old are you? I remember back in the 90s when Morgan was the clever smarty-pants expert being touted on TV as a great consultant on the value of the Dollar. He was part of the big neo-liberal mouthpiece. He needs to go a long way further to atone for all that, and he is nowhere near it so far. Maybe you are too young to understand this.
@ In Vino
Almost old enough for Super thank you. You remember a different Morgan to me; I recall someone who was always an outsider, all too prone to speaking his mind to ever be part of the big club.
But the 90’s are quite a long time back now; and people do change. I know I have a lot, and I’d hazard a guess you have too.
Hell I once even voted ACT. Have I done enough to atone for it by now do you think?
lol – nobody can atone for that!
I am already on Super, but I guessed wrongly at you being young.
I remember people avidly following Roger Douglas with his flat tax ideas, thinking they were pushing left-wing policies having got rid of Muldoon. I sense a little of the same in Morgan, sad to say.
He became an outspoken outsider only after he had profited from the damaging policies he approved of, to my mind. But who knows? None of us is infallible. I have agreed with every post of yours I have seen up until now – and this is not a major thing.
Go for what we believe in, eh?
Instead of welfare, student allowances and living costs component of student loans.
Winnie’s cunning strategy to become PM
Little accuses Peters of leaking the internal UMR poll
Do any parties have good policies on how it will make lots of New Zealanders have great careers and awesome salaries?
I see plenty of redistribution policies, but not a whole bunch on economic development.
Election campaign has only just started. You can see historical policy on parties’ websites.
well, 100k new homes must be good for somebody.
Labour’s been announcing portions of its (?$200mil I think?) regional development fund in each reagion little visits – Dunedin’s getting IT industry support, Gisborne will get a prefab housing factory (there’s the 100k homes methinks), dunno what else.
more cops and light rail for auckland, too. And working towards a living wage and better workplace rights, of course. 3 yrs free tertiary education.
I’m sure the Greens have some additional/even better policies, too. NZ1 will probably have some hefty regional development policies as well.
Yes labour will just legislate as such , easy
Any actual initiative on how to grow more high-paying jobs from any party would be great.
give labour 9 years in the beehive and they will FIFU
Hey beaded git,
The new government will need all of 9yrs to take out all the hidden hooks that national has left in the administration to trip the next lot up!!!
They’re neck and neck as they come round the course but I think The Chairman is pulling to the front and is the WINNER for the most concerned troll of the morning. Will he keep up this pace during the day and emerge a champion tonight?
What a commenter, day after day, he keeps up the pace. He will be a hard man to beat and will wear his blue jersey with pride for the timebeing , and may receive his cobalt shade one in the BIG prizegiving day in September. But there are good contenders, yes they are giving him hot competition, and if their jaws don’t drop off or fingers wear out to their wrists, they’ll be close behind.
But watch this wonderful little performer for good value entertainment.
But will his body be able to sustain that frenetic level of activity? One snapped tendon, or one blister in the wrong place, and his keyboarding rate could plunge, causing a dramatic loss to all those who enjoy wringing their hands as they mull over the complexities and intricacies of those weighty problems that constantly plague the parties of the Left, but never the Right.
One can only hope…
No mention of Johnny Key our humble home boy getting a top award from Oz for not causing their bedsheets to get rucked up by any thorny questions that meek little NZs want to raise. After all when all the big money is covered by Oz banks who would dare be tempted to annoy them.
Meanhile our brownies languish on islands that are not paradise (any whities there? If not sounds like discrimination to me.) Oz has long been the Dis-crimi-nation but I had hoped for better from NZ politicians. But hey, nice doggie John, give him a medal and a bone too, the best for you, an Honorary Companion in the Order of Australia. This is the highest Australian honour.
there is a sting in the tail here for the Nats ..while i always mistrusted the guy he did seem to have a way with some in the electorate…his resurrection with a medal so close to the election serves to show how crap English is
question please… i thought Todd Barclay was supposed to be back in parliament this week, or is it next week?
Also, interesting that Bill is taking a holiday down Dipton way, I wonder if he choose to go down south for damage control as well as a holiday.
Well in the meantime not even a possible slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket for him.
11:04 am today
IPCA won’t pursue Barclay investigation complaint
That was the complaint to the Police Complaints Authority NZJ.
The Police may yet come to some conclusion as it has reopened the case.
Be ironic if the Police also close the case as this would McLay quit for no offence.
Thanks for the link and update Jest.
So the police handled the investigation in the correct manner according to the police watch dog, but the investigation is still ongoing.
Least that’s the conclusion I reached after reading the article
That’s good could now go after the real crooks like MeTo
Ha ha RED the crooks don’t blog they are busy stealing as crooks do.
He’s still not fronting up to media
He did make an appearance on the Twitter…
Where’s Todd Barclay?
Moving on from illegal taping,
the $100k hush money,
bill english lying to the public,
barclay continuing to be paid,
and media avoidance…
an extremely important question to be addressed (vital to the whole puzzle) is…
“What was on the tapes?”
Even Gunloving Rednecks in the US are starting to see through the lies of the neo-liberal establishment. I bet they will not get the lenient treatment handed out to Armed-Right-Wing groups who invade and occupy federal land etc.
Armed Left-Wing Group Wants To Stamp Out Fascism – The Young Turks – Published on Jul 17, 2017
Weekend warriors who like to play dress up and get off on guns, pathetic
But one can never be too careful because placards!.
sennammemment, stannagran, ridaberrams, bud.
These guys are saying they are willing to defend the US Constitution. Not just the first amendment that is the only thing a lot of right-wingers care about, but these guys are trying to protect the down trodden against these that seek to do them harm.
Capitalism is a cancer.
What’s is it with green MPs and honesty, two gone in the last week in oz suddenly rembering they had dual citizenship, one in nz deciding to be honest after 20 or so tears of been dishonest
What a terrible typo.
” after 20 or so tears of been dishonest”.
I didn’t see any tears at all. She was chortling with laughter about how she had got away with ripping off the taxpayer.
One of our parties managed to put up a list candidate who wasn’t actually a citizen at all I think it was NZF but I wouldn’t put money on it. I may be unfairly maligning them.
You’re thinking of Kelly Chal who was United Future Dunne in 2002 (?) if I recall correctly
Alwyn’s total misrepresentation of those alleged tears/chuckling represent merely his own wishful thinking. Quite a pattern emerging of that…
And will one of you sort out ‘been’ and ‘being’?
That’s all you got Vino,, again say after me 10 times “the whole world hates a corrector, I must do better” 😀
And write out 10 times, ‘That’s all you’ve got.’
‘That’s all you got’ means ‘That’s all you received’.
Don’t make yourself look sillier than you need to.
And the whole world does not hate a corrector – only those who need correction. Like you.
You must have had it tough at school Vino 😀
I shall take your word for it.
Your memory is clearly better than mine on the matter. I only remembered that it happened to some party at some election.
And, for any NZF supporter who may read this blog, I apologise for maligning you.
Tears of laughter after 20 years of taking the proverbial, oh I will pay it back if they can prove it beyond my carefully legally constructed confession for perceived political benefit
[RL: Two unsubstantiated smears. Lift your game. Last warning.]
Puller always looks like she just snagged the last cream bun. Crutcher always looks like someone goosed her. Bingles always looks like one of his kids shat in his brogues. Such is life.
They eventually are? Is that it?
Reckon it’ll catch on with Pricksmith, Bingles, Crutcher, Jeery, Munter and the rest of the Pony Boys?
Rowan Atkinson being a Conservative giving out his feelings about immigration in the UK. (Think this was during Thatcher years. It may be entirely different now.)
Please note. This is political satire.