Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
6:00 am, May 30th, 2024 - 35 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.
Mainfreight perspective on the futre of rail
This
https://archive.li/qVrAA#selection-2003.29-2003.33
No SPC, and they don't talk about the costs of stopping the new ferries or the vote that will be needed in view of that truck increases for roading maintenance. But so far forward planning does not seem to be in their wheelhouse. Or is it they have objectives they are keeping quiet about, while they blind us with sackings sinking lid austerity politics.
Just a shout out to those protesting the treatment of the Treaty and related Laws. With you in spirit. Kia Kaha. Wairua Hikoi.
And how much damage will that cause to roads ! And of course the mega $ millions then repairing same : (
Of course what does Simeon or the rest of his cronies care about that ?
Support Rail
https://thefutureisrail.org/
The only hope is that this is a 3 year government and the same ferries we have now are still operating in two and a half years time with no non-rail capable replacement ferries on order.
The new government could then sort this Simeon Brown inspired mess out.
Does anyone from the Opposition actually have a plan to 'sort this … mess out'?
Because the last Labour government found the costs for the previous project unacceptable (which is why there was no funding agreed before the election).
https://archive.ph/uztTk
That is interesting Bella. The new mega ferries were clearly less certain that was being portrayed in the media. But I note:
"Cabinet made an in-principle decision to increase the contingency fund by $750m to enable the operation of the mega ferries but reduce the project’s scope by staging non-essential terminal development. Robertson wrote to McLean informing him of the decision and described it as the most viable option for the Crown. He said the significant cost increase required ministers to reconsider all potential options, particularly in the context of current capital constraints and other calls on Crown funding…."
While the Labour Cabinet was keeping options open, the likely outcome was that the $750 million (probably $950 million) required would have been sanctioned, which would have permitted the purchase of the mega ferries, though their purchase would have been somewhat delayed, and work on the land would have been staged with only critical necessary work to be carried out. [As your link details, Kiwirail said $950 million (not 750) was the minimum to keep the project on track.]
I still think that a Labour/Green government, if they had won the election, would have continued with the mega ferries (which of course are rail capable) because this is such a vital link for NZ, and the cost of the mega ferries and associated land improvements would serve the country for generations to come.
If Simeon Brown goes with a cheapskate non-rail option, this will be a disaster, as detailed by Mainfreight above.
But what is their policy now that they are in opposition – and seeking to win the next election.
They can't continue the ferry build project (that ship has sailed – pardon the pun) – so what alternative are they going to campaign on?
National's "plan" to sort the mess out" is to spend many more billions on roads, which have a worse cost benefit ratio when everything is taken into account, including environmental and opportunity costs, than upgrading the ferries to serve for at least 30 years in the future.
Now the Government has changed, NZ coastal shipping, the other leg of environmentally and economically effective transport, also appears to have dissappeared from consideration.
Again. What is Labour/Green policy?
Don't know about policy (I'm not a member of any political party) – wouldn't any previous policy now be in tatters thanks to Willis' decision? Still, a google suggests the Green party's transport spokesperson would be keen for the project to continue, despite sharing concerns about cost.
An interesting comment under that article got me thinking (again) about who really benefits from the 'off-again on-again' short-term planning for crucial infrastructure fostered by polarisation, political and otherwise.
As for the Labour party, a LabourVoices release by their transport spokesperson suggests they would have preferred the project to go ahead. Too partisan for my tastes, but certainly no more-so than NAct.
Out of curiosity, what was the National/Act policy prior to Willis' decision to can this infrastructure project?
And this is fun – the deputy PM being his usual helpful self
https://www.infrastructurenews.co.nz/future-freight-transport-dead-water/
Yes, that's rather the point. The OP was hoping for a 1-term government in order to 'sort this … mess out'?
None of the previous policies to continue the project or continue the project with modifications are viable any longer. I've not seen any new proposals from the opposition on what they would do now.
Links to what they claim they would have done, had they been re-elected are rather pointless.
While they were in opposition, did Nat/ACT/NZF have policies for securing the future of our vital North-South Island link for passengers and freight? And what's our CoC govt's plan now?
Btw, nice work holding our CoC govt to account here, in your uniquely centrist fashion.
I'm not the one calling for a one-term government to sort the issue out. Just the one asking for some evidence that the opposition has a plan to do this.
Perhaps you could link to the evidence that they do have a plan.
Well, now, that would be a pleasant change – but I can't see the highly oppositional nature of NZ politics achieving this.
I don't see any evidence that the previous Labour government were seeking cross-party support for their rail-ferry infrastructure investment, nor sharing the information they were receiving about the rapidly escalating budget.
Labour had cross party consensus with national on high density housing, but the nats have renegeded
Getting NZ Back on Track (link to an Emmerson cartoon)
https://cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/QNAJHC2ACZGPXCDCFB6JCTBFWA.jpg
They had a plan in government, and the next government torpedoed the project. Maybe that was a good call – time will tell.
Over 5 months later, it's now time for our new govt to reveal and implement their (cost-effective) replacement plan to secure the future of the North-South Island link for passengers and freight. Or is that plan out already? Assuming they can access an internet, future generations of Kiwis will marvel at the foresight and long-term planning capabilities of today's politicians.
Yes, it would be great. Who is served by this "highly oppositional nature" that contributes to poor (at times very poor) governance? Imagine how much more productive, progressive and positive NZ could be with greater parliamentary bipartisan consensus.
Shaw understood the lasting value of bipartisan legislation, and achieved the same by working with National party MPs:
And all parliamentary parties bar National seem to think the principle of fairness trumps partisan politics with regard to restoring citizenship to people born in Western Samoa.
Then there's the housing density agreement, while it lasted.
The lead-up to TPP ratification (parliamentary approval not required) prompted public protests (I attended two), but the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill enjoyed nearly unanimous support in the house – only Green MPs voted against.
The 'anti-smacking bill' also had strong parliamentary support (8 noes in a conscience vote during the Clark/Labour govt, with the Key/National govt having no appetite to repeal the legislation), while our last parliament unanimously passed a sex self-identification law, despite it being "a lightning rod for culture wars issues."
Bipartisan agreements are possible, and the 1st year after an election could be a good time to develop consensus (challenging with ACT/NZF on board, for sure). Otherwise, successive 'stop-start governments' will further divide NZ, and who would want that?
Lets hope today is the day that a government finally increases the tax brackets that haven't increased for about 13 years, even though the minimum wage has increased from around $13.00 per hour in 2011 to $23.15 today, as a person working full time on the minimum wage now gets in to paying 33% on their last bit of income!
The top tax bracket needs to be increased to a rate of 45% over $150k, rather than the current 39% over $180k.
Tax at 45% about 150K you reakon, that would put us close if not the highest rate of tax in the developed world. You would see a mad sell up and scramble for the airport, that would include your doctor's, business owners all the people that are way more productive than you, and that pay the majority of the tax. You really have to rethink your envious nature as 150k in the real world is not a very big income and alot of tradesmen are getting very close to that figure or over it, they would join the exodus. The drop in tax take would be disastrous.
On reflection perhaps you are right Sealegs. The real issue is the blatant unfairness of the top 5% owning such a large proportion of capital assets.
So a much better option would be a meaningful Wealth Tax or a Land Tax while keeping the 39% above $180k threshold. The Greens had a WT in their last manifesto that looked workable and fair.
Sure, 33 cents starting above the MW.
a person working full time on the minimum wage now gets in to paying 33% on their last bit of income!
An increase from 30% to 33% on their last bit of income doesn't seem like much of a hardship.
by last bit you mean $152-00.
Min wage for 40 hours is $48,152 per annum.
I don't disagree that brackets should be adjusted but then I think three things should be adjusted for all workers by the rate of inflation every year.
1. Minimum wage
2. All wages for everyone as many contracts now have no provision for annual pay increases (or at best an annual review discussion which results in no increase)
3. Tax brackets
This way workers would at least maintain their income value.
Unions and individuals could then negotiate for productivity etc increases.
I'd link pay equity agreements to the median or average wage – so they do not fall back in real terms.
And I'd link a tax bracket to MW level (I'd leave others as they are).
Apologies, I hadn't had my morning coffee when commenting above so wasn't fully awake. The minimum wage gets you in to the 30% tax bracket not 33%! Still far too high a tax rate IMO. And then of course, anything you spend your net income on mostly has GST of 15% on it.
With current housing costs, not necessarily as mortgage repayments (including interest) and rent are both exempt from GST.
Legacy of the great tax swap, where tax on high incomes, inheritances and unearned gains was decreased, and GST and income tax on median incomes and below, increased!
We will see a repeat today, no matter how they dress it up with spin. Low income earners, families and those on welfare will see a “block of cheese” per month at best. Most of which will be clawed back by private child care providers, landlords, power companies and other vultures. Not to mention National’s sneaky increased taxes, sorry! user pays charges.
It is staggering that Braid of Mainfreight has been ignored by Simeon Brown who at a stretch I would reckon doesn’t know which end of a truck or ferry is the front.
We're 'in it', all right, but 'together'? Really, m'lady, surely you jest.
King Luxon: Chow down landLords – let's get your income back on track.
The Side Eye’s Two New Zealands: The Table
$728,800 – awful – how does one even survive on such a pittance?
Surprised these Kiwis haven't buggered off – what's keeping them here?
So how much do you feel the tax should be?
TEN times as much 800,000 @ 22% – $176,000 [$624,000 left]
TWENTY times as much 800,000 @ 44% – $352,000 [$448,000 left]
At what level do you think they would bugger off and pay no tax at all?
Did they bugger off when tax was much higher? It is such an idle bullshit threat.
Are we as country, rather than themselves as individuals, better off since they have have lower tax rates. Look around you the answer is clearly no.
How low should tax be until it trickles down? When will the well-off ever be satisfied? The answer is never. The rich will never be satisfied. They can never be rich enough. Profit is just a private tax as opposed to a public one.
This 'capital flight' nonsense can be filed under 'trickle down' and 'market decides' myths. It’s next to the “The right are good managers of the economy” in the fiction area.
Just neo-liberal bulldust,
No one ever says quite where they are going to go to.
Australia has higher taxes, 14% employer contribution to super, asset testing of superannuation payments and most NZ businesses who move to Oz fail.
The UK has death duties as does the US, Ireland, the US, France, Germany etc.
I'm keen on the Green / TPM wealth taxes – would be under their thresholds. If not a wealth tax, then maybe a 45% tax rate on income over A$190,001.
Given an exchange rate of ~92 Australian cents to the NZ$, our threshold for a 45% tax rate might be ~NZ$210,000, so income of NZ$800,000 would attract ~$265,500 in tax on the $590,000 over that threshold (leaving an absolute pittance of NZ$324,500 – such penury is almost unimaginable), in addition to whatever tax might be owing on the first $210,000.
So, how much do you feel the tax should be?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
No idea – do you? Might depend (in part) on what's keeping them here now.
Well, yes, perhaps that is an ultimate goal for some – to "pay no tax at all".
Heh – “the rich and dodgy” – can’t help helping themselves.