Pre-budget roundup

25 comments on “Pre-budget roundup ”

• Comments are now closed

1. joe bloggs 1

   19 May 2011 at 8:05 am

   You’re way behind the times R0B.

   David Cunliffe’s already polled the electorate on how the budget has affected them, and a resounding 88% of voters pointed out the budget left them better off.
   • Can't fool me 1.1

     19 May 2011 at 8:23 am

     Bah! That poll was hijacked by the douchebags from Kiwiblog.
     • joe bloggs 1.1.1

       19 May 2011 at 10:54 am

       Clearly the right have far more douchebags than the left – that’s consistent with the political pollsters who have National streets ahead of Labour, but a rather unkind way to refer to the majority of the electorate…

       The raving lefty fan club that frequents this site had every opportunity to load the worse off vote to counteract the effects of the Penguin’s voters. Or don’t you have enough supporters to rally?

       As for Labour lame explanation – it was a computer glitch???!!! Oh spare us the agony of such a pathetic excuse!
   • Colonial Viper 1.2

     19 May 2011 at 8:58 am

     and a resounding 88% of voters pointed out the budget left them better off.

     That is clearly a poll of the rich Chinese vote, who indeed have been left better off by the NAT budget.
     • Jim Nald 1.2.1

       19 May 2011 at 9:11 am

       Better off at the expense of their children and grandchildren.
       Oh, and at this rate under Nats, there’s no future in NZ.
       They had better be putting aside money now –
       to spend on flying to Oz to visit their children and baby-sit their grandchildren there.
       • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.1

         19 May 2011 at 9:17 am

         I think the older generation who can will also consider moving to Australia – not just because the next generation has already gone there, but because they can afford decent public healthcare over there and decently paid professional clinicians. Have already been reading cases of that.

         And why would our future talented young study in NZ if student loans are not interest free any more? Might as well go study at an Australian university for the same rates as an Australian local, and enjoy a wider range of more specialised courses, better teaching facilities and better technology.

         NZ = Mexico of the South Pacific. Working hard on pushing New Zealanders across the ditch.
2. PeteG 2

   19 May 2011 at 8:10 am

   How much has tax cuts to the rich really “stimulated” the economy?

   How much has tax cuts prevented a worse recession?
   How much of the tax cuts have gone towards reducing private debt?
   • RobC 2.1

     19 May 2011 at 9:20 am

     Back to the old tricks of answering a question with more questions, the first being a hypothetical one at that, one that cannot be answered.

     What was it again? Oh that’s right, pissing in the wind. 😀
     • PeteG 2.1.1

       19 May 2011 at 9:30 am

       Just responding to your old trick, making a claim that no one knows the answer to.

       Labour legs must be getting very wet.
   • Colonial Viper 2.2

     19 May 2011 at 9:21 am

     You’re absolutely right of course, more tax cuts means more borrowing from China. More borrowing from China means that we have to pay the Chinese more and more of an income stream of interest payments, which helps their economy.

     So our tax cuts, helps prevent the Chinese economy going into recession, because we get to send more ad more money over to them.

     You’re so fucking smart.

     How much of the tax cuts have gone towards reducing private debt?

     That’s handy. The rich pricks who got the most from the tax cuts, get to pay off their million dollar mansions even faster by pushing through cuts to public services.

     You really are a genius, chump.
     • joe bloggs 2.2.1

       19 May 2011 at 11:02 am

       I take my hat off to you CV – you really have mastered the politics of envy!
   • ZeeBop 2.3

     19 May 2011 at 9:32 am

     >How much has tax cuts to the rich really “stimulated” the economy?

     How much has tax cuts prevented a worse recession?
     How much of the tax cuts have gone towards reducing private debt?

     Farmers, NZ, sells lots of primary product overseas. Milk, logs, etc.
     Those profits need to be returned, remitted, and so there must be
     someone on the other side of that currency trade.

     Step in the debtors, the debtor borrows money at a higher rate
     (the risk premium) and pays in NZ dollars. So in walks the
     currency trader who takes those NZ dollars and gives them to
     farmers, exporters. And in the foreign country takes the
     farming profits in US$ and gives it to the lender as his interest.

     The tax cuts had very little, or negative effect, for most people in NZ.
     They went overwhelmingly to the top earners and will be paid for by
     service cuts to most people in NZ if National is returned in Nov.

     Now the problem. Globally the west has borrowed because of monetary
     reform of Conservatives parties, who saw decades of cheap oil and
     knew the economy would have to grow and so needed lubricating
     (easier credit). But Conservatives then told themselves not to look
     at what comes next (except to there most loyal richest contributors).
     Oil peaking and then trailing off.

     So basically the west has huge debts, and governments claiming they
     can export their way out of the crisis. And the east has huge calls on
     value that they don’t want to give up (become poorer again), that
     would harm their own exports if they started importing western goods,
     and now the icing on the cake, there isn’t enough resources globally
     to furnish their call on value if they did call it. And hell, the west can
     pay it back anyway. (well unless it paid back in some services rather
     than goods and why its astonishing how governments are letting a
     few media mogals hold back the media revolution, utube on steroids,
     broadband, tens of thousands of channels, massive decentralization
     of attention to a myriad of sources).

     So that’s the NZ economy, and the global crisis. So now to answer
     the questions. Did tax cut avert recession? No, spending rising
     would have temporarily helped relieved the recession. Tax cuts merely
     gave foreign banks more breathing room, and forced kiwis to
     cut back and start saving if they could, extending the recession
     (National figured kiwis would not change their habits and start
     saving or cutting back).

     Tax cuts merely extended the time that private debt could be rolled
     over. Eventually the snake in the global fiscal imbalance has to be
     faced. NZ could be hit hard when energy inputs to farming become
     prohibitively expensive, exposed as it is to the global market and
     ease to which foreign domiciled can own NZ, without a National
     concern to the future freedom, economic and social of kiwis.

     Independence.

     A CGT would mean kiwis would expand the home economy,
     draw back expats, and start a massive revival in NZ, as capital
     gain would be harder won and so worth holding on to rather
     than selling to the world cheap.

     Oh, and National suk.
3. Herodotus 3

   19 May 2011 at 8:48 am

   “… All round the world folk have seen stories of how our deficit will be $15-17 billion…”
   I am still confused. We borrow $300m lately increased to $380m/week. Now about 1/2 is to cover refinancing (as stated o a few posts here). So then we are just extending/rolling over our debt profile, the remaining $130m/week is to cover cash deficiencies. Now $130*52 = about $8b. I am aware of increases/decreases of investments (I take giving world wide markets these to be gains) So where is this other $8b being sourced from?
   • Colonial Viper 3.1

     19 May 2011 at 8:57 am

     You can’t be expecting NAT numbers to make sense here, when their main goal is to manufacture a crisis to justify their enriching of the already wealthy.
   • RobC 3.2

     19 May 2011 at 9:14 am

     Herodotus, my understanding is the operating deficit is in the order of $16 billion.

     However, the Govt also has investments/assets. I believe (mainly thanks to the Cullen fund) the actual red ink is somewhere around $10 billion for the year.
     • Herodotus 3.2.1

       19 May 2011 at 9:35 am

       From my rough numbers I get about a $10b cash deficit which should be reduced by gains of investments NZSF Cullen etc. There is additional refinancing as EQC has to withdraw monies lent to govt and the govt has to go offshore to replace this. So as you and I have a similar viewpoint where is the other $6-$8b gone? This is not Africa,the Americas or the Middle East where monies get depositied into Switzerland ;-).
       So again if we have a deficit of $15b and we are borrowing $8b to cover the cash issues where are the missing monies??????
       • Herodotus 3.2.1.1

         19 May 2011 at 11:59 am

         This link has helped solve part of my problem, but why has the $6b Chch EQ in the accounts, from what I am aware the only cost nationally has been EQC payouts to the 1st quake, and I am 100% positive that $6b has not been paid out, so in that case we could have in the future operating surpluses but still requiring to borrow as we fund the Chch rebuild. That wuld be a great headline. Surplus but borrowings increase.
         Nice to see something easily understood and conveying a message simlpy. Well done David 🙂
         http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2011/05/19/budget-faq-6-why-the-debt-hole/comment-page-1/#comment-177387
4. hobbit 4

   19 May 2011 at 8:49 am

   “How much has tax cuts to the rich really “stimulated” the economy? The money could have been much better spent.”

   It’s. Not. Your. Money.
   • Colonial Viper 4.1

     19 May 2011 at 8:56 am

     That’s correct. It’s not your money. It’s. Our. Money. Money which belongs to the public, to the common wealth of New Zealanders. By stealing it, you are stealing from all of us, and from the country.
     • Jim Nald 4.1.1

       19 May 2011 at 9:16 am

       And our future generations.
       The ones who are left here and not already in Oz or another country.
   • south paw 4.2

     19 May 2011 at 9:43 am

     How ironic hobbit’s statement is when you consider rich pricks like Eric Watson, Mark Hotchin and the others whose self enriching activities don’t end up in the headlines.
     • joe bloggs 4.2.1

       19 May 2011 at 11:09 am

       Not forgetting Phil Goff, Cunliffe, Mallard, Hodgson, Dyson, and all the other Labour hacks – all of them leaching decent six figure salaries off the sweat of the workers.

       If your bosses are true ideologues they should take pay cuts and earn $30k a year.
5. Anthony 5

   19 May 2011 at 9:07 am

   Tax cuts could have been stimulatory (to the retail sector anyway) if they went to the part of the population that actually has to spend them. They were upside down.

   National do live in upside down land though.
6. RobC 6

   19 May 2011 at 9:26 am

   Rob, you missed the best line from Campbell’s piece:

   “Treasury forecasts – which have about the same predictive accuracy as your daily horoscope” 😀
7. randal 7

   19 May 2011 at 12:07 pm

   dont diss the treasury forecasts. they are made to assist the manques and parvenus extract every last penny they can before they get booted out.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS