So what’s changed?

64 comments on “So what’s changed? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. M 1

   22 April 2011 at 9:51 am

   So what’s changed?

   Key got the number one seat in the house that’s what and all of his berating Labour is conveniently forgotten as his government is performing even worse than Labour with even worse outcomes (sshhhh) – no different from a guy who picks up a woman in a bar, sleeps her with and then wants to distance himself as quickly as possible in the morning. 
2. Carol 2

   22 April 2011 at 10:08 am

   Only the spin has changed – has to once its shown up as empty promises.  To quote Bomber, quoting Graucho:

   Those are my principles.  If you don’t like them, I have others.

   The underlying agenda’s still the same, to rip off ordinary Kiwis and deliver the profits to the wealthy elites.
3. PeteG 3

   22 April 2011 at 10:10 am

   So what’s changed?
   * The Government
   * A tax cut not in election year
   * Interest rates are much lower

   Economist tips good times for Auckland
   The Auckland economy is heading into a sweet spot as the region benefits from low interest rates and a low exchange rate with the Australian dollar, says a leading economist.
   The recession hit Auckland earlier and harder than New Zealand as a whole, but it was already out-performing the rest of the country in terms of economic activity through the last three quarters of 2010, said Goldman Sachs economist Philip Borkin.
   Auckland is especially sensitive to financial conditions, which are at their most stimulatory since July 2009.
   Mr Borkin said the city’s economy should be growing by between 3 and 3.5 per cent by the end of the year.

   National had some bad luck in the timing of the recession, the timing of this may be fortuitous, but this could be a much harder issue for Labour to campaign against.
   • Peter 3.1

     22 April 2011 at 10:48 am

     …. and unemployment has gone through the roof
      
     But, you do have to admire the effectiveness of his delivery
   • Afewknowthetruth 3.2

     22 April 2011 at 10:53 am

     PeterG

     Surely nobody believes a word economists say these days, especially when it is drivel parroted by the NZH.

     Building and selling overpriced houses is just exacerbating Auckland’s long term predicament. More conctrete, more asphalt, more dependency on declining oil supplies. 

     Auckland doesn’t have a real economy -it produces almost nothing except pollution and is simply a centre of consumption of resources produced elsewhere. When the supply chain ceases it will be absolutely f**ched. 

     The NZH would never admit that kind of reality, of course. After all, the NZH is primarily concerned with boosting short term business confidence and keeping the advertising revenue flowing.
   • Jim Nald 3.3

     22 April 2011 at 11:05 am

     Ah, Goldman Sachs. Good on ya, Goldie. Hope you are well. Hope you can help get Auckland’s economy pumping really strong. Please don’t stuff it up.
     A quick look at Wikipedia shows some of Goldman Sachs’ “controversies”:
     * California bonds
     * Personnel ‘revolving-door’ with U.S. government
     * Greece and European sovereign debt crisis
     * Insider trading cases
     * First Quarter 2009 and December 2008 financial results
     * Involvement with the bailout of AIG      
     * Former New York Fed Chairman’s ties to the firm
     * $60 million settlement for Massachusetts subprime mortgages
     * Abacus mortgage-backed CDOs
     * Goldman Sachs Commodity Index and the 2005–2008 Food Bubble
     * SEC civil fraud lawsuit, filed in April 2010

      
      
   • mickysavage 3.4

     22 April 2011 at 11:06 am

     So what’s changed PeteG

     1.  The Government.  It certainly has changed.  They did not promise us shit like a a deep recession, growing unemployment and nothing more than a cycleway to deal with it.
     2.  A tax cut that we cannot afford.  Boy I wish Cullen was still in charge.
     3.  Interest rates that are set by international conditions and the reserve bank trying to stop the economy tanking.  And National has nothing to do with this.

     As for that report the economist should go outside and have a look at the real world.
     • Colonial Viper 3.4.1

       22 April 2011 at 11:07 am

       Boy I wish Cullen was still in charge.

       I think the lads Cunliffe and Parker deserve their turn now 🙂
        
     • PeteG 3.4.2

       22 April 2011 at 11:28 am

       MS, you say National has nothing to do with interest rates because of international conditions – wasn’t there just a teensy weensy bit of international conditions behind the deep and extended recession?
        
       I didn’t claim Labour promised to hand over a deep recession with associated growing unemployment.
        
       National actions have potentially had an influence on interest rates (unlike the onset of the recession) – if they had expanding public spending like Cullen had it’s far more likely we would have had a ratings downgrade and would be paying more interest now.
       • Draco T Bastard 3.4.2.1

         22 April 2011 at 1:14 pm

         National actions have potentially had an influence on interest rates

         In that they extended the recession – sure.

         if they had expanding public spending like Cullen had it’s far more likely we would have had a ratings downgrade and would be paying more interest now.

         No we wouldn’t. Our public debt is some of the lowest in the world. None of the ratings agencies were concerned about our debt level. They still aren’t even though, due to the economic mismanagement by National, our debt is increasing by $300m per week. If Cullen had still been in charge, at least we would probably have come out of the recession.
         • Colonial Viper 3.4.2.1.1

           22 April 2011 at 1:16 pm

           PeteG sucks at economics and fiscal policy
            
           Hey PeteG, if we taxed the wealthiest 5% of income earners and asset holders a bit more, we wouldn’t have to borrow a single additional cent from China, Germany and the UAE.
            
           Sounds good to me.
           • Draco T Bastard 3.4.2.1.1.1

             22 April 2011 at 1:26 pm

             PeteG sucks at economics and fiscal policy

             From what I’ve seen, most RWNJs do. They have NFI WTF they’re talking about and so believe whatever they’re told by their owners lords leaders.
           • Uncle Helen 3.4.2.1.1.2

             22 April 2011 at 11:28 pm

             [i]if we taxed the wealthiest 5% of income earners and asset holders a bit more[/i]
              
             The top 10% of earners already bear a disproportionate 76% of the income tax burden, 66% more than their fair share.
              
             [i]if we taxed the wealthiest 5% of income earners and asset holders a bit more[/i]
              
             If the shallow end of the gene pool stopped breeding-for-the-DPB and got jobs, we wouldn’t have to pay $21 [b]billion[/b] in parasite payments every year.
              
              
             • rosy …

               22 April 2011 at 11:36 pm

               That’s the top 10% UH, what about the top 5% that was suggested? or more to the point, the top 1% who, as far as I’m aware do not pay their fair share, if any share at all.
             • terryg …

               23 April 2011 at 1:04 am

               Thats some seriously unimpressive mathematical skills you have there Uncle Helen. I suggest that under no circumstances whatsoever should you even THINK of designing a building – or if you do, let us know so we can keep well clear!
               You are conflating % of tax paid, with % of population. In mathematical terms this is referred to as “wrong”.
               I will assume your 10%, 90% & 76% figures are correct, as I am too lazy to check for myself.
               Firstly, you attempt to argue (intentionally or otherwise) that we should each pay the SAME amount, regardless of income.
               “The top 10% of earners already bear a disproportionate 76% of the income tax burden, 66% more than their fair share”
               you are therefore saying they should pay 10% of the total. Ergo everybody pays the same amount.
               I suspect most people would NOT think that a cleaner in South Auckland should have to pay as much tax as Bill Birnie – a proposition so unbelievably stupid that it is its own rebuttal.
                
               Given that, why might the top 10% pay 76% of the taxes?
               I can do this properly, but I would need actual income distributions (see sloth note above), and it will involve calculus. If however I make a few simplifying assumptions we only need form 2 maths.
               the assumptions:
               1. everyone in the top 10% earns the same amount
               2. everyone in the bottom 90% earns the same amount
               (so in other words I’m using the average incomes for each group).
               3. everyones tax rate is the same (this is what really simplifies the maths).
                
               If the average income of the top 10% is 3 times that of the lower 90%, then the total tax paid by the top 10% will, BY DEFINITION be 3x that of the lower 90%:
               Tax_10% = 3 X Tax_90%
               the total tax take is of course:
               Tax_total = Tax_90% + Tax_10%
               which can therefore be written as:
               Tax_total = Tax_90% + (3 X Tax_90%)
               giving
               Tax_total = 4 x Tax_90%
               and the share the top 10% pay is of course
               share_10% = Tax_10%/Tax_total
               substituting in the above expressions gives:
               (sorry, force of habit. the word “so would have been fine)
               share_10% = (3 x Tax_90%)/(4 x Tax_90%)
               thus share_10% = 3/4.
                
               So (assuming a flat tax rate) in order for the top 10% to pay ~ 3/4 of the total taxes, they need on average to earn about 3x more than the lower 10%.
               In other words, its not necessarily unreasonable at all. And that is without looking at the actual income distribution, which in practice is HEAVILY skewed.
               Rosy is spot on too. I’m in the top 10% (AKA upper decile), and NOWHERE NEAR the top 1%. I’m missing an entire digit, and the one below it is precisely that – a “1”.
               (dont forget tax avoidance, which is hugely influential here. LAQC’s, trusts etc. anyone?)
                
               Secondly, your last sentence is such malignant tripe that words almost fail me. almost.  Ignoring the implied eugenics, and the total lack of evidence for your breeding-for-the-dpb statement (in fact there is plenty of evidence, which proves the exact opposite), there is one minor tiny gaping flaw in your so-called argument:
               WHAT JOBS?
               I can only hope “your philosophy” does not metastase.
               .
                
               • DS …

                 23 April 2011 at 3:19 am

                 >>>I suspect most people would NOT think that a cleaner in South Auckland should >>>have to pay as much tax as Bill Birnie – a proposition so unbelievably stupid that >>>it is its own rebuttal.

                 It’s called a Poll Tax. It really does exist (as a concept, at least), though fortunately no-one outside the truly insane Right Wing actually advocate for it. For historical examples of what happens when Poll Taxes are implemented, see the Peasants Revolt of 1381, or the anti-Poll Tax protests that helped bring down Margaret Thatcher in 1990.
                 • terryg …

                   23 April 2011 at 10:00 am

                   Indeed. the only rational response to a poll tax is insurrection.
                   And I cant spell (or use apostrophes’s’s”). The word I meant was METASTASIZE.
               • Busted …

                 23 April 2011 at 2:32 pm

                 Uncle Helen is probably aka Bullshit Bill (English). We all know what his maths is like don’t we!
   • Draco T Bastard 3.5

     22 April 2011 at 11:09 am

     Should we listen to the illogical PeteG quoting the people who caused the GFC…?
   • Colonial Viper 3.6

     22 April 2011 at 11:12 am

     said Goldman Sachs economist Philip Borkin. Auckland is especially sensitive to financial conditions, which are at their most stimulatory since July 2009.

     Sounds like someone is Borkin John Key in public. Question is, are the rest of us going to actually find it stimulatory?
      
     My bet is no.
     • Jim Nald 3.6.1

       22 April 2011 at 11:14 am

       I hope some of these economists are not shooting blanks
   • bbfloyd 3.7

     22 April 2011 at 11:30 am

     “economist tips good times for auckland”…. is that really the best you can find? some guy working for the same people who have been screwing us for years tells the herald that auckland’s REALLY going to suddenly start taking off?
     how stupid do you have to be before that kind of obvious self serving drivel can be seen as what it is?
     auckland, my one eyed, shallow, bigoted freind, is experiencing the worst economic conditions i have ever seen. (even worse than after richardson got at it).  more people than ever are struggling to eat at all, let alone eat properly, and, so far, there isn’t even a hint of a plan showing through.
     some guy who is being paid to produce a paper that supports the aims of the group most responsible for that is “proof” that it’s all going to suddenly turn to gold for us?  way to insult our intelligence..
     i suppose that’s reality when you live in a labour voting electorate. no votes to be gained, so don’t waste your money on them.
   • Puddleglum 3.8

     22 April 2011 at 1:21 pm

     There’s always one … but what about the consensus? Note, too, the forecast for wage growth and unemployment at the end of the link.
   • Anthony 3.9

     22 April 2011 at 3:32 pm

     So how will this help normal people?
   • seeker 3.10

     22 April 2011 at 3:50 pm

     @ Pete G. 10.10am

     Helen Clark would never have said ‘we can’t help your price pain’, then again she would never have contributed to it so wilfilly, self servingly and remorselessly as John Key et al..
     Something unfortunately did change in 2008 – good on the whole, responsible, moral, democratic and law abiding government under Ms Clark for the exact opposite under ‘couldn’t really care a less but as long as I look as though I do’ Key.

     captcha: experience  !!?**!
4. Afewknowthetruth 4

   22 April 2011 at 10:34 am

   What’s changed since 2008? Well….

   1. The bankers Ponzi scheme started to seriously unravel in 2008. Now most of the world’s financuial system is hanging by a thread because bailouts and quantitative easing have not just proven to be complete failures, they have made the situation worse. Numerous nations are now facing default on debts they cannot service.

   2. Gold was around $850 in 2008. It’s now over $1500, as those who have the opportunity retreat from fiat currencies that are losing value by the day and seek security in tangible assets.

   3. In 2008 there was great suspicion we were at peak oil, but there was no hard evidence. Now there is hard evidence we are past peak oil and on the way down. In 2008 the IEA was denying there was a problem: now it has admitted we are post peak oil and in trouble. Even the IMF is starting to panic over oil supply. We were not sure in 2008, but now we are certain that we are on the slippery slope that leads to complete unravelling of all currrent economic and social arrangements. 

   4. Increasing climate instability that is a consequence of out-of-control CO2 emissions has started to really hammer the industrialised production of food. Crop failures, in conjunction with desperation attempts to keep cars running via conversion of food into fuel and increased production costs associated with higher fuel prices, are leading to a surge in food prices that will result in even greater malnutrition than we are already witnessing.

   5. World population has increased by around 250 million over the past 3 years, meaning we have 250 million more poeple chasing declining global resources.

   5. We have different bunch of criminals and clowns leading the nation in completely the wrong direction, squandering resources and doing nothing constructive about any of the core issues  -just as occurred when Labour was in power. 

   6. The culture of denial seems to be more firmly entrenched than in 2008, perhaps because it is increasingly obvious that the writing is on the wall for the present system and they are terrified to read what it says. 
   • M 4.1

     22 April 2011 at 11:41 am

     The ponzi scheme started to unravel because there was no real money on Wall Street once the drug cartel money started to be withdrawn in 2008 and then WS was in a “the Emporer has no clothes” scenario and with PO thrown in the situation was the worst of all worlds.

     Political parties will not be honest about our worsening situation of petering energy supplies because they musn’t frighten the horses or they won’t get into power.
   • Robert Atack 4.2

     22 April 2011 at 1:10 pm

     7 – Those of us who were trying to tell the truth from 1999 – 2008 were laughed at, now we are just abused, mainly by people who don’t use their real names.
     This is stage 2 of denial … acceptance should kick in around the end of this year or by 2013  at the latest, then all the wallies out there will demand the pig ignorant (by design) politicians do something, unfortunately by then their choices will be extremely limited  and not very popular … to say the least 😉    

     WE TOLD YA SO – LOL

     But keep paying into Kiwi Saver … mugs

     And least you forget
     Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.
     • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1

       22 April 2011 at 2:44 pm

       Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

       I know I shouldn’t but I 😆
5. HC 5

   22 April 2011 at 3:39 pm

   What’s changed is that after much criticism of Labour, much initial spin doctoring, much talk about “job summits”, “national cycleways”, and “tax cuts” in return for a hefty GST hike, we now have a very quickly slowing “spin”, we have the population losing faith in the government’s true competence more swiftly, many being so disillusioned, they do not even know who to vote for, we have had major bail outs of financial firms, we have had an order for new, larger, more luxurious BMWs for the boys and girls at the top, we have stagnation, we have had natural and other disasters that were answered with flip flop solutions, we have a Prime Minister who is hardly noticeable, except for certain “photo ops”, we have a government run out of answers, we have a growing income gap between Australia and NZ, we have as many people leaving the country for good as we have had for years, and we are all desperately looking for some dim light at the end of an endless, dark tunnel.
    
   Also we appear to have another vote deal with Rodney the Yellow Parrot in Epsom.
6. Herodotus 6

   22 April 2011 at 4:03 pm

   So what has changed???
   Nothing.
   What would change if Lab reentered as the govt ?? Nothing.
   Outside when a few sub groups get brought for their vote  and another has to foot the bill. There appears no difference.
   After spending the initail part of the break thinking this over. Outside a few minor issues what is different between the 2 parties and their effect on day to day living?
   Petrol still goes up as does dairy and our wage packets are being ever being placed under pressure our quality of living stds is reducing, so really what of the blue/red parties really has a solution?
   All I see is counter punching that the other team is not performing as promised, but news “our” team is also not performing.
   • Afewknowthetruth 6.1

     22 April 2011 at 4:46 pm

     Arthur Schopenhauer pointed out long ago that all truth passes through three stages:

     First it is ridiculed.

     Second it is violently opposed.

     Third it is accepted as being self-evident.     

     For peak oil and the collapse of industrialised society it looks to be panning like something like this: 

     Ridiculed  1956-2006

     Opposed (ignored)  2006-2013

     Accepted as being self-evident 2014  i.e. when the collapse of indistrialised society is so blatantly obvious people cannot  ignore it any longer.

     Only three more years of economic fantasy and delusion.  
     • Herodotus 6.1.1

       22 April 2011 at 5:02 pm

       So we should be commencing a policy of isolatioonist, limiting our pop. to a managable size, plannin new towns and commissioning more power generation (Hydro)? Then we better get on to it and produce huge amounts of cement and be prepared. But no we have no leadership no vision.
       So if Nat or Lab are in govt … What chnages – just the monkeys running the place. The household increases its stuggle to cope, feed house etc.
       remember Labs so far plans. GSt onff F&V pity they are over hyping the savings, that $5k pledge .. but there are fish hooks, when we cvan afford it. In laymans terms, wait until it is obvious to all …. Never. But hopefully SOE’s will still own the power plants. Pity they will contuinue to screw us over pricing, and that is with Lab or Nat in govt !! 😉
       • Robert Atack 6.1.1.1

         22 April 2011 at 5:34 pm

         commissioning more power generation (Hydro)

         Sorry Herodotus but building more power plants isn’t going to help at all, getting use to not having electricity would be the smart way to go. (move Chch to Northland).
         First all our power grids are dependent on computers (and would take years to revert), every computer is dependent on a coal fired power plant and a diesel  powered truck somewhere in the world, also the comps are dependent on some pore black bastard crawling down a hole with an EverReady touch strapped to his head in the search for tin.
         So building power plants is a last grasp at ‘business as usual’.The next 10 – 20 years (if we are lucky) will look like the last 100 in reverse, except the trees and extinct animals will not come back, or the topsoil, I should say the next 20 years, population and economy wise will look like the last 100 years = the loss of at least 6 billion people. Fukushima may speed the whole game up a tad.
         don’t know how this post went all bold font?
         
         
         
         
7. David 7

   22 April 2011 at 5:26 pm

   My mortgage is now 5.6% not 10.5%, my power company has frozen my rate until 2012 rather than relentless 10% increases pa. My tax rate is 17.5% instead of 33% sure petrol prices hurt but thank god the Nats scrapped Labours ETS and regional petrol taxes and sooner or later Gadaffi will get his head blown off.
   • Jim Nald 7.1

     22 April 2011 at 5:32 pm

     Thank gawd. Come Nov 26 for donkey, you can kiss ass.
   • Zaphod Beeblebrox 7.2

     22 April 2011 at 5:43 pm

     Has your wage been keeping place with the CPI? If not those other things aren’t really of much help.
     • David 7.2.1

       22 April 2011 at 6:06 pm

       It has, got CPI adjustment last year and because 30% of my income goes on the mortgage which is gst free the tax changes worked for me. Wouldnt want to be one of those property speculators that Key nailed to pay for it.
       • MrSmith 7.2.1.1

         22 April 2011 at 6:48 pm

         David, you are a property speculator other wise you would be renting.
         • Carol 7.2.1.1.1

           22 April 2011 at 6:57 pm

           Wouldnt want to be one of those property speculators that Key nailed to pay for it.

            
           And you good tax fortune may also be at the expense of some of us on modest incomes, who rent, and also have some savings – not to mention the Kiwis on low incomes, who are struggling to put food on the table for their families.  But, hey?!  I’m glad you feel fine to gloat about it.
           • David 7.2.1.1.1.1

             22 April 2011 at 7:29 pm

             Not gloating at all, I am a painter by trade so am on a normal income but work long hours for it and am pleased Key looks after us workers. I Worked hard, saved hard and achieved my dream of my own house and no landlord (with help from the wife of course).
             Labour should pop down to the odd building site and get a clue on how much male support they have lost. We work hard and long hours and we have had enough of paying for lawyers and accountants interest free student loans and their free childcare while the pampered wife attends night classes to learn how to pole dance.
             • Carol …

               22 April 2011 at 7:34 pm

               Plenty of people work long and hard and can’t afford a house these days:
                

               paying for lawyers and accountants interest free student loans and their free childcare while the pampered wife attends night classes to learn how to pole dance.

               Is it possible that some of these lawyers and accountants might be women?  And I thought nightclasses had been axed.
               • David …

                 22 April 2011 at 7:55 pm

                 True, my lawyer is a young lady so apologies for being sexist. She did however charge us 900 bucks to buy a house when my brother in the UK got his transaction free by the real estate agent and I did pay 75% of her tuition cost and I am paying her interest on her loan and the wife reckoned she was wearing over 1k in designer gear (handbag included).
                 • rosy …

                   22 April 2011 at 8:05 pm

                   I think you’re looking in the wrong direction. Student loans (interest-free) allow for any children you might have to have a higher education. The rich go to university on your money no matter what. Did you have trade training? My son-in-law had to train at an educational institute to get his painter qualification. No-one would give him a job until he did. He had to pay interest on the loan and had no chance of paying it off on apprentice painter’s wages until interest was removed. Key&Co are not looking after the workers, they’re looking after big business and laughing because they’re dividing the working class by generation, unemployment and the mortgage belt. I’d laugh if it wasn’t so sad.
             • MrSmith …

               22 April 2011 at 8:27 pm

               David I have had smoko with you and the sparkys,plumbers,etc and I have sat there listening to the anti union, anti nanny state, anti regulation, talk and championed it, this is called Confirmation bias amongst other things, later I started to really think about what was being said at smoko, so I researched things and educated myself so I could come to my own conclusions, not those I had heard at smoko or down the pub on friday night. So can I ask you David how you think John Key looks after his workers?
               • David …

                 22 April 2011 at 8:49 pm

                 Rosy I am very proud to say my son Harry started at Canterbury this year to study chemistry and yes I think he should pay interest because it will slow down his borrowing and would keep him focussed when he has skin in the game. I have no doubt he will leave Uni and start work on good coin and yes he needs to pay his way. No reason why low income workers should subsidize his borrowings when they pay 75% of his course costs already.
                 Mr Smith, I like the way Key wants to stay out of my life and pocket, he said a while ago that people who take taxpayers money to get through hard times have an obligation to those taxpayers to get busy and make their own way. I like the way he came from a state house and worked hard and was successful and gives his kids and wife a good life, in a small way I do the same for mine. If we dont have successful people none of us will make money and we wont be able to afford to look after people less fortunate.
                 • rosy …

                   22 April 2011 at 9:07 pm

                   And you should be very proud of your son. Fantastic – the country needs engineers and by providing a skill that the country needs he should be supported by his family, the country and business that will eventually use his skills (if the wages are high enough for him to stay here). It should be no harder, or easier to go to university than for any other person. The student loan itself is his share in this deal with the country and it provides the incentive to do well and not waste money, anything else is a penalty on success and disincentive for all those other sons and daughters of painters, cleaners and whoever else – except those whose parents know how to restructure their affairs to wangle a student allowance.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   22 April 2011 at 11:58 pm

                   Sounds good – one thing though, you’re measuring success incorrectly. Society has been doing so for centuries if not longer.
                    
                   Success is measured by becoming financially independent. What this means in real terms is that you don’t have to work or, to put it another way, you become a professional bludger.
                   • rosy …

                     23 April 2011 at 4:37 am

                     I understand what you’re saying but OTOH I’ve no problem with people achieving in whatever way they want and I think it’s important to be able to support yourself. I do agree that basing success on wealth is incomplete. I think most people value their lives better if they have an opportunity to do what they are good at and they value their own lives, and others, if that talent is appreciated.
                 • MrSmith …

                   23 April 2011 at 8:18 am

                   We you have been duped then David, you are now poorer under this government and have less rights then you ever had. 
     • Herodotus 7.2.2

       22 April 2011 at 6:54 pm

       ZB the CPI excludes the like of interest rates, so we can have the situation of a low inflation/CPI rate but interest rates going thru the roof, and high CP and reduced interest rates. For many who see the headline figure and then find it hard to relate this to their individual situation. Then we have the likes of increased wage rates but we enter a new tax bracket which negates the increase. Both situations are applicable to the current and the last govts, with neither displaying any real concern. The only difference was that under Lab those who had  mutli property had a multiplying effect on their wealth (without contributing to the tax take) not trad Lab voters but voted with their pockets, and Lab imo were happy to accept this support without testing if it was moral for this increase in wealth to be taxed. Some could say as many MP’s are multi property owners theirs was a self interest… but not me !!!!
       So ZB look beneath the headdline nos. As many have been hurting for quite sometime.
       • PeteG 7.2.2.1

         22 April 2011 at 7:02 pm

         Then we have the likes of increased wage rates but we enter a new tax bracket which negates the increase.

         It doesn’t negate the increased rate if an increase puts you into a higher bracket, only the amount earned in the higher bracket is taxed more, the rest is still taxed as it was.
         • Herodotus 7.2.2.1.1

           22 April 2011 at 7:41 pm

           If cpi goes up by 4% and pay rate goes up 4%, there is tax creep on the existing brackets and their tax bill as a % of total income increases. So the wage earner looses then if they enter a new bracket say from 33% to 39% then you also lose out an additional 6% on the amount over $60k in this case ( Same applies when you enter any new tax bracket). So yet again in real terms the wage eaner has a reduced disposable income, yet in appearance is keeping pace with inflation, but in reality has to exist on less.
           • PeteG 7.2.2.1.1.1

             22 April 2011 at 7:48 pm

             If you track it with the CPI then yes, that’s the bracket creep that Cullen got lambasted for and eventually pressured him to give a token tax cut. Effectively the vast majority of people had annual tax increases under Cullen.
             So the Labour tax cut in part and also the National cut was simply redressing part of this.
8. Tanz 8

   22 April 2011 at 5:45 pm

   Nothing much has changed. The man is only human and cannot work miracles. He is one man (along with his team, of course), against a dark flood of recession. What’s he supposed to do exactly? Maybe he over-promised a littlle.
   • MrSmith 8.1

     22 April 2011 at 6:37 pm

     Plenty has changed Tanz, wonkey and mates have been rigging the game, and “What’s he supposed to do?” How about he starts doing some work instead of flying from one photo shoot to the next.
     • Tanz 8.1.1

       22 April 2011 at 6:40 pm

       He does have to represent NZ at the Royal Wedding though. The economy won’t collapse. I agree though, too many photos of late.
   • neoleftie 8.2

     22 April 2011 at 7:09 pm

     John and bill gave massive tax cuts to those who never needed it just when we needed that tax rake to tide the country over until the darkest time was over. Those billions should have been spent on capital projects -mini ‘think big’ projects that had a long term effect…
      
9. peteremcc 9

   22 April 2011 at 7:33 pm

   In 2008 New Zealand had been in recession all year, thanks to Labour’s policies, before the global financial crisis event started.

   That’s the difference.

   In 2008 it was government policy causing the problem. Now it’s international events and mother nature.
   • Eddie 9.1

     22 April 2011 at 8:01 pm

     that kind of stupid argument only works at young ACT meetings Peter.

     Go to the OECD site and tell us how many countries had negative growth in Q1 2008 along with New Zealand, and how many had one in Q2 2008.

     It was a global recession, dummy. The US’s recession officially started in December 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_recession

     Oh, and Treasury says that the economy’s poor performance last year – before international oil prices took off – was only one third due to the earthquake. What caused the rest, Peter?
     • peteremcc 9.1.1

       22 April 2011 at 8:42 pm

       Perhaps because we understand economics at ACT on Campus meetings Eddie?

       Try this, seen as you like wikipedia so much:

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_late_2000s_recession#2008
       • Eddie 9.1.1.1

         22 April 2011 at 10:27 pm

         that link shows that most of the OECD entered recession in the first half of 2008, along with NZ.
       • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.2

         23 April 2011 at 12:09 am

         Act doesn’t understand economics at all.
          
         http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article5571667.ece
          
         http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/01/news/economy/recession/index.htm
          
         http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/mar2008/newz-m24.shtml
          
         So, Britain and the US entered recession before us.
10. Irascible 10

    23 April 2011 at 9:18 pm

    Love this campaign idea from Canada. An effective way to give the message to Key??
    http://shitharperdid.ca/

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS