Open mike 30/04/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:45 am, April 30th, 2014 - 236 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike 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 …

236 comments on “Open mike 30/04/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Matthew Hooton 1
    30 April 2014 at 7:03 am

    Does anyone know if Labour’s compulsory KiwiSaver policy includes getting rid of the government subsidies – the $1000 kickstart etc? If so, I’d endorse it wholeheartedly. With those subsidies (which the government has borrowed overseas!) it is doubtful that KiwiSaver has in fact increased NZ’s net savings even though it is overwhelmingly in any individual’s interest to sign up.

    For example, I signed up both kids to KiwiSaver, they got the $1000 each and it has sat there in their accounts (there has been some gain). This means the government borrowed that $2000 offshore (the government was in deficit at the time but even it if had been in surplus its debt repayment programme would have been $2000 poorer) and then much of the $2000 has been invested offshore. From our family’s point of view, we have “saved” $2000 more, but the government has borrowed $2000 more so their is no net gain to the overall savings rate.

    The same is true of payments of member tax credits.

    If KiwiSaver were compulsory, all this stuff could be abolished as it would be unnecessary to attract participation, which would improve the government’s fiscal position, and KiwiSaver would also then be more likely to improve the overall net savings rate in the economy.

    Can anyone help me on this? I haven’t seen the issue addressed in the MSM.

    • mickysavage 1.1
      30 April 2014 at 7:14 am

      I thought you would approve of this Matthew, people being given their money back by the Government. Is the reason that you disapprove because everyone, not only the rich, get the benefit?

      • Matthew Hooton 1.1.1
        30 April 2014 at 7:26 am

        Can you find out the answer?

      • blue leopard 1.1.2
        30 April 2014 at 9:55 am

        Good to see Hooton on here, I was expecting him here yesterday on David Parker’s announcement thread and I wonder what took him so long.

        He always appears when there is an issue that threatens the sell-outs and therefore redoubled attempts at mangling peoples’ minds (aka spin) are conducted.

        This is a solid sign that the Labour policy threatens sell-out types.

        Well done Labour, you must be onto something.

        • Colonial Viper 1.1.2.1
          30 April 2014 at 10:22 am

          Hooten was developing stupid lines to use today because National polling indicates that people in general like the idea of Kiwisaver, and they love the idea of a $1000 kickstart.

          Hooten, deficit spending by the government is absolutely necessary when unemployment is high and private sector spending is slow. You need to update your economics.

          • Matthew Hooton 1.1.2.1.1
            30 April 2014 at 11:22 am

            That’s nonsense, of course.
            But, you may or may not be aware, Labour’s policy is to get rid of the one-off $1000 kickstart and replace it with $200 a year for five years.

            • Colonial Viper 1.1.2.1.1.1
              30 April 2014 at 11:25 am

              Which part is nonsense? Can you be specific?

              If the private sector is failing in its duties to employ people and spend into the economy, it is the Government’s duty to fill the gap.

              That’s not rocket science mate, time to update your economics.

              And no one thinks that getting a drip feed of $200 is better than getting the full $1000 up front.

              • Matthew Hooton …
                30 April 2014 at 11:27 am

                “Hooten was developing stupid lines to use today because National polling indicates that ….”

                But I think you really do believe I get paid by the govt or national party or someone to comment here.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  30 April 2014 at 11:52 am

                  Not to comment here specifically.

                  You sell strategic packages designed to among other things, assist your clients with reputation management. A big part of that, obviously, is framing any debate. Your value relies on your media skills and outlets, especially as they help promote you as an independent commenter.

                  Social media is a part of that.

                  As for National, I see you as more of the donor/owner type than the hired help.

                  • McFlock …
                    30 April 2014 at 3:56 pm

                    lol

                    that sounds much better than “developing stupid lines”, although they mean the same thing where nactoids are concerned.

    • Pete George 1.2
      30 April 2014 at 7:27 am

      I can’t see anything about Kickstart in their Comprehensive policy document.

      “The same is true of payments of member tax credits.”

      These were a maximum of $1,042.86 until 2011 and since then have been up to $521.43 per annum.
      http://www.kiwisaver.govt.nz/new/benefits/mtc/

      If it’s comprehensive and Kickstart or the tax credit are not mentioned it could be assumed they don’t propose changing it but I wouldn’t bet on that, this is a policy ‘proposal’ and doesn’t seem to be set in concrete.

      5.4 Further tools are desirable to assist the Reserve Bank. Therefore, Labour will ask the Reserve Bank and Treasury to assess in detail the new tool discussed in this section, and to report to the Government on how it could best be implemented.

      https://www.labour.org.nz/sites/default/files/issues/eu-mp-policy.pdf

      That makes it more of a discussion document subject to revision and firming up, which is a good approach, but leaves a number of unanswered questions at the moment..

    • bad12 1.3
      30 April 2014 at 7:54 am

      Hooton the hypocrite, sucks at the teat of Government largesse knowing full well He is adding to the gross government debt and once He has got His fill wants the ladder kicked away so others don’t get the same favors as what He got…

      • Matthew Hooton 1.3.1
        30 April 2014 at 8:08 am

        Yes, yes, but what is the answer?

        PS. Whenever the government offers me $1000 for filling in a form, I’ll do it.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3.1.1
          30 April 2014 at 8:11 am

          You’re the one getting paid to tell lies: find your answers yourself.

        • bad12 1.3.1.2
          30 April 2014 at 8:18 am

          Hooton ditto with OAB’s reply to you, your answer suggests to me that it is you and your ilk that are in fact everything that is wrong with this country,

          Do your own Fff-ing research, we aint here to serve the likes of you…

          • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3.1.2.1
            30 April 2014 at 8:31 am

            Where is Hooton going with this? From a pragmatic perspective, if Labour announce the incentives will disappear once the scheme becomes compulsory, that announcement would bring a flood of people signing up to get the k. Easy to spin that as bad. An announcement now will be spun for five months, swelling Hooton’s Whale’s and Penguin’s paypackets in the process.

            Easiest solution is to refer paid liars to the section Petty quoted:

            Labour will ask the Reserve Bank and Treasury to assess in detail the new tool discussed in this section, and to report to the Government on how it could best be implemented.

            And then, once the little wingnuts have worked themselves into an imaginary frenzy, announce that all new accounts will get a 1k “kickstart” 😈

          • Draco T Bastard 1.3.1.2.2
            30 April 2014 at 8:37 am

            Hooton ditto with OAB’s reply to you, your answer suggests to me that it is you and your ilk that are in fact everything that is wrong with this country

            Actually, that’s now been proven. It’s the elite that cause civilisation to crash through their greed.

            Not that civilisation has been all that nice throughout history.

          • srylands 1.3.1.2.3
            30 April 2014 at 10:26 am

            Really? He has a reasonable question. Why aren’t you here to serve the likes of him? After all you have all day with nothing else to do except be rude to people.

            I suggest you encourage your mates to answer his question.

            • Matthew Hooton 1.3.1.2.3.1
              30 April 2014 at 10:29 am

              David Parker answered the question perfectly reasonably (see below).

            • Draco T Bastard 1.3.1.2.3.2
              30 April 2014 at 10:40 am

              Why should we answer his question when he’s paid to get answers but we’re not paid to answer?

              • Matthew Hooton …
                30 April 2014 at 10:41 am

                Who on earth do you think would pay me to ask questions of you?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  30 April 2014 at 10:49 am

                  They pay you to foster confusion and dissent, to obscure facts with lies; your behaviour here this morning is entirely consistent with those goals.

                  That you’re better at it than Slater doesn’t lift you out of his gutter.

                  • Matthew Hooton …
                    30 April 2014 at 11:33 am

                    Who pays me?

                    • blue leopard …
                      30 April 2014 at 11:37 am

                      Hooton, you appear to be having a real meltdown, coming on this site and asking who pays you – why don’t you know that already?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      30 April 2014 at 11:39 am

                      …shift opinions and policies to support the business plans of our clients.

                      You tell me.

                    • McFlock …
                      30 April 2014 at 4:03 pm

                      fuck sake

                      You know a tory is on the back foot when they have to pretend to be so mentally incompetent as to require 24hr care.

                      Like the time the Prime Minister had to request permission from the House to “correct” one of the few unequivocal answers he’s made and replace it with a “I can’t remember who made the phone call, even though I’m the minister responsible, I made the appointment by ignoring the recommended candidates, and gave the job to a mate of mine”.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  30 April 2014 at 11:42 am

                  Why should I care? You’re the one asking the questions, it’s up to you to pay for the answers. Who you then get to pay you for those answers is also up to you.

                  Free market and all that type of BS.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3.1.2.3.3
              30 April 2014 at 10:46 am

              😆 S Rylands rushes to Hooton’s assistance. Hooton, whose still attempts to maintain a semblance of independence and credibility, blanches at the fact that his only champion is of such low quality.

            • bad12 1.3.1.2.3.4
              30 April 2014 at 10:54 am

              Umm at the risk of getting a severe spanking from the moderator SSLands the only logical answer i can formulate is one that would encourage you to fuck off back to the sewer where you obviously belong…

              [lprent: We like to encourage self-awareness of risk. ]

        • Molly 1.3.1.3
          30 April 2014 at 9:06 am

          … and that perhaps is yet another indication of what you consider integrity and moral decision making. I disagree with it – yet it benefits me so I’ll do it…

          There is another alternative.

        • blue leopard 1.3.1.4
          30 April 2014 at 10:00 am

          42, the answer if 42 according to some, Matthew.

    • anker 1.4
      30 April 2014 at 8:11 am

      Are you going to endorse the policy when you next speak on RNZ?? Orr make the point that its good policy with your caveat about the $1000.00.

    • ScottGN 1.5
      30 April 2014 at 8:47 am

      It’s a shame you didn’t make as much fuss about the government having to borrow overseas to pay the $30 million to Rio Tinto or the nearly $1.8 billion that had to be paid to SCF investors after English stupidly allowed them to enter the deposit guarantee scheme in spite of official advice at the time saying SCF was a risk.

    • ianmac 1.6
      30 April 2014 at 9:10 am

      I don’t know Matthew. But it is an important question which deserves an answer. I find it sad that the immediate response here is to attack the person instead of considering the importance of the answer. Matthew does have an agenda of course but it is useful to know what he/they think. After all countries spend a fortune on spying on the enemy to know what they are thinking/doing. Matthew has never been rude or nasty. (I am very anti National!)

      • bad12 1.6.1
        30 April 2014 at 9:17 am

        Off you go then ianmac, do wee Matty’s research for Him…

      • One Anonymous Bloke 1.6.2
        30 April 2014 at 9:18 am

        Hence my comment at 1.3.1.2.1

        Hooton’s demand for answers is indeed rude, considering his avowed hostility and history of deceit.

        • Matthew Hooton 1.6.2.1
          30 April 2014 at 9:53 am

          Spoke to David Parker.

          He confirms the 2011 KiwiSaver policy is unchanged. That is:

          Labour‟s plan will make KiwiSaver compulsory for every employee aged 18 to 65 from 2014.
          Labour will gradually increase employer contributions at a rate of 0.5 per cent a year, from 3 per cent to 7 per cent, over 9 years.
          Labour will retain the current minimum employee contribution of 2 per cent. The $1,000 kick-start will be spread over 5 years. Labour will not make any more changes to the member tax credit.

          See https://www.labour.org.nz/sites/default/files/2011%20Labour%20Party%20Manifesto.pdf

          He accepts that the kick-start and MTC don’t increase national savings but they do contribute to public support for the scheme, which he believes is important to build a savings culture and reduce reliance on foreign savings.

          • left for dead 1.6.2.1.1
            30 April 2014 at 10:12 am

            Matthew,how does that play out for beneficiarys,I’m a bit lost on that point.ta

            • Matthew Hooton 1.6.2.1.1.1
              30 April 2014 at 10:45 am

              Don’t know. I expect it means they get the kickstart. Ask David Parker –[deleted]

              [lprent: Leaving phone numbers and email addresses just makes this site a target for crawlbots. Don’t leave them. ]

            • weka 1.6.2.1.1.2
              30 April 2014 at 12:04 pm

              Am guessing that beneficiaries are excluded

              5.12 The New Zealand Labour Party is proposing that the existing KiwiSaver scheme become a universal work place savings scheme. This would be achieved by making KiwiSaver compulsory, with exceptions limited to those which apply to the Australian scheme.

              https://www.labour.org.nz/sites/default/files/issues/eu-mp-policy.pdf

              There are some additional issues here. Any beneficiary under hardship (which is many medium and long term beneficiaries) who receives the hardship grant TAS is expected to suspend payments to Kiwisaver (a condition of TAS is that you reduce outgoings).

              TAS is also available to non-beneficiaries, so it will be interesting to see how many TAS recipients are not on a main benefit, and how the Kiwisaver policy will affect them.

              There is a need for careful thought here, esp for people cycling on and off benefits due to the economy being run on casual labour and with a permanent unemployment rate.

          • Pete George 1.6.2.1.2
            30 April 2014 at 11:07 am

            “Labour will retain the current minimum employee contribution of 2 per cent. ”

            The current minimum is now 3%.

            Employees
            You can choose to contribute 3%, 4% or 8% of your before-tax pay.

            The default rate is 3% and this is the minimum that you can contribute.

            http://www.kiwisaver.govt.nz/already/change-contrib/amount/

            Increasing the rate via the employer contribution makes little difference apart from disguising it, it is still taxed and it is part of an employee’s pay package.

    • Clemgeopin 1.7
      30 April 2014 at 10:04 am

      If your beloved National or ACT , Key and English are honest and true to their right wing ideology and not opportunistic hypocrites, they would have had the courage to cancel the Kiwi Saver subsidies. They haven’t. Nor did they cancel so many of the last Labour government’s great social equity policies such as Interest free student loans, Kiwi Bank, WFF, Paid parental leave, Free child care etc. So you right wingers should NOT be voting these right wing bull shitting buggers anyway!

      Regarding your trolling question, wait close to the election because all the policies haven’t yet been announced, or if you are in a hurry, send an email to http://action.labour.org.nz/

  2. phillip ure 2
    30 April 2014 at 7:34 am

    “..Why Right-Wingers Think the Way They Do: The Fascinating Psychological Origins of Political Ideology..”

    http://www.alternet.org/why-right-wingers-think-way-they-do-fascinating-psychological-origins-political-ideology

  3. phillip ure 3
    30 April 2014 at 7:40 am

    “..Yet Another Disease That Responds Better to Marijuana Than Prescription Drugs..”

    http://www.alternet.org/drugs/yet-another-disease-responds-better-marijuana-prescription-drugs

    • phillip ure 3.1
      30 April 2014 at 10:45 am

      damien christie just went to colorado..

      ..and yep..!..he got high..

      “..When in Rome of course –

      and I was curious to know if the benefits of legalisation included a strain of cannabis I might enjoy.

      I wanted something that would make me giggle –

      reminiscent of my early experiences with the drug –
      probably when it was a lot less strong and/or 50% oregano-
      thanks to the local skinheads we’d buy from.

      I bought three different strains at the dispenser’s recommendation.

      Later that evening – tears were streaming down my face –

      as I laughed uncontrollably..”

      (cont..)

      http://publicaddress.net/cracker/the-colorado-experiment/

  4. phillip ure 4
    30 April 2014 at 7:43 am

    “..How Piketty’s Bombshell Book Blows Up Libertarian Fantasies..

    Sorry – Ayn Rand.

    Your fiction has been exposed as – well – fiction..”

    http://www.alternet.org/economy/how-pikettys-bombshell-book-blows-libertarian-fantasies

  5. geoff 5
    30 April 2014 at 8:22 am

    Regarding Labour’s monetary policy, I think this is the best way to think about it…As David Parker said: “Ask them if they would rather have more money in their savings accounts or lost forever to an overseas lender.”

    Now Labour just needs to provide a really good policy to make sure low-income and renters don’t get punished by this.

    • phillip ure 5.1
      30 April 2014 at 8:28 am

      yes..it’s quite hilarious that the only argument the right can muster/mount..

      ..is:..’but what about the poor..?’..

      .should we be cynical about the newfound care/concern from the right for those this govt has spent six years resolutely screwing over/demonising/scapegoating..?

      (i mean..bill ‘i pray for the poor on sundays at church..they need nothing else’ english even managed to squeeze out a crocodile tear or two..)

      • Rosie 5.1.1
        30 April 2014 at 8:46 am

        You have to laugh at the hypocrisy of the right when they say “but, but. but, what about the poor”. They are so see through!

        In the meantime Kim Campbell from the EMA seemed to be conditionally supportive of the policy last night on 3 news as did someone (missed their name) from Federated Farmers on RNZ this a.m. When National funders and friends warm to the oppositions policy, you know Key and Co will be worried.

        • fender 5.1.1.1
          30 April 2014 at 11:38 am

          Yes but when TV3 put Mike Pero the real estate guy on the screen to say it was a bad idea I changed over to One News. It’s weird because I expected Gower to be the one to give me the final push from 3News, I won’t be going back EVER.

          • Rosie 5.1.1.1.1
            30 April 2014 at 12:58 pm

            Yeah, Mike Pero made me groan. I did a 3news ban for a few weeks when Gower just got way out of line with his Cunliffe bashing. I think that was at the time when a few readers here made formal complaints about Gower to 3news and to the Broadcasting Standards Authority…..

          • Ron 5.1.1.1.2
            30 April 2014 at 1:11 pm

            I changed over to One News

            You must like the National Party. Had a look at TVNZ board of directors lately?

            • fender 5.1.1.1.2.1
              30 April 2014 at 1:47 pm

              Actually Ron I hate the National Party, but at least One News were more balanced in their reporting of the policy release, and they didn’t go to a real estate salesman/mortgage broker for his biased opinion as if he were some expert on monetary policy.

      • Draco T Bastard 5.1.2
        30 April 2014 at 8:55 am

        Oh, you can be sure that National have no concerns about the poor. The reason why they like higher interest rates is because all the interest goes to the rich. National are concerned that if Labour succeed in lowering interest rates then the wealth accumulation of the rich will slow down.

    • felix 5.2
      30 April 2014 at 8:37 am

      But interest rates are factored into rents. When interest rates rise, rents rise.

      The policy proposes to swap one control of interest rates for another.

      I don’t see how renters are any worse off than owners in this regard.

      • bad12 5.2.1
        30 April 2014 at 9:00 am

        All part of the ”free market con” felix, you will notice that when interest rates drop as they have over the past five or six years rents Never go down,

        Those owning rentals will be along shortly to tell us all that because of low interest rates they didn’t put up their rental prices as much as they would have,(something that cannot really be proven either way),

        My view is this, Rents need be controlled, we used to have a State Housing stock of such robustness, Mum and Dad both working low waged jobs with four kids could expect to be housed, that rents were largely kept in check in the private sector,

        Government have now more or less abdicated such a responsibility, my view considering the lack of will to provide the necessary State owned housing stock is that at a point of income, with the number of children involved also taken into account, the Government should ensure that the low waged working demographic with families should pay no more than 25% of their income as rent even when renting in the private sector,

        Where that point of income actually is, the indication of ‘poverty’ would be a good starting point i cannot say as an amount of dollars earned but while this low waged working demographic is forced to rent in the private sector paying at times 50%+ of their income as rent they will never be able to escape such poverty…

        • cricklewood 5.2.1.1
          30 April 2014 at 9:53 am

          Past government’s have certainly abdicated responsibility for housing and any semblace of market balance by farming out social housing to private landlords.
          Rents are increased and often paid by accommodation supplements which effectively mean that the govt is paying the mortgage effectively gifting property to private landlords.
          To give you an idea a former colleague had been buying ex state houses and effectively renting them through Winz long story short he always received rent and could increase it year on year by a couple of % without complaint.
          Once he had equity he leveraged the next he had around 10 last I heard…
          The huge mistake has been removing the govt owned stock and then instead of building it back up coming up with easy options like rent subsidies which just transfer wealth.
          Taxpayers gettin ripped off royally basically…

          • bad12 5.2.1.1.1
            30 April 2014 at 10:22 am

            Cricklewood, i agree with what you are saying, however, i have been thinking over recent weeks,(i know what a shock, and the smell of burning neurons is atrocious), i have no belief that either National or Labour have the will to build the necessary number of State Houses to enable the low waged families,(as they used to do), access to housing that would as a cost be 25% of their income,

            National at the moment are busily ripping apart the HousingNZ estate claiming that they want this to shrink by 20%,(and insinuating that private charities can take up this 20% of housing need),

            The abdication of responsibility means that there is little chance of a sufficient rebuild occurring thus my thinking has extended to the point where i cannot focus upon ‘how enriching’ particular housing subsidies are to private sector landlords,

            i believe we are at the point where not only charitable organizations are offered the full Government subsidy for housing those in need,(the social housing of today being further defined as the province of beneficiaries only), but this full subsidy may need be extended to City Councils and (perhaps) even private landlords who are prepared to rent to low waged working families based upon a rental of 25% of their income,

            As previously, the question is at which point of income should a low waged working family be offered housing public or private based upon that 25% of income, where is the poverty line and does such a calculation need be based around the number of children in the family group,

            $40,000 a year and lower, $30,000 a year and lower,???…

        • srylands 5.2.1.2
          30 April 2014 at 10:23 am

          The answer to poverty is to raise incomes. Rent controls always have perverse effects.

          You seem to want the Government to regulate just about everything, rather than embracing markets. (Just for a start – people on low incomes should not have four kids – or any kids.)

          • left for dead 5.2.1.2.1
            30 April 2014 at 10:36 am

            poorlands,…I’ll pass you the knife,.an could you drop it,into donkeys hand as you bleed out.Lovers last stand.

            [lprent: There is no point in that comment. I’d suggest that you read the policy about pointless abuse and moderator attitudes to people who try to start flamewars with it.

            You are also implicitly suggesting (self-)violence which is also something we don’t want here.

            If I see anything like this again from you again, then you’ll be suffering a long holiday away from commenting here. This is your warning. ]

            • left for dead 5.2.1.2.1.1
              30 April 2014 at 6:51 pm

              IPRENT..please except my apology.

              [lprent: Just a behavioural change is sufficient. ]

          • vto 5.2.1.2.2
            30 April 2014 at 10:37 am

            “Just for a start – people on low incomes should not have four kids – or any kids”

            And you complain about people being rude to you?

            You are a piece of shit for the views you hold about people and what they should be entitled or otherwise to do with their lives. Your view on communities and how human beings live together are complete and utter rudeness of the highest order. I have no interest in having people like you in a society I live in and endorse every spec of rudeness thrown your way.

            Fuck off srylands, you are rude to the point of blindness (and danger).

            • fender 5.2.1.2.2.1
              30 April 2014 at 11:41 am

              +1 vto

            • Murray Olsen 5.2.1.2.2.2
              30 April 2014 at 10:26 pm

              +2
              Heartless Randian dogs should be neutered at birth, then castrated. These guys will do anything and everything in their power to stop us rebuilding the society they took from us. They don’t care if they take the planet down with them, and need to be neutralised.

              [lprent: You are getting close to the edge of tolerance. ]

          • cricklewood 5.2.1.2.3
            30 April 2014 at 10:57 am

            Do think accommodation supplements are appropriate? Would you agree with the premise that such supplements to a degree cushion the direct consequence of a rent increase thus allowing more regular rent increases thus driving higher prices due to better roi.

            Above all are you happy that tax dollars fund it?

            I will agree that rent controls arent overly desirable but neither are rent subsidies which are distorting the precious ‘market’

          • bad12 5.2.1.2.4
            30 April 2014 at 10:59 am

            For you SSLands, please provide links to your ”assertion that i seem to want the Government to regulate everything”, more of your lies,

            🙄 🙄 …

          • Disraeli Gladstone 5.2.1.2.5
            30 April 2014 at 11:07 am

            What about people who had a nice household income, lost their partner, had to take a paycut to keep their job?

            Do their children magically disappear?

          • Jackal 5.2.1.2.6
            30 April 2014 at 2:03 pm

            You’re a complete idiot srylands. Firstly, New Zealanders aren’t having enough children. Secondly, because Kiwi’s aren’t procreating enough we’ve had to encourage immigration. The reason this is done is because without a stable or expanding population our economy would stagnate. So you can either encourage New Zealanders to have children irrespective of their incomes or you can increase immigration, what would you prefer?

            • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1.2.6.1
              30 April 2014 at 2:11 pm

              And the increasing immigration is encouraging some people to leave as there already aren’t enough jobs. The ones who leave are, of course, our ‘best and brightest’.

            • fender 5.2.1.2.6.2
              30 April 2014 at 2:35 pm

              Srylands has an ambition to own a few immigrant families to keep as slaves, please don’t interfere with his plans..

          • Skinny 5.2.1.2.7
            30 April 2014 at 4:30 pm

            I must remember to pop over to quote you Shrillands to the well heeled catholic family with 7 kids who live across the street from my family in Epsom. I’m sure they would be highly offended a senior member of the ACT party is insulting their faith, I hear they are from humble beginnings, they would be mortified at such views of selective breeding. Of course I know they were horrified at your leaders insestuious beliefs.

            Not doing your ACT Party many favours trotting out lines like that sorry to say my friend.
            I shall add this to my snake oil speel when I go door knocking for the National candidates vote in Epsom. Btw managered to get that National party rosette. Got it off a former young Nat who I got a job for. Let’s just say he saw the folly of his ways 🙂

            • bad12 5.2.1.2.7.1
              30 April 2014 at 4:57 pm

              Skinny Lolz, that is style, pity i didn’t live up your way or i would come door knocking for the enemies vote in Epsom with you Lolz….

          • Weepu's Beard 5.2.1.2.8
            30 April 2014 at 7:36 pm

            That’s pretty sick from Srylands. What an appalling society he advocates. One where only the wealthy are allowed children.

            Heard he doesn’t even live in NZ, which begs the question: what has Srylands done for this country?

        • Clemgeopin 5.2.1.3
          30 April 2014 at 10:57 am

          What if the law states that no rent for houses can be more than 25% the median national income?

          The median is now about $68,600 which works out to $1,329 per week. 25% of that=$329.

          I wonder what will be the good and bad consequences of such a law on the housing crises and the economy in the short term and in the long term.

      • Disraeli Gladstone 5.2.2
        30 April 2014 at 9:06 am

        Not really, though.

        Firstly, rents won’t decrease (they hardly ever do). So with compulsory Kiwisaver, people who were poor off and decided to forego Kiwisaver till they’re in a better situation, now have to contribute to Kiwisaver with the same rent because it won’t go down.

        It is a bit of a slap in the face for lower income renters.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.2.1
          30 April 2014 at 11:05 am

          Unless other factors increase their wage packet, that is. Funnily enough, I seem to recall that being a part of Labour’s economic strategy.

          Gosh, it’s all just one coincidence after another around here.

    • Rosie 5.3
      30 April 2014 at 8:39 am

      +1 Geoff. Everyone needs to benefit from this policy. No one should go without at the expense of others.

    • bad12 5.4
      30 April 2014 at 8:47 am

      David Parker this morning saying ”oh yes the low waged workers will be looked after”, unfortunately until Parker spills the beans on exactly how those earning low wages will be looked after this looks to me like a policy directed at protecting anyone who operates their lives or part of their lives on debt,

      Parker then went on to ‘spin’ the line that this policy will provide lots of high paying jobs, again to me this is ”spin” with zero detail,

      It is counter-intuitive to suggest that forcing the low waged to save will create jobs let alone high paid jobs, the current means of controlling inflation destroys jobs by pulling money out of the economy,(giving it straight to the trading banks), there is little difference in pulling money out of the economy and giving it to the trading banks who are the majority of kiwi-saver account holders,

      There is NO imperative for the trading banks to invest the compulsory savings in the New Zealand economy so they will simply invest such retirement savings where they can squeeze the biggest profits from it,

      So squeezing inflation out of the economy using either tool is likely to lead to increased unemployment not more high paying jobs,(except for those employed to process the increased amount of people forced to pay 3+ of their wages into retirement savings)…

      • geoff 5.4.1
        30 April 2014 at 9:41 am

        looks to me like a policy directed at protecting anyone who operates their lives or part of their lives on debt,

        Unfortunately that is a great many people indeed.

      • phillip ure 5.4.2
        30 April 2014 at 9:47 am

        and parker needs to be congratulated for smart thinking for leaving any announcements about ‘the poor’ .. until later..

        ..far better tactically to get those on side who ..at first blush..parker seems to have succeeded in getting onside..for this macro economic policy-package..

        ..and then later..after everyone has settled down/into labours’ plan..

        …and under the banner labour-is-for-everyone..(?)

        ..labour can slide in their poverty-breaking policies..

        ..(of course..i am assuming here that they have these/such policies..eh..?..)

        • Bearded Git 5.4.2.1
          30 April 2014 at 10:55 am

          Exactly Phillip. The help for the poor will come in policies announced much closer to the election so the Nats don’t steal them.

          Meanwhile keep the message simple re interest rates and Kiwisaver.

          Parker has done a great ,job here. In Parker and Cunliffe Labour has 2 very smart cookies leading the charge-IMO they are more innovative and eloquent than English/Key.

      • Clemgeopin 5.4.3
        30 April 2014 at 11:22 am

        One way I can think of to ‘look after’ the low waged would be to say the minimum contribution of 2% will not ‘compulsorily’ go up for then until their annual individual income rises to a certain threshold (say the median national income of $68,600 or 60% of it or 75% or some such %).
        There may be other mitigating solutions that other posters here may think of or Mr Parker may be considering.

    • blue leopard 5.5
      30 April 2014 at 9:48 am

      +2 Geoff (5), well said.

    • Pete George 5.6
      30 April 2014 at 10:02 am

      Now Labour just needs to provide a really good policy to make sure low-income and renters don’t get punished by this.

      That’s Labour’s biggest challenge.

      At 9% (Labour’s suggested Kiwisaver rate):
      $30,000 is $2,700
      $40,000 is $3,600
      $50,000 is $4,500

      How can they “not punish” people earning those amounts? If they have children their effective PAYE less WFF credit means they are pay little or no income tax.

      And how can they ‘not punish’ them without being unfair to those who already contribute to Kiwisaver?

      David Parker has talked about increasing the minimum wage and using a living wage but these are substantial amounts, and it will be very difficult to be fair to all.

      What about a solo parent who works 30 hours a week on $25 per hour ($39,000 pa)?

      • Jackal 5.6.1
        30 April 2014 at 2:25 pm

        Ah Pete, you do realise that the money is actually savings and not a tax? Therefore your use of the word “punish” all over the place is incorrect.

        If incomes have to be adjusted higher to offset the increase, what’s the problem? Increasing kiwisaver funds will benefit people in the long run, especially first time home buyers.

        There will also be lower interest rates on credit cards and loans. Rents will probably not go up as fast and higher purchase agreements will likely be more easily accessible to people on low incomes.

        So a solo parent who works 30 hours a week will be better off under Labours proposal.

  6. phillip ure 6
    30 April 2014 at 8:23 am

    the two reasons john key should decriminalise pot..

    ..it will solve the legal-high brouhaha..overnite..

    ..and he could possibly deal kim dotcom/the internet party a body blow..

    http://whoar.co.nz/2014/vote-blue-smoke-green-should-the-tories-go-for-the-stoner-vote-comment-the-two-compelling-reasons-john-key-should-deriminalise-cannabis/

  7. geoff 7
    30 April 2014 at 8:33 am

    John Key has made a bad decision by going against Labour’s monetary policy.

    Natural National party bedfellows like business NZ, Federated farmers and the manufacturers union all like the Labour party policy so John Key is alienating himself.

    Also the bank economists on RNZ are a bunch of lying, theiving crooks who are spinning faster than Matthew Hooton to paint this as bad policy because they are going to lose so much ill-gotten profit if this policy goes ahead.

    • freedom 7.1
      30 April 2014 at 9:22 am

      Think back a few years, quite a few years, bankers were the most vocal supporters of introducing User Pays education into the Tertiary sector. Billions of dollars of debt later …… smiling bankers.

      Now with Labour’s new policy, bankers are out there screaming the sky will fall.

      Call me cycnical, but the policy must have something good for the people if the bankers hate it so much.

  8. Draco T Bastard 8
    30 April 2014 at 8:34 am

    It is the secret scandal of capitalism that at no point has it been organised primarily around free labour. The conquest of the Americas began with mass enslavement, then gradually settled into various forms of debt peonage, African slavery, and “indentured service” – that is, the use of contract labour, workers who had received cash in advance and were thus bound for five, seven or ten year terms to pay it back. Needless to say, indentured servants were recruited largely from among people who were already debtors.

    Debt: The first 5000 years by David Graeber

    So much for capitalism being about freedom. Or, perhaps, what the capitalists really mean is the freedom of the few to exploit everyone else.

  9. bad12 9
    30 April 2014 at 9:09 am

    Two comments in moderation already this morning, someone might like to tell me which sensitivity i have offended???…

    [lprent: I released several comments with a mis-spelling of Hooton’s name. Could have been one of those. I have a standing policy that when I see the over-use of mis-spellings of names that I add them to auto-moderation and see how long it is before people learn to correct them.

    But there has also been an irritating bug in the auto-scaler at AWS for the last couple of days that I’m trying to get them to fix. When the CPU gets high, the system starts dropping comments into moderation. ]

    • bad12 9.1
      30 April 2014 at 4:46 pm

      Tah for that, i think it might have been the length of the comments, i got caught out on the Hooton one last week,(and yup going into moderation modified the neurons enough to always check when using that ones name so it wasn’t that this morning)

      My shorter comments have all posted straight away this morning even between the two that got shunted into moderation…

    • Matthew Hooton 9.2
      30 April 2014 at 4:48 pm

      Just by the way, I don’t really care all that much if people misspell my name. Not sure why it leads to moderation.

  10. Disraeli Gladstone 10
    30 April 2014 at 9:24 am

    I wanted to bring up a potential situation which is probably reasonably common across the country:

    A single parent with multiple kids, potentially three or four. Maybe the parent is a widow, maybe they receive some support from the other parent, maybe the other parent fled the country. They earn around $50,000. That’s not bad. It’s under the median income but they’re definitely not counted as a person on low income. They even get a bit of Working for Families.

    However, they’re a renter. They also have a car they’re still paying off: nothing flash, something to get by which wouldn’t also have to go into repairs often. They have various school fees and uniforms and books and trips to pay for. Electricity bills are always a bit of a concern.

    Now, the parent is doing okay. They want the best for their kids. So they budget accordingly. Healthy food over cheap rubbish, so they don’t have any silly gym membership or anything like that. They want their kids to have books and internet so maybe they don’t get Sky TV. It’s a nice life without being affluent. It’s also rather tediously poised. They’ll be some weeks when the parent is scrambling for every cent: unexpected school fee, kid’s shoes have broken, etc. It’s comfortable without ever being safe.

    One of the things they have to consider is Kiwisaver. They decide against it. They can’t afford it yet. Once the kids are older, they’ll open one up.

    When I say potential situation, I am largely writing about a good friend of mine.

    Suddenly, under Labour’s new policy, everything changes. They have to contribute to Kiwisaver. That’s a certain percentage of their income gone. They can’t withstand the unexpected expenses now, school fees and new uniforms are dreaded. And this is someone on a reasonable salary. They’re nearly going under. Furthermore, the rate is variable, how is that person meant to budget? A responsible way of life of budgeting essentials and nice-to-haves is suddenly thrown away with the risk that soon their Kiwisaver contributions might rise. Maybe the kids don’t get their books, maybe they have to downsize the car and cringe with every WOF, maybe they have to downsize a house and have multiple children in each room in a more dangerous part of town.

    That’s why I really don’t like this policy. It hurts people. It’s going to really hurt the low income families, but they’re going to be offered protection. I’m worried lower-middle income families are going to be left stranded on the rocks. Even if they can survive without going under, they’re being forced to cut their quality of life to subside people with mortgages. They’ll never buy their own place now.

    It’s asking people to ruin their life to save for retirement.

    I think Danyl Mclauchlan had it nicely explained when he said:

    “Universal KiwiSaver and a tool to adjust KiwiSaver rates to keep mortgage rates low? I think you can do one of these but not both. If you’re going to compel people to save their money because its good for the economy then that’s one thing. But if you’re going to compel people to save money and then modify the rates to benefit a smaller subset of people who have mortgages you’re in the tricky position of higher rates having a disproportionate impact on lower income earners – who are unlikely to own a home – and benefiting higher income people with mortgages. That’s hard to justify.”

    • Pete George 10.1
      30 April 2014 at 9:38 am

      “That’s a certain percentage of their income gone.”

      9% of $50,000 is $4500 per year or $86.54 per week
      – Labour’s proposed rate, up from the current 6% (3+3)

      A double whammy where both parents/partners are working.

      • Ant 10.1.1
        30 April 2014 at 12:23 pm

        The 9% is half employer so 4.5% in reality.

        • Pete George 10.1.1.1
          30 April 2014 at 1:21 pm

          In reality 9% – whether the employer pays you and you contribute a part of that (actually your employee extracts that before you see it) or your employer contributes a part makes little difference for most people, it’s all a part of the same pay package.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.1.2
          30 April 2014 at 1:48 pm

          You’re right Ant. Never mind Petty’s low-life dishonesty.

          The employer contribution doesn’t come out of wages.

          • Pete George 10.1.1.2.1
            30 April 2014 at 2:03 pm

            Thanks for the link.

            Your employer compulsory contributions must be on top of your employee’s regular pay. This means that if you have agreed to a total remuneration package with your employee, the compulsory employer contributions must be paid on top of that package. Your employee’s take-home pay should not be reduced because you are making a compulsory contribution.

            Through good faith bargaining, a salary package under an employment agreement can be negotiated whereby compulsory employer contributions can be offset against the employee’s gross pay.

            When private companies employ staff they have to consider the whole package, not just the regular pay rate. Some employees might be lucky that employeers reduced their profits to increase pay packages but the second paragraph is the reality for many employees, especially over time.

            Nevertheless, we expect employers will factor in the cost increases when negotiating wage and salary increases in the intervening period – particularly in the State Sector in the year ahead.

            https://www.buddlefindlay.com/article/2011/05/24/changes-to-kiwisaver-key-issues-for-employers

            A “total remuneration” arrangement allows an employer to set a fixed remuneration amount for each employee. If the employee joins KiwiSaver, the cost of the employer contribution comes out of the employee’s pay.

            http://www.raineycollins.co.nz/your-resources/articles/further-important-changes-on-total-remuneration-approaches-to-kiwisaver/

            It’s impossible to know what sort of remuneration arrangements there are overall, but any employer has to factor in the cost to them of Kiwisaver.

    • bad12 10.2
      30 April 2014 at 9:56 am

      Indeed, what you have written there is exactly why i am seeing RED over such a plan, it isn’t only a small subset of 400,000 mortgage holders that the low waged are in effect being told they have to pay for with 3%+ of their weekly income,

      The OCR effects all debt from the factory to the farm, so the low waged are being told they have to underwrite the cost of interest paid across the economy with the ‘benefit’ of having some retirement saving IF they ever reach that age of retirement,

      i will also suggest here that 67 as the age of retirement is not written in stone and that ‘another imperative’ will be found in the future to move that age of eligibility out to 70 as other jurisdictions are now doing…

      • phillip ure 10.2.1
        30 April 2014 at 10:16 am

        when one is singing the chorus of one pete george..

        ..this must surely give one pause for reconsideration..?

        ..and i wonder just how many more times does it need to be repeated..

        ..that parker said he wd release policy around poverty/low-income later…?

        • Disraeli Gladstone 10.2.1.1
          30 April 2014 at 10:22 am

          “..that parker said he wd release policy around poverty/low-income later…”

          That’s nice of him. Leave the most vulnerable members of society to worry about what a change of government might mean for them.

          At least the middle-classes are well off.

        • bad12 10.2.1.2
          30 April 2014 at 10:33 am

          Hardly singing Georges chorus, i said much the same thing echoing Karol’s comment in Open Mike yesterday befor George got in on the act,

          So if Parker has given such scant regard to the low waged workers that He has not thought through the effects upon those low waged workers in such a robust nature as to be able to announce what relieving measures He proposes then He has left himself open to criticism hasn’t He Phillip,

          You and Federated Farmers Phillip, cheerleaders of ‘the plan’, that says to me that the working poor should be vary wary of having in the end 9% of their income ripped outta their pockets on behalf of ‘protecting’ the amount of interest the already rich and well off pay…

          • One Anonymous Bloke 10.2.1.2.1
            30 April 2014 at 10:38 am

            Get ready to eat crow when the actual policy is released, in the meantime I’m sure Oravida are grateful.

      • fisiani 10.2.2
        30 April 2014 at 10:27 am

        Labours plan means no wage rises for the next year or two for the low paid as any planned wage rise gets stolen (I usethat word deliberately as it is taken without consent) to keep interest rates low to help those with massive mortgages. How does penalising the poor to help the rich fit with what Labour is supposed to care about? This yet another massive own goal.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.2.2.1
          30 April 2014 at 10:34 am

          Well, unless you take the view that you’re a biased partisan idiot who has zero credibility when it comes to critiquing Left wing policy.

          Yeah, I think that seems far more likely.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.3
      30 April 2014 at 10:10 am

      Did you check the part in Parker’s interview on The Nation where he mentioned that considerations would have to be made about the effect of the policy on low-income families?

      Low income families who can expect more in their wage packets under a Labour led govt.?

      PS: that the Fact Mangler General has some ready made biased assumptions to tell you should be a big clue that the answer to your question might not be so banal and simplistic.

      • Disraeli Gladstone 10.3.1
        30 April 2014 at 10:17 am

        My concern is multi-fold:

        A: What is classified as a “low-income” family? Are a section of society who are getting by but not considered “poor” suddenly going to have to live a Franciscan life? Considerations better be extended to most families anywhere under the median income.

        B: Even if considerations are made, the lack of certainty on the contribution rate is suddenly going to make budgeting a lot harder.

        C: Then Labour should increase the wages of low income families BEFORE implementing this policy. Because wages won’t spike suddenly.

        D: I also have concerns over students with student loans who may wish to postpone their involvement in Kiwisaver until after they’ve paid off their debt. Consideration should be extended to them, but it won’t be. Or make education free again, but that won’t happen either.

        It’s a bad policy. I’d much prefer to drop the compulsory element for now and keep the variable contribution rate. The basic economics of upping savings instead of increase interest rates is a good one. Just keep the scheme as an opt-out scheme so that you’re not killing people.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.3.1.1
          30 April 2014 at 10:23 am

          How can more money staying onshore be a bad thing? I think you’re treating one aspect of it in isolation. There are going to be other factors in play. Labour will not suddenly forget their historic ability to increase wages and employment levels at a much faster rate than the Oravida Party.

          • Disraeli Gladstone 10.3.1.1.1
            30 April 2014 at 10:29 am

            Like I said, that principle isn’t a bad one. And you can do that by saying to people with mortgages (or people who voluntary join Kiwisaver), instead of increasing interest rates, we’ll increase Kiwisaver contributions.

            I don’t think Kiwisaver needs to be compulsory for that to work.

          • bad12 10.3.1.1.2
            30 April 2014 at 11:12 am

            OAB, what makes you think that ”’more money will stay onshore”, you only have to ask yourself where the majority of current retirement savings are ”invested” to know that the money from kiwi-saver accounts aint going to stay in New Zealand,

            You also have to ask yourself who holds the majority of those kiwi-saver in New Zealand a dont lo and behold its the trading banks who will make even more profits from having compulsion added to the scheme,

            Meanwhile low waged workers get a haircut of an initial 3% of their wages plus pay more for what they buy IF the New Zealand dollar depreciates in value as David Parker says it will…

            • One Anonymous Bloke 10.3.1.1.2.1
              30 April 2014 at 11:26 am

              Say that’s true, and the policy has a downward effect on household income, it will not be the only thing affecting said income. Labour is committed to decreasing poverty and inequality. I don’t think you can point to one policy plank as representative of the overall picture.

              You are ignoring the effects of both the living wage for govt. employees and an immediate minimum wage rise.

              You’re ignoring the effect of more investment in manufacturing and R&D.

              You’re ignoring the effects of the loss of Bill English’s very special talents.

            • Pete George 10.3.1.1.2.2
              30 April 2014 at 11:32 am

              “IF the New Zealand dollar depreciates in value as David Parker says it will…”

              Barry Soper points out:

              Labour’s also arguing low interest rates will lower the value of the dollar. But for the past five years, we’ve had record low interest rates but a record high dollar. It’s a little hard to follow Labour’s logic.

              http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/opinion/poly-report-for-apr-30

              • Disraeli Gladstone …
                30 April 2014 at 12:01 pm

                Pretty simple explanation for that. Interest rates in New Zealand are at record low’s. But still comparatively high as compared to other developed countries.

                Not really rocket science.

                • phillip ure …
                  30 April 2014 at 12:12 pm

                  an easily checkable ‘fact’..?

                  ..and barry soper..?..are you kidding me..?

                  ..i have long ago rewritten his stentorian sign-off..

                  “..i’m barry soper..!

                  ..and i know sweet fuck all..!..”

                • Pete George …
                  30 April 2014 at 12:29 pm

                  Yes, interest rates have been at record lows. We must have been the same as Australia on 2.5% until we went up to 2.75 then 3.0 in the last couple of months.

                  But not as low as the US, China and other major trading countries. If we tried to match them it would be even harder to keep inflation under control, especially property.

                  Adding a Kiwisaver tool won’t have a lot of leverage compared to offshore influences. If Kiwisaver contributions are bumped up even more and don’t work, what then?

                  • Disraeli Gladstone …
                    30 April 2014 at 1:35 pm

                    No. Stop hopping between points. I was addressing why our low interest rates hasn’t seen a low dollar. We had a high dollar with low interest rates because our rates were still comparatively high to the rest of the world.

                    That’s was what I was explaining and Barry Sopher somehow didn’t understand.

                    Don’t now go dancing off to another point or I shan’t be engaging.

              • Bearded Git …
                30 April 2014 at 4:48 pm

                PG-that is the silliest thing I have heard argued on The Standard.

                If you are financially illiterate don’t comment on economics. It is the comparative interest rates that matter. As Parker explained (maybe you weren’t listening?) the hot money follows the best interest rates around the globe.

                It’s for this reason that tiny insignificant NZ has (from memory) the 7th most traded currency on the planet.

      • freedom 10.3.2
        30 April 2014 at 10:24 am

        I would suggest that the proposed across-the-board increases in the rate paid, is instead changed to an index related rate taken from income levels. Like how we pay income tax now. But of course all that would happen is certain people would throw slogans around that complain how richer people already pay more than their fair share.

        Looking around the New Zealand that most of them don’t live in, all I would say is, boohoo.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.3.2.1
          30 April 2014 at 10:32 am

          Yeah, that’s the game: equal increases in savings rates will “hurt the poor” (like these trash give a shit about people on low incomes), progressive rates will be “unfair” on those “who already pay all the tax”.

          So, will Labour let Tory tr0lls dictate monetary policy?

    • Andrew 10.4
      30 April 2014 at 10:20 am

      Completely agree 100% Disraeli.

      Force people to save in order to keep interest rates lower for the few, which affects the many by having them pay more for imported goods and earning less on their ‘compulsory’ savings.

      What if i need to save for a new car, or car repairs, or a nice holiday for my family, or new clothes, or a few Christmas presents for my kids, but i can’t now because the government has forced me to save for my retirement that i may or may not even get the chance to enjoy. Sure people are living longer, but a lot of people will die before they reach 65.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 10.4.1
        30 April 2014 at 10:28 am

        Yes, because life expectancy continues to improve! No, wait…

        As for your Chicken Little “what if” scenario, “what if” you find you’re being paid more because you have a government that isn’t owned by the rich?

        • Disraeli Gladstone 10.4.1.1
          30 April 2014 at 10:33 am

          Wages don’t magically grow overnight.

          Even if wages improve, it will take a little time to affect everyone. Unless this policy isn’t implemented until the very end of that process, people are going to suffer.

          Left-wing parties shouldn’t make poor people suffer.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 10.4.1.1.1
            30 April 2014 at 10:36 am

            And it’s nice of you to help the Oravida Party with its spin, but you have zero grounds to do so other than ill-formed assumptions.

            I suggest a close look at the fifth Labour government’s track record on wages and employment is a better guide to the effects of their policies on low income citizens.

            • Disraeli Gladstone 10.4.1.1.1.1
              30 April 2014 at 10:42 am

              “And it’s nice of you to help the Oravida Party with its spin,”

              So, let’s be clear here. People who want a fairer society can’t critique Labour Party policy because it will help National.

              This is what happens when people treat politics like a sport. You have undivided loyalty to your “team”.

              Fuck that.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                30 April 2014 at 10:53 am

                Ah, but you aren’t critiquing Labour policy. If you were, you might be asking questions like: “Parker says the sixth Labour government will ensure that its monetary policy doesn’t unfairly impact low-income citizens. Any ideas how he’s going to manage it?”

                Nothing wrong with seeing a fish-hook, but it’s drawing a long bow to immediately leap to the assumption that it was put there deliberately.

                • Disraeli Gladstone …
                  30 April 2014 at 11:02 am

                  “Ah, but you aren’t critiquing Labour policy. If you were, you might be asking questions like: “Parker says the sixth Labour government will ensure that its monetary policy doesn’t unfairly impact low-income citizens. Any ideas how he’s going to manage it?””

                  Umm.

                  I don’t think you know what the word “critique” means.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    30 April 2014 at 11:03 am

                    I don’t think you are engaging in constructive criticism.

                    • Disraeli Gladstone …
                      30 April 2014 at 11:16 am

                      That’s a matter of subjective opinion.

                      The word “critique” has a definition.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      30 April 2014 at 11:20 am

                      OK OK it’s a fair cop guv.

                    • weka …
                      30 April 2014 at 11:29 am

                      I think the issue is that your critique makes assumptions as if they are fact ie that the policy WILL do x, y, z. As far as I can tell, we don’t know enough detail yet to know that. So if you framed your critique as raising questions rather than making definitive negative statements, it would be different.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      30 April 2014 at 11:31 am

                      Thanks Weka that pretty much covers it 🙂

            • Andrew 10.4.1.1.1.2
              30 April 2014 at 10:56 am

              “I suggest a close look at the fifth Labour government’s track record on wages and employment is a better guide to the effects of their policies on low income citizens.”

              I think you will find that it had less to do with the government of the day and more to do with the general economy and a debt fueled boom that proceeded the recession.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                30 April 2014 at 10:58 am

                Yeah, that’s the Oravida spin line. Don’t you have any independent opinions of your own?

                • Andrew …
                  30 April 2014 at 11:05 am

                  WTF with the continual “Oravida Line” bollocks. Stop deflecting. Since when have Oravida been discussing our monetary policy which is what this discussion is about.

        • Andrew 10.4.1.2
          30 April 2014 at 10:53 am

          I said that people are living longer, but not everyone will make it to 65, or 67, or whatever figure the government deems necessary.

          Those “what if” scenarios are indeed all too common, nice straw man though. The government can’t magic you more money. Businesses need to be in a situation where they can afford to pay you more money.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 10.4.1.2.1
            30 April 2014 at 11:02 am

            Yes, and more money staying onshore will be part of that equation. Pretty obvious once you take off your milk-smeared glasses.

            • Andrew 10.4.1.2.1.1
              30 April 2014 at 11:11 am

              “more money staying onshore”

              KiwiSaver investments are a mixture of bank deposits, term deposits, property investments, and share portfolios. A fair amount of this money will be heading off overseas the same as it is now.

              If you have a Cash, or Conservative fund type, most of your money will be in the bank, earning less interest as this policy will be supposedly be keeping interest rates down, affecting savers.

              • Colonial Viper …
                30 April 2014 at 11:14 am

                How can interest rates be “kept down” when major central banks like the BoE, BoJ, ECB, Fed Reserve etc are printing new money at 0% interest rates?

                You do understand that interest rates are abitrarily set by central banks using very efficient targeting mechanisms don’t you – they do not result from the supply and demand of money. That is how the Federal Reserve can loan out money at 0%.

                • Andrew …
                  30 April 2014 at 11:27 am

                  I’m talking about Labour’s line that these monetary policy changes will help keep our interest rates lower than they would otherwise be under the standard inflation target.

                  not my line.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    30 April 2014 at 11:29 am

                    Yes, it’s good to see them commit to that goal. What do you suppose they’ll do if the new toolkit doesn’t work?

                    • Andrew …
                      30 April 2014 at 11:45 am

                      I dunno, maybe apologise to the 1000’s of low income people that they forcibly took money off by making them sign up to KiwiSaver when they couldn’t afford to?

                    • weka …
                      30 April 2014 at 11:51 am

                      So when Parker says that low-income people will be better off with the policy, do you think he is lying?

                    • Andrew …
                      30 April 2014 at 11:53 am

                      yes

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      30 April 2014 at 11:56 am

                      Andrew doesn’t know, but his visions are all bad.

                      I think his bias is showing just a tiny bit.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      30 April 2014 at 11:57 am

                      😆 …and a conspiracy theorist to boot. Too funny 😆

                    • Andrew …
                      30 April 2014 at 12:11 pm

                      “conspiracy theorist to boot”

                      do tell?

                      ok, so lets think about this. goal of monetary policy changes: keep interest rates lower, keep NZ$ lower, force people to save for retirement.

                      at the most simple terms for low income earners with no mortgage …

                      interest rates lower = earn less interest on my forced savings
                      keep NZ$ lower = imported goods cost more
                      forced savings = less money in my pocket every week

                      people on low incomes don’t need money in 30 – 40 years, they need that money now. Parker’s line that they will be better off, sure, they will be better off when they get to retirement, but they will be worse off now.

                      and if Australia has shown us anything, it’s that compulsory retirement savings, does little, if anything to the overall net savings rate as people borrow more and retire with more debt.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      30 April 2014 at 12:19 pm

                      Do tell.

                      Simple, you assume that if Parker is wrong it must be because he’s lying as opposed to mistaken or incompetent. Pretty much the defining assumption of the conspiracy theorist.

                    • weka …
                      30 April 2014 at 5:04 pm

                      Which begs the question of why Andrew thinks Parker is lying.

            • Mainlander 10.4.1.2.1.2
              30 April 2014 at 11:59 am

              OAB why dont you take the advice you so readily give and fuck off, you offer nothing to the conversation on here, you hi-jack every thread with your spiteful rantings, some of us like to read the comments to actually learn something only to be bombarded by your neverending crap, yeah we get it you dont like Hooton, P George, National or anyone that disagrees with your myopic view, grow up man

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                30 April 2014 at 12:09 pm

                This in response to my remark that more money onshore (accumulating in individual savers accounts) will help provide a stronger domestic economy, along with other positive measures planned.

                Or perhaps it was the Oravida comment. Anyway Mainlander, pretty much the only comments you ever offer are about me, so which one of us brings more to the table?

              • blue leopard …
                30 April 2014 at 12:09 pm

                I disagree with your comment Mainlander.

                I find OAB’s comments very constructive to the conversation. Perhaps his questions are making you uncomfortable and it is you that is battling with myopic tendencies?

      • fisiani 10.4.2
        30 April 2014 at 1:24 pm

        Absolutely Andrew
        If you wanted a plan to really piss off the working class then here it is. It does not matter how the details will be constructed. No one listens to the caveats. All they will hear is the poor being robbed to make the mortgages of the rich cheaper.
        The blunder after blunder of these statements whether it is a baby bonus (but only for some) a rise in vets pensions(but actually not) getting trucks off at least 68/70,000km of highway, dropping $200 off electricity by nationalising but adding $500 to pay carbon tax and now robbing the poor to help the rich cannot be accidental. Someone in Labour is planning to lose really really badly in September. I see the hidden hand of Grant (the oh so silent one) Robertson encouraging such daft ideas to come to fruition. Who benefits from electoral disaster? The fat lad. The traitor.

  11. freedom 11
    30 April 2014 at 9:40 am

    I am not an expert on economics and though I may throw out ideas now and then, I never claim to know all the answers, so I have a question about this policy.

    Will not the same lowering of interest rates that helps mortgage holders also help generate a lot more loans for the expansion of existing businesses and the generation of new businesses ?

    This will in turn help increase employment, (and hopefully wages) which increases tax take as well as increases Kiwisaver which helps develop the funds which lowers the interest rates which helps generate new business etc etc

    or have I got it wrong?

    • ianmac 11.1
      30 April 2014 at 10:34 am

      freedom: “Will not the same lowering of interest rates that helps mortgage holders also help generate a lot more loans for the expansion of existing businesses and the generation of new businesses ?”
      I think that is what David Parker said and that the new business = more jobs. He also said (I think?) that the minimum wage would be increased to $16 per hour. It would mean that the “low wage earner” might avoid the income drop.
      Bill English has a new terrible concern for the low wage earner (hypocrite) yet brought in lower youth rates and raised minimum wage by about a miserable 25cents.

      • Colonial Viper 11.1.1
        30 April 2014 at 11:11 am

        It would mean that the “low wage earner” might avoid the income drop.

        So the low wage earner, who is already living hand to mouth with debts piling up, gets to stay still thanks to Labour’s thoughtfulness. Maybe.

        Why do I doubt that is going to engender much gratitude from the 800K-900K non-voters out there.

      • freedom 11.1.2
        30 April 2014 at 11:44 am

        I didn’t frame my comment very clearly I guess. Long night painting 🙂 so off to bed.

        What I was trying to understand is how and why so much of the discussion appears focused on mortgages, instead of how this policy could be shaped to impact positively on the wider economy as a whole? Which, in my admittedly naive understanding of monetary policy, is meant to be the chief objective of all this policy brouhaha. There seems to be a lot self-interest being discussed. Driven by some pipe dream that there is a way out? That by swimming alone we can somehow stop circling the drain of capitalism’s inevitability.

    • Draco T Bastard 11.2
      30 April 2014 at 11:00 am

      That would be the theory but, then, the theory of economics that we’ve been following for the last thirty years also said that we’d be better off under it as well and we aren’t. I’m putting this policy into the twiddling at the edges category and failing to do the necessary reforms.

  12. weka 12
    30 April 2014 at 9:53 am

    I’m confused… Does the Labour policy apply to all interest rates or just mortgage ones? People are talking as if the only debt NZers have is mortgage debt.

    • Colonial Viper 12.1
      30 April 2014 at 10:28 am

      Good point. Having said that, a 0.25% base interest rate change has no significant effect on credit card debt at 21.95%. Which is basically just extortion through usury.

      • weka 12.1.1
        30 April 2014 at 11:15 am

        Why does it affect mortgages then?

        • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.1
          30 April 2014 at 11:23 am

          No idea. Remember only a small proportion of mortgage money outstanding is affected immediately. Maybe it’s just an excuse to move their profit margins around like what petrol companies do when the crude oil price changes. When you take out a $250,000 mortgage Westpac does not take the $250,000 from the NZ Reserve Bank to dish out to you and I.

          Especially when ANZ, BNZ, Westpac etc source their funds on international money markets, and not from the NZ Reserve Bank.

    • greywarbler 12.2
      30 April 2014 at 12:29 pm

      Weka you’re in royal purple instead of plebeian red. Have you changed platforms?
      If you leave, can I come too? Dah dah. Mental as anything?

  13. greywarbler 13
    30 April 2014 at 10:15 am

    Interesting interviews on Radionz about the Gallipoli WWW1 commemorations. The children of veterans, as they are the closest to the people who made their personal sacrifices there of life or wellbeing, should have got first go. Perhaps one from each family, then if possible another. The age of these people would make it necessary to have a medical opinion as to their fitness. Yet many have been left out of the opportunity to attend, instead of being at the front of the queue.

    They have been bundled in with Youth apparently, in some fuzzy thought that they are the children of servicemen. All the same in some dunderheads mind. Next should have been the children of other WW1 veterans and probably they would have to have a ballot. But it seems that the ballots have been used for all within various categories.

    There is the question underlying the discussion of on-line use of disseminating information and providing essential forms to interact with government and agencies. The wording can be changed at will and if the original document has not been run off to a hard copy, then memory can be questioned but no definite reference can be sighted. I do not like on-line increasing reliance in our world that requires so much organisation, control, allocation etc.
    all with legal and possible sanctions and requirements and rules for those involved in applications and communications.

    There have been ballots for others who want to attend and classifications under which people could apply. First WW1 veterans of Gallipoli or any other theatres of war would have priority but most are dead and only a few would be well enough to travel. So the children of the servicemen should have been the absolute next priority. But no. About 60 of 193 applicants have been granted attendance, and the Minister says they have done well as that is a higher percentage than any other. Mention was made of an off the cuff survey of some people somewhere who thought all NZs should be able to apply and therefore this overrides the veterans children’s absolute right. Also mentioned was the interest among the young, and that then diminished the standing of veterans children.

    It reminds me of the end of Brave New World where the mindless seekers of new experience gather in their droves to watch the sad savage, tortured by memories and experiences and so conflicted that he harmed himself while they watched amazed by the sensational scene.

  14. Tautoko Viper 14
    30 April 2014 at 10:49 am

    The integrity of scientific reports depends very much on independent funding.
    The Science Media Centre does not appear to be a source of reliable information. NZ gets a mention in this article.
    https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/29-0

  15. Tiger Mountain 15
    30 April 2014 at 10:58 am

    Wide assed tory toady Rachel Glucina at it again, puts the slipper into actor Robyn Malcom for supporting Living wage campaign and then shamelessly brown noses ShonKey.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11246386

    • Colonial Viper 15.1
      30 April 2014 at 11:08 am

      When was the last time Glucina worked for minimum wage? Ever?

      • Blue 15.1.1
        30 April 2014 at 2:14 pm

        Probably stayed in school, went to university and worked hard. So Id say you were right CV she’s probably never worked for minimum wage.

    • greywarbler 15.2
      30 April 2014 at 1:51 pm

      I hadn’t seen Rachel Glucina as I have withdrawn from that irritating sphere of wannabes, so I looked her up and she was wearing a leopard spotted coat just like Poorer Benefit did at one time. And they both have that self-satisfied look of a cat that got the cream, ate their own food and robbed the bowls of the other moggies too.

      Actually Poorer might be changing her spots. I wonder now and then if she is being trained for a Jenny Shipley-type position, she has the bulk to push her way through, and the basic balls to force her opinion on everyone like Margaret Thatcher, and the accompanying distaste for the ordinary woman and the sort of man that gets called a deadbeat dad that makes a woman bullet-proof and very suitable to be a terminator for the tories. Watch this space.

  16. Morrissey 16
    30 April 2014 at 11:44 am

    Radio NZ’s dismal, dishonest Israeli correspondent
    Liat Collins, interviewed by Bryan Crump
    Radio NZ National, Tuesday 29 April 2014, 8:45 p.m.

    Israel has many newspapers, but two are dominant. There is the widely respected Ha’aretz, which employs outstanding journalists like Amira Hass and Gideon Levy. And then there is the hard right, extremist Jerusalem Post, a vicious hate rag so extreme and crazed in its editorial line that it makes Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post seem moderate and well balanced.

    Guess which paper Radio New Zealand goes to for regular “updates” on Israel….

    BRYAN CRUMP: Now for our three-monthly visit to Israel, we welcome Liat Collins from the Jerusalem Post. Hello Liat.
    LIAT COLLINS: Ehhhmmmmmm, hello Bryan.
    BRYAN CRUMP: Now, Liat, in New Zealand we’ve just had our solemn remembrance day, which is Anzac Day. And Israel has just had its solemn day, which is VERY solemn, and that is Holocaust Memorial Day. The whole country comes to a stop, doesn’t it.
    LIAT COLLINS: Yes it does. We also have Remembrance Day, where we remember everyone who has fallen in the service of the state of Israel. It’s a very solemn occasion too. Everyone in Israel knows someone who has died on duty or fallen by terror.
    BRYAN CRUMP: Now, Liat, Anzac Day in New Zealand is very solemn. There’s a lot of staring at the ground on Anzac Day. I guess that Israel’s Remembrance Day is also very solemn?
    LIAT COLLINS: Ehhhhmmmm, yes it is. By the way, we have an Anzac ceremony in Israel too. We have military graves where Anzac soldiers from the First World War are buried, particularly in Beersheba. [1]
    BRYAN CRUMP: Liat, what’s the Passover again? It’s a period of fasting, isn’t it?
    LIAT COLLINS: [guffaws] No, no, no, no.

    ……[Extended pause]……

    BRYAN CRUMP: The big news of the past week from Israel is that the peace talks have ended. This is mainly because Hamas and Fatah, the two factions, have reconciled?
    LIAT COLLINS: Ehhhhmmmm, Hamas has as part of its charter, which it has refused to change, the destruction of Israel. It’s not even a matter of negotiation on borders. They believe that we have no right as a state….
    BRYAN CRUMP: [carefully] I guess there’s one thing that comes to mind: does Hamas say Jews have no right to live in Israel? Or just that there should be no Jewish state?
    LIAT COLLINS: [flustered] Ehhmmmm. Hamas is responsible for the rocket attacks. Ehmmmm…. It’s a splinter group from the Muslim Brotherhood…. ehmmmmmm…. It’s an al Qaeda group… ehmmmm……

    [Long, uncomfortable pause]…..

    BRYAN CRUMP: [tenderly, solicitously] Liat, does Fatah say that?
    LIAT COLLINS: [increasingly flustered] Hamas says Jews shouldn’t be here. With Fatah, it’s a little more ambiguous. Ehhhmmmm…. We have a right to exist. Israel is one Jewish state surrounded by twenty Muslim states. Ehmmmmm….
    BRYAN CRUMP: Do you think that Fatah might be a moderating influence on Hamas?
    LIAT COLLINS: We don’t have much of a margin to gamble here. The missiles are falling in southern Israel. We can’t really gamble with these people, ehmmmmmm.
    BRYAN CRUMP: Have there been any rocket attacks launched from Gaza?
    LIAT COLLINS: Oh yeah. It’s pretty ongoing. So definitely… [nervous guffaw] I mean, there are so many other problems in the world. Like Syria. To even focus on Israel-Palestine—it’s not the central problem in the world right now, I don’t think….

    …..[Extended pause]…..

    BRYAN CRUMP: Liat Collins, thank you. More in three months’ time.

    POSTSCRIPT: In case you think we’ve got three months until we are again subjected to anything as dismal as Liat Collins, think again. Jim Mora’s guests on The Panel today are Dita Di Boni and David Farrar.

    [1] This foolish and dishonest woman would never mention it, of course, but the Anzac history at Beersheba is the very opposite of honorable or heroic or brave….
    http://alh-research.tripod.com/Light_Horse/index.blog?topic_id=1115959

    More on Liat Collins and others like her….
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-24042013/#comment-623958
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-29032011/#comment-314173
    
http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-29032011/#comment-314173
    
http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-04072011/#comment-347912
    
http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-12072011/#comment-352724



    • Tiger Mountain 16.1
      30 April 2014 at 2:35 pm

      Agree with Morrisey on this one, Crump is a chump or closet Israeli supporter the way he lets the reality of the apartheid state slide by in this manner on national radio. Even a casual listener could pick up the lack of balance.

    • swordfish 16.2
      30 April 2014 at 10:34 pm

      Ha Haaaa !!!

      As I listened to all of that crap from Liat Collins (and Bryan’s inability to challenge it), I said to family members ‘Morrissey will be on Open Mike tonight or tomorrow to sort all this shit out’. And so it came to pass.

      Let’s just start by pointing out that the Yishuv (pre-Israeli Zionist community in Palestine) and its leaders like Ben-Gurion had a very dodgy relationship with the Holocaust. A good deal of collaboration with the Nazis and anti-semitic leaders of the Baltic nations and so on. Strenuous efforts to prevent European Jews escaping to Britain and the US (for the Yishuv leaders it was Palestine or nothing), the bullying of Holocaust survivors in immediate post-war Displaced Persons Camps (the US allowed Zionist groups from Israel to take over many of these camps – and survivors – the overwhelming majority of whom wanted to go to the US – were largely forced through coercion – including outright violence – to emigrate to Palestine instead).

      When Holocaust survivors arrived in Israel, they were treated abominably by much of Israeli society, particularly by State officials (although there were honourable exceptions). All of which is best encapsulated by the derisive Yishuv slang name for Holocaust survivors: “soap” (based on the – now discredited – idea that Holocaust victims bodies had been turned into soap by the Nazis). The survivors were deemed shameful by Zionists because they and the victims were considered to have gone like lambs to the slaughter – whereas Zionism was all about celebrating the idea of the gun-toting take-no-prisoners Zionist Jew. And many survivors were forced – again against their will – to fight in the 1948 War. Many, having survived the Holocaust against all the odds (and still greatly traumatised), went on to die in that War for an Israeli nation that largely despised them.

      The Holocaust, of course, only became important to Israel after its leaders decided it could be of political use to close down criticism of Israeli policies (largely after Adolf Eichmann’s trial in 1962).

      It’s been said that to this day a disproportionate number of Holocaust survivors and their descendents live below the poverty line in Israel (50,000 by one recent estimate). So much for the solemn remembrance day !!!

      As for Hamas and the reconciliation – same old Israeli propaganda from Collins. And in the Dominion Post and The Herald – both of which had outrageous headlines to the effect that the putative reconciliation has destroyed “The Peace Process”. Unbe-fucking-lievable !!!

      Hamas, of course, have made it clear over the last decade that they will accept the Two-State solution as long as it is entirely grounded in International Law. I mean Fuck you’d have no idea that Israel was continuing a murderous 47-year Occupation and long-term ethnic-cleansing of Palestinian Territory or that 3 times as many Palestinian civilians had been murdered by the Israeli military. Instead, what you get from propagandists like Collins and the crap in much of the New Zealand media is an innocent little Israel quietly going about its business when a whole lot of nasty Arab Johnnies start attacking it.

      I won’t even start on the Orwellian absurdity of the so-called “Peace Process” (not least because I know Morrissey and others here are well aware of the truth).

      • Morrissey 16.2.1
        3 May 2014 at 10:20 am

        That is an excellent summary, Swordfish. The Israeli state’s cynical exploitation of the murder of six million Jews has been brilliantly dealt with by scholars; I particularly recommend the work on the subject by Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein. Mordechai Richler’s brilliant book This Year in Jerusalem deals with the same ghastly phenomenon.

        Here’s a clip of Finkelstein neatly outlining why he has no patience with Israel’s attempt to appropriate the Holocaust as an ideological weapon….

        • Colonial Viper 16.2.1.1
          3 May 2014 at 10:59 am

          Israel world’s leading supplier of advanced military drones and weaponised drone tactics

          The suggestion is that large numbers have been killed by Israeli drone strikes in the occupied territories over the years; some legitimate targets but many civilians as well.

          • Morrissey 16.2.1.1.1
            3 May 2014 at 11:06 am

            “Legitimate targets”? These are illegal, extrajudicial executions. Would you also support weaponized drones being sent to terrorize the population of Washington D.C. and “take out” legitimate targets like Senator John McCain and some of the other bloodthirsty war-mongers that infest that town?

            • Colonial Viper 16.2.1.1.1.1
              3 May 2014 at 11:15 am

              Speaking of which, military style drones are in widespread use in the USA today by law enforcement and yes, I expect that in a matter of a couple of years, weaponised variants will indeed be used by the US Government on its own soil against American citizens. Otherwise known as bringing home the tools of Imperial repression.

  17. captain hook 17
    30 April 2014 at 11:46 am

    there is no magical equilibrium that suits everybody. ONly Labour has the nous to apply dynamic solutions to always changing variables. All National can do is channel everything into their mates pockets and retire behind their walls to enjoy the spoils. YOu know, jetboats, hotels, leafblowers angle grinders and anything else that is expensive and makes a lot of noise.

    • greywarbler 17.1
      30 April 2014 at 12:22 pm

      We make a lot of noise. Maybe some of that dirty tory money can come and help us advocate for the people. That would be interesting. Business often has a bob or so both ways.

    • Chooky 17.2
      30 April 2014 at 1:07 pm

      captain hook +100

    • Colonial Viper 17.3
      3 May 2014 at 11:18 am

      ONly Labour has the nous to apply dynamic solutions to always changing variables

      That is partly true but not entirely – eg. why are Labour still sitting at just 30-33% in the polls. Where is the dynamic adaptability there? The truth is that Labour, like every long established political party, has to spend a lot of time and energy dealing with organisational and internal political constraints.

  18. geoff 18
    30 April 2014 at 1:06 pm

    Listen (or dont) to the scum bank economists, Dominick Stephens (Westpac) and Paul Bloxham(HSBC) on RNZ this morning, lying about how Labour’s policy is no good.

    http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/mnr/mnr-20140430-0828-economists_discuss_labours_monetary_policy_plans-048.mp3

    • Chooky 18.1
      30 April 2014 at 1:09 pm

      @geoff …well they would say that wouldnt they?…given where they come from

      • vto 18.1.1
        30 April 2014 at 1:16 pm

        Bank economists are completely and utterly compromised and I have no idea why they are spoken to for supposedly objective comment without ulterior motive.

        It is a bit of a tired old joke. It is about time RNZ sharpened up and got truly objective commentary.

        I mean, really, why would a bank describe a policy which reduces the amount it receives as revenue as a good policy? Eh? Radio NZ? Perhaps you can explain why a bank would have any desire to be objective in their commentary? Why do you use them RNZ? You are letting yourself down very badly ……

        • greywarbler 18.1.1.1
          30 April 2014 at 1:44 pm

          vto
          Firing in the right direction. I thought that too. Paul somebody from HCSB or similar letters and some other well known bank whore. Objective don’t make me laugh.

  19. framu 19
    30 April 2014 at 1:07 pm

    jesus wept how do you write an article on a subject, admit you dont know what your talking about in the same article and still get it published?!

    Is hawkes bay really that short of journos?

  20. vto 20
    30 April 2014 at 1:12 pm

    … woops … accidentally posted this on yesterday’s open mike…

    This is a likely story http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9992233/Immigration-controls-to-dampen-house-prices

    … a New Zealand government using immigration to keep house prices low? Yeah right. Everyone knows that every government opens the immigration taps 12-18 months out from an election. Helen Clark did it. John Key is doing it right now. As long as immigration sits at around 30,000 p.a. then we have upward pressure on house values, and that keeps everyone voting for the incumbent government no matter what.

    I just do not believe that a Labour government would not again open the immigration taps to enhance their chances of re-election in the future.

    It is the oldest trick in the book.

  21. ianmac 21
    30 April 2014 at 2:04 pm

    Horizon Poll:
    The research, covering 3060 respondents nationwide in October last year, and released for the first time today, finds
    70% support for making KiwiSaver compulsory:
    65% support a compulsory savings scheme and 5% “lean toward” supporting it.
    12% oppose a compulsory savings scheme and 3% “lean toward” opposing it.
    8% are neutral – and could go either way.
    That posted before I could comment. Anyway in the light of the Labour policy it is at least interesting. Note October 2013

    • Bearded Git 21.1
      30 April 2014 at 4:54 pm

      Wow ianmac. If that Horizon Poll has validity Labour might actually win some votes on this policy.

      The low paid who may be worst affected (though compensating policies are in the pipeline for them) are very unlikely to cross over and vote for the Nats while the mythical centre bods will see the Kiwisaver/Reserve Bank policy as sensible.

  22. aerobubble 22
    30 April 2014 at 2:50 pm

    Ukraine, the new NI?

    Why has Ukraine not moved to build a wall. Isn’t that what they do. Build a wall along the border between Russia and Ukraine. Draw out the terrorists into the country side to stop the wall.

    How can a breakdown in law and order assist the Russia breakaway movement, all they do is set the lowest standard for the future.

    Why does Putin want to destabilize? Was the corruption aorund sochi so big, was the former President of Ukraine’s fraud so big that Russian’s corrupt fear a precedent, that they will be
    next???

    • Colonial Viper 22.1
      30 April 2014 at 4:48 pm

      Why don’t you get a sense of historical context for starters instead of buying into State Department propaganda. The Ukraine has always had a lot to do with Russia, for centuries. It has nothing to do the US and very little to do historically with western Europe.

      After the fall of the USSR, NATO agreed to not expand eastwards towards Russia. That agreement wasn’t worth the paper it was written on.

      Now, the US has now facilitated right wing extremist politicians in taking over Ukraine, in an extra-constitutional fashion. Constitutional elections were not held.

      Ask yourself why this is so, and how do you think the USA would react if Russia tried a similar takeover of say Mexico or Alaska.

      Why has Ukraine not moved to build a wall.

      Because the Ukranian Government is broke up to its eyeballs, it cannot even afford to pay for gas let alone a new massive building project, and once the Ukranian power elite finish signing deals with the IMF and World Bank, ordinary Ukranians will be financially fucked for the next 3 generations.

      Welcome to bankster serfdom care of your friends in the west.

      • aerobubble 22.1.1
        30 April 2014 at 5:33 pm

        Okay, I’ll play. So all that lush farmland needed to feed the world, and why EU, etc are interested in Ukraine (like China’s interest in Africa for minerals) can be totally ignored by you, along with Russia’s oligarchs sizing up Crimea as the next Sofia like resort. As for Russia wanting to reignite the cold war, what trash, Putin has real problems at home and needs distractions. From the amount of corruption at the winter Olympics. He’d rather start a crisis on his border (or atleast allow it to fester) than have to deal with the chronic state of the Russia economy.

        There are as many minorities in Russia, that’ll be looking at Ukraine and wondering when the Russians amongst them will start want more of this first class appreciation that we now see in
        Russian separatists in Ukraine. Their lawlessness says everything about Putins willingness to profit politically from Ukraine political economic crisis, starting with Crimea…

        Sorry, but in no way can it be said Putin’s Russia is onto a winning hand, or right in their stance towards the Ukraine, Putins has basically declare Russia to be a fair weather friend. All neighbors are on notice, the world is worried, and the only feasible reason why this is happening is that Putin is weak at home.

        • Colonial Viper 22.1.1.1
          30 April 2014 at 6:51 pm

          Do you even know that Crimea was originally part of the Russian USSR until Kruschev transferred it to the Ukraine in 1954 by political decree?

          There are as many minorities in Russia, that’ll be looking at Ukraine and wondering when the Russians amongst them will start want more of this first class appreciation

          In Crimea, even the Tartars voted to join with Russia. Why stick around to support a bunch of unelected right wing extremists running the show in Kiev? The Russian Federation has successfully accommodated many different minority and ethnic groups within its constitutional Federation structure. No big deal, just business as usual. By the way if there was an issue, it’s not about “Russians” it’s about slavs.

          He’d rather start a crisis on his border (or atleast allow it to fester) than have to deal with the chronic state of the Russia economy.

          The US deposed an elected government and pushed into its place a group of right wing political extremists, while intending to move NATO right to the borders of Russia.

          And somehow you interpret that as Putin ‘started a crisis on his border’?

          So all that lush farmland needed to feed the world

          Europe isn’t interested in the Ukraine for its farmland, and neither is the US.

          Sorry, but in no way can it be said Putin’s Russia is onto a winning hand, or right in their stance towards the Ukraine…the only feasible reason why this is happening is that Putin is weak at home.

          You really have no idea do you?

          Allied forces in Afghanistan get the majority of their fuel, tens of millions of litres of diesel and kerosene a month, either from Russian companies or through Russia.
          In the next 12 months, US forces have to pull millions of tonnes of equipment out of Afghanistan. The safest, most secure, most politically reliable routes go through Russia.
          A multitude of European countries get 20% or more of their gas supplies from Russia. They can talk tough now since it is the European summer, but in 6 months time as it gets colder that’ll fold.
          The US can barely ship a single tonne of LNG across to Europe to compensate, despite US politicians blustering. It has no spare gas and the facilities for liquification and shipping are not available.

          Bottom line – I’m not sure that Putin is the one who has overplayed his hand.

        • Colonial Viper 22.1.1.2
          30 April 2014 at 7:24 pm

          NATO moves dozens of military jets to Russian border

          http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-29/west-strikes-back-these-are-all-nato-aircraft-deployments-response-ukraine-crisis

          So it’s Putin the one stoking this “crisis” is it??? Is there any particular justification for all these NATO military assets to be moved to the Russian frontier? Ukraine is not a NATO country by the way, even though the way it looks, the west would like it to become one ASAP, right on Russia’s doorstep.

  23. bad12 23
    30 April 2014 at 4:31 pm

    OUCH, said the head of an organization representing private owners of rental accommodation as David Parker announced that the ability of those private owners of rental accommodation will no longer be able to ”ring fence” any losses from the rental property and write these losses off against ”other income”,

    UP by 25% will go rents if David Parker has His way says the head of the organization representing private owners of rental accommodation, NOT SO says David Parker, ”rents cannot rise above what people can afford to pay”

    my question there is ”oh really” what’s an affordable rent David???, 50% of income, 60%, 70%,???

    i have had discussions on here befor with some like SSLands lying saying there is no such tax loophole that allows losses from rental property to be written off against taxes on other income,

    The head of the organization representing private rental owners has just outed His members as having a 25% free tax holiday on their rental properties and that obviously has to stop,

    This tax holiday from rental property losses was touted up and down New Zealand in the 1990’s in seminars held by tax lawyers and real estate sales people,(reputedly at up to 3 grand a head) and along with the laissez fairre immigration policies are a large part of why many without the real income to support such rental investments piled into them en masse,(200,000 homes into rental properties in 20 years says the Reserve Bank),

    While i agree with David Parker that the general tax base should not be being used to fund and subsidize private rental investments i have to ask what is plan B if the head of the organization representing these private rental investors is right and they simply begin to rack rent their tenants in an effort to recover the monies they will no longer have from having the tax loophole in the first place…

  24. lprent 24
    30 April 2014 at 5:29 pm

    Shit. I’m off on a long pre-planned leave this week, it is already mid-week, and I think that I’m busier than I ever was at work. I’m feeling like my father who after retirement has been proclaiming that he has no idea about how he ever found time to work.

    I’d planned to get a number of irritating site issues fixed, a pile of irritating chores at home done, and some basic personal maintenance done. Like I’m finally trying to organize to get the TV aerial connection fixed that got buggered in September 2012. Turns out that all of the aerial people around here are busy.

    I did managed to go out shopping and get clothes. All my pairs of jeans were getting quite holy. My jerseys had accidentally discovered the dryer at various times and all of my other working without getting frozen jackets were in tatters or too small.

    Giving up smoking was also a problem in terms of the clothes. You can’t put on 10’s of kilos of weight and grindingly slowly take it off afterwards without finding you now need several sets of new clothes. But the hems of the jeans need taking up. I still haven’t found the right shoes that fit my wide feet. And once again I have discovered I hate shopping – especially the parking bit.

    Problem was that I decided at easter that I was going to change jobs, resigned and gave notice. Unfortunately So this week has been fractured with job interviews mixed in with the wee tasks that I’d planned to with a stay at home holiday.

    Not to mention a frigging annoying bug with AWS (amazon web services) that has been causing issues with the autoscaler. I’ve had to manually intervene on the loadings for the last three days damnit.

    About the only things I have managed to do is write more posts and spend a bit of time commenting, and finally finish the upgrades on my home servers and workstations. It is a pity that Chorus aren’t ready to install the fibre yet as well. I had plans for some configuration changes to TS if it was here.

    • greywarbler 24.1
      30 April 2014 at 5:51 pm

      Just a thought there are still some bespoke shoe makers around. Why not find someone suitable who would keep your foot size and profile and just buy shoes from him or her. It can be hard to get a decent pair even if you find the right size. You possibly wouldn’t pay a personal shoemaker much more than a specialist shop for a good brand.

      • Ad 24.1.1
        30 April 2014 at 8:30 pm

        Working Style, Menzies Shoes, and a beard trimmer.
        Cometh the man, cometh the job interview.

        Top work on the smoking and the weight.
        That is serious discipline.

        • lprent 24.1.1.1
          30 April 2014 at 9:03 pm

          I have the beard trimmer – brought it a few months ago to stop Lyn complaining about hair tickling. But I have a simple technique of shaving it all off anyway and starting to shave once a interview rather than trimming once every fortnight. It renders the distraction of my white hairs less of an issue.

          For some reason I try not to dress up too much for interviews. It could have to do with not wanting to looked at as prime client facing material. Non holy versions of my normal Rod and Gunn type clothes with running shoes is about it. Many years ago, I’d go to problematic interviews in jandals. I view interviews as being as much about me figuring out who I want to work for as the other way around.

          It wasn’t that hard to give up smoking. Lyn waving around the last cigarette I was never going to smoke while I was in a hospital bed was quite convincing.

  25. captain hook 25
    30 April 2014 at 6:21 pm

    so National is putting $100, 000,000 into defence. does that mean they are going to buy a squadron of F16’s for the RNZAF?

    • Colonial Viper 25.1
      30 April 2014 at 6:26 pm

      More like 4 F-35 JSFs and a few spare parts

      • Draco T Bastard 25.1.1
        30 April 2014 at 7:37 pm

        Dude, the f35s cost about AU$200m each (Aus is buying 58 of them for AU$12 billion).

    • Draco T Bastard 25.2
      30 April 2014 at 7:39 pm

      No, it just means that National is replacing some of the hundreds of millions that they cut from defence that resulted in defence force personnel leaving.

  26. geoff 26
    30 April 2014 at 7:16 pm

    Tim Watkins take on Labour’s policy has this line:
    “But some will look at their hand-to-mouth existence and ask where the savings money will come from. ”

    It will ultimately come from the wealthy who will be taxed more. As it should be.

    Anybody who disagrees…..go read Picketty.

    • Ergo Robertina 26.1
      30 April 2014 at 7:33 pm

      Labour won’t go near Picketty’s 80c top marginal rate though. Not even half. Parker’s said that.

      • Draco T Bastard 26.1.1
        30 April 2014 at 7:52 pm

        +1

      • geoff 26.1.2
        30 April 2014 at 11:08 pm

        Labour won’t go near Picketty’s 80c top marginal rate though. Not even half. Parker’s said that.

        That’s at least because it would be politically untenable at this point in time. (whether Parker’s adamant super policy is also politically untenable is another conversation).
        Also do you have a link? I’m curious to see what else he said.

        This is one of Labour’s big problems, if they push policies too far left then they can be easily attacked by the neolib consensus that permeates NZ.

        But on the other hand if they don’t go left enough then they alienate their core supporters who accuse them of pandering to the neolib consensus.

        Catch 22 etc.

        • Draco T Bastard 26.1.2.1
          1 May 2014 at 7:46 am

          I think Piketty would be a great support for going even more left. Especially in regards to higher taxes on the wealthy.

        • Ergo Robertina 26.1.2.2
          1 May 2014 at 10:05 am

          http://www.listener.co.nz/current-affairs/the-curious-case-of-david-parker/

          It’s mentioned in a pay-walled Listener interview in January with Guyon Espiner.
          Top rate on income to go to 39c; the upper threshold for the high rate moves to $150k.
          No change in the business rate.
          Labour could still propose a wealth tax on very high incomes I suppose, although as you say it might be ‘politically untenable’. The parallel with Super is apposite. A common rationale for low taxes is that raising them has no support from lower income people, because they aspire to be in those leagues themselves. And yet, the wishes of those on lower incomes are ignored on a bunch of other stuff.

  27. captain hook 27
    30 April 2014 at 8:05 pm

    so are all the tory squaddies in the airforce going to stop moaning about labour now?

  28. fisiani 28
    30 April 2014 at 10:34 pm

    Brett Hudson chosen for National in Ohariu. A top candidate who will be a star in parliament.

    • miravox 28.1
      30 April 2014 at 10:44 pm

      NewstalkZB doesn’t agree with you, fisi. An unknown, they say.

      I guess Hudson on the National list if he’s to be a star in parliament, unless National voters don’t the follow instructions to tick Dunne.

      • Clemgeopin 28.1.1
        30 April 2014 at 11:26 pm

        I hope Labour will find a very strong local candidate to dethrone Dunne. He deserves to go in my opinion.

  29. Penny Bright 29
    30 April 2014 at 10:44 pm

    Protest outside the electorate office of National MP Murray McCully – Minister for Foreign Affairs, Wednesday 30 April 2014:

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152002536776790&set=pcb.10152002537011790&type=1&theater

    ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ‘Open Letter’ /OIA to Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully re: ‘job offer/ / (BRIBE?) to Labour Party MP Shane Jones, from his Ministerial Secretary:

    30 April 2014 (3.37pm)

    Dear Penny,

    On behalf of Hon Murray McCully, Minister of Foreign Affairs, thank you for your correspondence of 30 April 2014 requesting information regarding the creation, and funding of, an economic ambassadorial role in the Pacific.

    You will receive a reply within 20 working days as required by the Official Information Act.

    Yours sincerely,

    Holly

    Holly Bennett | Ministerial Secretary | Office of Hon Murray McCully
    Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister for Sport and Recreation
    6.1 Executive Wing Beehive | Parliament Buildings | Wellington 6160 | New Zealand

    ‘Open Letter’ /OIA to Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully
    re: ‘job offer/ / (BRIBE?) to Labour Party MP Shane Jones:

    30 April 2014

    ‘Open Letter’ /OIA to Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully
    re: ‘job offer/ / (BRIBE?) to Labour Party MP Shane Jones

    Dear Minister McCully,

    Please be reminded of your statutory duties arising from the Public Records Act 2005:

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2005/0040/latest/DLM345536.html

    3 Purposes of Act

    The purposes of this Act are—
    (a)to provide for the continuation of the repository of public archives called the National Archives with the name Archives New Zealand (Te Rua Mahara o te Kāwanatanga); and

    (b)to provide for the role of the Chief Archivist in developing and supporting government recordkeeping, including making independent determinations on the disposal of public records and certain local authority archives; and

    (c)to enable the Government to be held accountable by—
    (i)ensuring that full and accurate records of the affairs of central and local government are created and maintained; and

    (ii)providing for the preservation of, and public access to, records of long-term value; and

    (d)to enhance public confidence in the integrity of public records and local authority records; and

    (e)to provide an appropriate framework within which public offices and local authorities create and maintain public records and local authority records, as the case may be; and

    (f)through the systematic creation and preservation of public archives and local authority archives, to enhance the accessibility of records that are relevant to the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand and to New Zealanders’ sense of their national identity; and

    (g)to encourage the spirit of partnership and goodwill envisaged by the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi), as provided for by section 7; and

    (h)to support the safekeeping of private records.

    Please provide the following information:

    1) Copies of ALL correspondence, including but not limited to briefing notes, memorandums, meeting minutes, reports, emails telephone messages, between yourself, and any other person acting on your direction, and the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), regarding the creation of the position / proposed position of ‘Pacific Economic Ambassador’.

    2) Copies of ALL correspondence, including but not limited to briefing notes, memorandums, meeting minutes, reports, emails telephone messages, between yourself, and any other person acting on your direction, and the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), regarding the source(s) of funding for the position / proposed position of ‘Pacific Economic Ambassador’.

    ie: Information which confirms whether it was the Chief Executive of MFAT who considered and concluded, independently of yourself as Minister of Foreign Affairs, that the position / proposed position of ‘Pacific Economic Ambassador’.was necessary and that there was available funding.

    3) Information which confirms whether the position / proposed position of ‘Pacific Economic Ambassador’ is a ‘public service role’, where the person is appointed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, so the Chief Executive of MFAT is their employer and funding is allocated in the budget and administered within the boundaries specified in the appropriations – or a’ministerial appointment’, funded from the appropriations for parliamentary services.

    4) Copies of ALL information, including but not limited to briefing notes, memorandums, meeting minutes, reports, emails, telephone messages, and texts between yourself, and Labour Party MP Shane Jones, relating to your ‘job offer’ to him, of ‘Pacific Economic Ambassador’, and related matters.

    Yours sincerely,

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption /anti-privatisation Public Watchdog’

    ……………………

    Attendee: 2009 Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference
    Attendee: 2010 Transparency International Anti-Corruption Conference
    Attendee: 2013 Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference

    2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate (polling 4th with 11,723 votes campaigning against corrupt corporate control of the Auckland region)

    http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz

    • Clemgeopin 29.1
      30 April 2014 at 11:21 pm

      Good on you for your public service and thanks. I admire your tenacity and the time and effort you put into holding the government and its dodgy actions to account.

  30. Scott1 30
    1 May 2014 at 7:25 pm

    “The Government has confirmed $100 million in new funding for the defence force in the coming financial year – part of a $535 million package for the next four years.”
    …

    “This significant investment in our defence force, combined with the savings and reinvestment achieved through recent reforms, means the Government is addressing the long term funding gap which we inherited,” Defence Minister Jonathan Coleman said."

    How big is the support for putting half a billion dollars into the defense force? Especially that half a billion to improve the radar systems of our ships. Would not most people prefer that money to be in education?

    • greywarbler 30.1
      3 May 2014 at 2:08 pm

      Scott
      You realise that ‘education’ is the opiate of the political masses. What is it going to be used for, how is it being delivered, and where, and to whom and by whom? Will there be jobs and a world interested in applying the knowledge so hard won? Should our education be more in survival skills than theoretical subjects, be more in philosophy and thinking including future thinking, problem solving – applied learning rather than going for USA spelling bees and trite middle class ideas? Education a two-edged sword.

  31. greywarbler 31
    3 May 2014 at 2:00 pm

    Colonial Viper at 16.2.1.1>
    On USA drones. It will be made easier for the government there to utilise these against their own citizens if the concept of commercial use of them ‘takes off’. There has been talk about fast delivery of medicines, on-line purchases etc. There could be a significant number of these things flying around and no way of knowing whether they are offering fast delivery service or delivering nemesis to someone who then needs medical or funeral service.

    I don’t get any response to my Reply button on my Opera browser so that’s why I am at a distance from the topic. I also use Firefox which works well but my mail goes to Opera.

Links to post