Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
6:00 am, July 24th, 2024 - 24 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
The current rise of populism challenges the way we think about people’s relationship to the economy.We seem to be entering an era of populism, in which leadership in a democracy is based on preferences of the population which do not seem entirely rational nor serving their longer interests. ...
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
China has a declining population and growing numbers in retirement and so
The public response shows some awareness of the western world reality
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpd9v48yn8ro
NZ's core working population will also shrink while at the same time older people requiring huge volumes more healthcare and welfare will need to be funded.
https://businessnz.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/The-future-of-workforce-supply-Sense-Partners-PDF.pdf
Also the current-and-future workforce will be working predominantly in low-paid industries like hospitality and horticulture, often as imported labour, so we will continue to be a dumb low wage economy seeking to sustain massive elder welfare.
Thats what the multi billion Cullen fund was established.
I think its something like 3x what was paid in has grown by compound interest – and become the biggest taxpayer in NZ
Fonterra the largest revenue business ($24 bill pa) pays no tax whatsoever- as its a Coop.
Plus it gets a $200 mill tax refund (GST) for the fun of it.
Cullen fund doesn't help NZSuper much. Susan St John is worth looking up on this.
Fonterra is a national drag.
She was of the Bill English school and opposed setting up the Fund.
This explains their thinking at the time.
They and Rod Donald were completely wrong.
https://www.goodreturns.co.nz/article/976486989/greens-want-to-dismantle-the-cullen-fund.html
The impact of the neglect of the 2008-2017 period.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/a-super-future-are-we-on-track-to-pay-for-our-pensions/ONSO7XD7U47EUASDWQCZLUJTTY/
Where we are now.
https://www.interest.co.nz/personal-finance/122651/eric-frykberg-goes-search-solutions-superannuation-affordability-and-looks
The critic.
https://www.auckland.ac.nz/assets/business/about/our-research/research-institutes-and-centres/RPRC/PensionBriefing/PC%202021-2%20New-Zealand-SuperFund.pdf
"Based on current Treasury projections,, capital withdrawals from the Fund will be meeting 10% of the net cost of Super by 2066, peaking at 12.8% in 2078, and averaging 11.2% for the 50 years from 2060-2110
https://fallback.nzsuperfund.nz/assets/Disclosures/Submissions/CFFC_retirement_policy_review_NZSF_submission.pdf
Plus the tax paid by NZSF every year [$9.47 bill since inception] 2023
". At the Fund’s peak in the 2070s, the capital withdrawals and tax payments combined total 21% of the total net cost of pensions, and more than 40% of the incremental cost increase due to the rising proportion of retirees in the population."
The whole point of the Fund is to smooth out baby boomer rise in numbers of retirees and who live longer costing more and paying it forward (now) rather than later
Re the comment that Fonterra pays no tax.
As I understand it, the coop may pay no tax but can rebate profits to its members, who are taxable on that income. So the income stream is taxed at one point (assuming the farmer shareholders don't juggle their numbers so they have no taxable gains).
However, Fonterra's annual report for 2023 states " … normalised profit after tax was $1,329 million." so it paid something.
I'm not defending Fonterra, whose members have trashed our waterways while hiding behind a smokescreen of greenwash.
Interesting to note also that some irrigation companies are cooperatives. Perhaps the taxpayer is subsidising environmental destruction?
Looking deeper into cash flows
https://view.publitas.com/fonterra/2023-financial-statements/page/12
They list tax expense twice
Theres seems to be $118 mill tax paid on divestments.
Its like the major banks who very cunningly proclaim Profit after tax too. The only business that I know, every one else used the headlines of gross profit.
Banks have used structured tax breaks before as well as they have a plethora of holding companies the money passes through
eg ANZ Bank NZ Ltd is 90% owned by ANZ Holdings NZ Ltd who is owned by ANZ Funds Pty Ltd (Australia) which has 10 separate share allocations -probably in tax havens
In the West the issue is complicated by resort to immigration
His rationalisation
He (Martin Wolf FT) seems to be influenced by the thinking of the National Rally party in France.
https://www.france24.com/en/france/20240620-how-france-s-far-right-changed-the-debate-on-immigration
https://archive.li/V7izW#selection-1883.0-2088.0
I'm off on a tangent here admittedly, but this sentence is so striking for the odd and self-contradictory understanding of what constitutes value. If some piece of work is 'essential', then by definition it must create a lot of value – we can't do without it. But the skills required to do it are "low" and not valuable to the individual who possesses them. Low value therefore mysteriously produces high value, as if by some kind of alchemy.
The truth is not that these are "low" skills, because every human gets very good at what they do over time. Rather, the truth is that these skills are simply common, and that if you have a market in labour they command a lower price (wage) irrespective of how much objective value they create. Markets have a subjective notion of value, where value is discovered through price. And it's bizarrely divorced from actual life.
The re-education of Christopher Penk continues.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522965/insulation-s-role-in-overheating-a-myth-building-experts
Is it just me or have the Tory wankers given up even pretending they working for anyone but the renter class these days? Now they want to follow the Poms and destroy the heath care system, so their mates can make more money.
Video the labour spokesperson gives a good account of the Tory wankers shitfuckery.
https://www.realestate.com.au/news/no-apologies-govt-buys-85-beach-cabins-for-social-housing/
Good one Queenslad👍
oh that is excellent. I've never understood why we didn't do this in NZ. Tiny homes too, esp mobile ones.
Brilliant indeed. Why shouldn't he disadvantaged have beach views/access for change. Probably just what they need for wellbeing.
Some comparison numbers from the primaries for both Obamas and Bidens re-election bid
Siting Presidents usually do very well in their total votes gained when the states run their primarys
But Biden was way way ahead of Obama for the grass roots registered democrats
2024 Biden all votes 14,465 million
2012 Obama all votes 8,044 mill
The just released Abuse in Care report estimates 200,000 people were abused.
RNZ just said that Chris Finlayson and Bill "social investment" English said that there was no need for a Royal Commission of Inquiry. Says a lot about English's social investment blather.
Well Bill "social investment" English would say that.
I'm unsure why Finlayson would.
The final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care finds that a successive list of senior ministers and public servants were at fault for allowing, or failing to stop, an epidemic of abuse in foster homes, borstals, boot camps and other state-run institutions.
The list of people found at fault includes successive ministers of education, health and social development, commissioners of police, directors-general of health, directors of mental health and the chief executives of several ministries. The Royal Commission report does not list individual names of people at fault, only the job titles.
The Spinoff has been able to verify 112 people who served in those roles from 1950 to 1999. Much of the harm started before 1950 and has continued to present day, but this list is limited to those years to match the Royal Commission’s period of inquiry.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/24-07-2024/a-long-list-of-ministers-and-leaders-found-at-fault-for-failing-to-stop-abuse-in-care
Why on earth did the period examined stop in 1999? And why did it take 20 years to produce a report?
From comments on RNZ this morning nothing improved after 1999 and the problems continued into this century.
Is it a coincidence that the Government who finally were forced to set up this inquiry took office in 1999?
Here ya go, sport.
/
https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/guidance/official-information/official-information-act-requests
Finlayson was Attorney general when abuse was further perpetrated by Crown Law in their legal tactics over civil claims against various departments
Which is all very recent and makes Crown Law seem like the nastiest group of lawyers in the country
https://www.abuseincare.org.nz/assets/Uploads/Una-Jagose-First-Statement.pdf
So not enough graft for bill then…
With the Tories, Reform and the Lib Dems to his right and the Greens and a good chunk of his own party and voters to his left, Starmer is showing what his leadership is once more.
Speaking on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, she said: “When you’ve got anti-poverty campaigners, thinktanks, trade unions saying that the key driver for child poverty in this country – which is the sixth largest economy in the world – is the Tories’ two-child benefit cap, then it is a moral imperative on the Labour party to scrap that and do everything that they can to make sure that not a single child has to live in unnecessary hardship and poverty.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/series/politics-live-with-andrew-sparrow
Starmer’s response to this victimising children based on where they are born in a family and this 19th C ‘worthy/unworthy poor’ attitude is to suspend his own MPs.
But let’s be honest and looking to New Zealand too: Labour is at its best when it faces strong critiques from its left and strong and politically irritating campaigns to fix problems that have been ignored. With the Alliance and the Greens pushing them, Labour did things such as creating Kiwibank.
The cost of dentistry was next on Jim Anderton’s hit list. It occasionally occurs to Labour a moment or two before they’re voted out as well.
This attitude of Starmer’s wouldn’t work here and his campaign can’t work here. With MMP Labour in Britain would gain fewer seats, the right lose fewer seats and the Greens would be a more significant and growing force in electoral politics than they currently are.
The attack his own side doesn’t work here as the electorate have the expectation that the left will work together to form a government and fix what the Tories are breaking. Proportional representation and the less virulent schism in NZ Labour (they’re all in ACT) means this idea of a tough ‘3rd way’ Labour leader doesn’t have an electoral runway.