The Dummies’ Guide to National’s wage policy

68 comments on “The Dummies’ Guide to National’s wage policy ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Camryn 1

   14 February 2008 at 1:17 pm

   That’s pretty funny. I loved that episode.

   I think he doesn’t (and shouldn’t) give a shit about increasing wages, but feels he can’t say it.

   I’d rather he grew the economy. It won’t increase wages as quickly and it’d certainly never reduce income disparity, but it’d give us all a much larger economy to support our needs in the long term.

   Every policy that hinders growth to achieve wage growth and other social objectives now costs us in the long run. It’s a lot like saving. If we could just defer cashing in until we’ve got a bigger principle, we’d be much better off.

   Problem is, we keep on electing National when there’s a recession instead of when they could run the economy hot on the back of good conditions, and voting Labour in when the going’s already good and we don’t need more social focus.

   We relax when the going is good instead of making hay, and then try to implement growth policies when conditions are bad. As a nation, we’re horrible at electing the right party at the right time.
2. Camryn 2

   14 February 2008 at 1:19 pm

   It won’t increase wages as quickly *in the short term*, I mean to say. Woops. Long term, though, better off for all.
3. BeShakey 3

   14 February 2008 at 1:33 pm

   Interesting second post Camryn. I thought it was internally consistent, although I disagreed as policy. Your position seemed to be that we should focus on growing the economy, without concern to where the benefits of that might lie. Unless you buy into trickle down theory, there doesn’t seem to be any reason to think that this would lead to wage increases for low (or maybe even middle) income earners.
4. The Double Standard 4

   14 February 2008 at 2:30 pm

   Yeah Bill, I guess you think WFF is a tax cut as well? No wonder you need a dummies guide. Tell me, what is the difference to the worker between Case 2 and Case 3?

   Case 1:
   Weekly income: $1000
   Weekly tax: $350
   Weekly after-tax: $650

   Case 2:
   Weekly income: $1000
   Weekly tax: $300
   Weekly after-tax: $700

   Case 3:
   Weekly income: $1100
   Weekly tax: $400
   Weekly after-tax: $700

   BTW “for a start” Did you miss that?
5. Daveo 5

   14 February 2008 at 2:35 pm

   TDS- appreciate the National research unit figures but they don’t relate to the topic of discussion. How does cutting taxes lift wages?
6. Aj 6

   14 February 2008 at 2:48 pm

   He also state Nat tax cuts would mean an average of $45 in the hand to workers. Of course these will be heavily weighted to high incomes so bugger all will be left for people on less than the average wage…
7. The Double Standard 7

   14 February 2008 at 2:48 pm

   Daveo – obviously you need the Dummies guide to the Dummies guide.

   Here’s a question for you – if tax cuts don’t improve workers income, why is Cullen offering them?
8. Daveo 8

   14 February 2008 at 2:52 pm

   That’s not the question TDS. Tax cuts and wage rises aren’t the same thing, yet John Key said he’d lift wages by cutting taxes – how does that make any sense? They’re two completely different things.

   There’s something else I’ve been thinking. If you’re going to have year on year tax cuts instead of wage increases how is that sustainable? At what point do you stop and say “We’ve looted the state and we’re out of money. Sorry everyone”?
9. Robinsod 9

   14 February 2008 at 2:53 pm

   Jeez TDS – you’re a bit grumpy today bro, what’s the matter? Did you get told off about yesterday’s poor performance? Better luck today mate – by the look of this poor attempt at misdirection you’re gonna need it.
10. The Double Standard 10

    14 February 2008 at 2:56 pm

    Daveo – Why don’t you ask your bro’s over a Labor?

    Labor’s plan includes the goal over 6 years, by 2013-14, of flattening Australia’s income tax system by reducing the number of personal income tax rates from four to three with a personal income tax scale of 15 per cent, 30 per cent and 40 per cent.

    This plan will deliver assistance to working families under financial pressure and help prepare Australia for its future economic challenges.

    This is a course of action for Australia’s long-term national interest rather than a short term political decision by a government that has had 11 and a half years to fundamentally reform the tax system

    http://www.alp.org.au/media/1007/msloo181.php
11. Ex Labour Voter 11

    14 February 2008 at 3:01 pm

    The answer is very simple.

    Do after-tax pay packets rise, or do they not, if taxes are cut?

    Yes they do. Cutting tax raises workers’ disposable incomes.
12. The Double Standard 12

    14 February 2008 at 3:02 pm

    Oh, and you might like to take a look at this, although I’m not sure that it is dumbed down enough for you:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/author/story.cfm?a_id=13&objectid=10491555&pnum=0

    I guess Cullen’s wage policy is to jawbone employers?
13. Daveo 13

    14 February 2008 at 3:03 pm

    TDS- if this is the best the National research unit has to throw at The Standard then maybe I’ve overestimated you guys. I guess they only put their trainee staffers on the blogs.

    I’ve asked you a simple question- how does cutting taxes increase wages? Quoting me Australian Labor Party policy is a good attempt at misdirection but sadly it’s not an answer.
14. Robinsod 14

    14 February 2008 at 3:04 pm

    Ha! – You have your mistake pointed out to you and you make it again (but with a quote this time!) and with spelling mistakes! Jeez TDS you’re really off your game mate. I can hear your KPIs falling from here…
15. The Double Standard 15

    14 February 2008 at 3:10 pm

    Yawn. OK Mickey, you have earned your reply-of-the-day.

    Here’s a little test for you – which of my cases above would you prefer, 1, 2, or 3.

    Lets see if that is simple enough for you? And maybe you could get your sock-puppet Daveo to answer as well. Bonus points are available if you give different answers.
16. Robinsod 16

    14 February 2008 at 3:20 pm

    Um TDS – I hear you blow goats. What does it taste like? (I figure we’re commenting off thread now…)
17. Tane 17

    14 February 2008 at 3:22 pm

    Sod, try to settle down eh? Yes, I know Double’s a humorless attack troll but try not to bring down the tone too much.
18. The Double Standard 18

    14 February 2008 at 3:23 pm

    IB: I guess you stopped listening to the clip after you got to your “National-bad” hook. How about quoting the rest of it as well, or doesn’t that help your partisan negative focus on Key?

    Key “It is after tax wages that allows people to save for a deposit or pay for their mortgage. If we were the government today and our tax policy had been rolled out New Zealanders would be $45 a week better off on average. ”

    Geoff “So they’d have the money in their pocket and thus be able to buy a house”

    Key “Well either save for it or pay their mortgage. Thats one element. Secondly there are lots of other things around raising wages in relation to productivity growth. I mean there is all sorts of things you can do ranging from education to unlocking bottlenecks of infrastructure, cutting compliance costs and the like. So I’m not arguing solely taxes, thats one aspect. I’m simply saying raising wages is a very important focus of a National government”
19. Ex Labour Voter 19

    14 February 2008 at 3:23 pm

    Why don’t you answer the question, Daveo? Does cutting taxes increase after-tax incomes?
20. Robinsod 20

    14 February 2008 at 3:23 pm

    [Deleted. This is your last warning.]
21. Ex Labour Voter 21

    14 February 2008 at 3:29 pm

    Seems to me Robinsodo does get a lot of last and final warnings, doesn’t he?
22. Robinsod 22

    14 February 2008 at 3:31 pm

    Hey ELV/TDS. Yeah. Once.
23. Policy Parrot 23

    14 February 2008 at 3:35 pm

    TDS – The Rudd government has just announced it will only implement stage 1 of the proposed tax cuts, and put the rest conditional to global economic conditions, and the upper income tax reductions on hiatus to focus on building up higher surpluses (which they will not call surpluses in the sense as the money is allocated as part of the year’s official spending) reserves to cope with the likely end of the mining boom and the increasing superannuation burden?

    So will the Libs call this the Swann fund?

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23211626-2702,00.html
24. The Double Standard 24

    14 February 2008 at 3:41 pm

    Look, it is obvious to most but the most die-hard lefties that, in the short term, a tax cut is as good as a wage rise, as Key says. More in-the-pocket income for mortgages, or school fees, or plasma TV’s.

    Increasing base wages does not have a simple solution, but many are asking themselves whether they feel better off after 9 years of Teh Party’s policies, and increasingly, the answer is a big fat no.

    (and please keep you stats links under your hats – as the monkey economics link shows, we are not entirely rational, and waving a pretty graph on ‘median incomes’ isn’t likely to win you votes)
25. The Double Standard 25

    14 February 2008 at 3:45 pm

    PP – does that make Rudd like Cullen then – promise then disappoint? Or did he put sufficient weasel word in his election campaign?

    Perhaps Labor politicians world-wide can’t be trusted to deliver promised tax cuts? I had thought that Key was drawing a fairly long bow with that theme, but maybe not?

    And isn’t it remarkable that in Australia tax cuts will ease inflationary pressure?

    “Treasurer Wayne Swan today introduced bills for tax cuts which he says will help boost workplace participation and ease the inflationary pressure from a full labour market.
26. Daveo 26

    14 February 2008 at 3:47 pm

    But still no actual answers TDS?

    Just “lots of other things around raising wages in relation to productivity growth… ranging from education to unlocking bottlenecks of infrastructure, cutting compliance costs and the like.”

    Sounds a lot like trickle down to me – rely heavily on tax cuts and promise some vague action on infrastructure and ‘compliance costs’.

    If I was earning $12 an hour I’d have very little faith in that. So still nothing concrete from John Key on wages.
27. Daveo 27

    14 February 2008 at 3:49 pm

    many are asking themselves whether they feel better off after 9 years of Teh Party’s policies, and increasingly, the answer is a big fat no.

    (and please keep you stats links under your hats – as the monkey economics link shows, we are not entirely rational, and waving a pretty graph on ‘median incomes’ isn’t likely to win you votes)

    So now you’re admitting National is trading on perception rather than reality?
28. Ex Labour Voter 28

    14 February 2008 at 3:58 pm

    Just two days ago robinsod gets warned twice in one post and has his comment deleted because it’s so offensive and now he’s got a last warning. One standard for robinsod and one standard for everybody else?

    [lprent:
    not really, it is just that the ‘sod is very very good at walking close to the line.
    If you read our Policy page, you will find that the moderators prefer not to ban.
    I’m more of the BOFH line of thinking myself.]
29. The Double Standard 29

    14 February 2008 at 3:59 pm

    Daveo – how about your answer to the question above?

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1103#comment-18127
30. Daveo 30

    14 February 2008 at 4:14 pm

    You mean your figures TDS? It depends on what the effect would be on crown accounts. I don’t want low taxes if it means fewer public services, that’s a recipe for inequality and social deprivation. What I want is higher wages and concrete policies to close the wage gap with Australia. John Key has no answers for either.
31. Michele Cabiling 31

    14 February 2008 at 4:24 pm

    Cullen needs to explain why tax cuts are inflationary and Liarbour retaining and spending the same money itself isn’t.

    As for those who wank on about “tax cuts for the rich” it’s their money anyway. If you haven’t paid much tax, you don’t get much of a tax cut. That’s not rocket science.

    Tax cuts effectively increase wages by leaving more after-tax income in workers’ pay packets.

    Tax cuts can be applied in three ways, each of which grows the economy in real terms:

    [1] spent — which increases the demand for goods and services, leading to more employment;

    [2] invested which leads to economic growth; and

    [3] saved — which means the banks lend the money out to businesses for investment which leads to econcomic growth.

    Working For Families is simply taking a dollar off someone, churning it through an unnecessary state bureaucracy that’s nothing but a deadweight on the economy, then giving them back seventy cents.

    Where’s the logic in that — other than to underscore to New Zealanders that they’re serfs on Auntie Helengrad’s plantation.
32. Robinsod 32

    14 February 2008 at 4:26 pm

    Of course they are bro – they got nothing else (a bit like our mate TDS).

    So ah TDS – let’s say you’re on about $41,000 (about the average wage) and your total tax paid on that is about 26% (before any WFF rebates).

    You do a tax cut for the first year (let’s say 5% – cos that’s a pretty good but not excessive rise) and that counters the 3.5% inflation you’ve had to deal with (mostly because of petrol prices) and gives you a little more in your pocket.

    Anyway the next year rolls around and you’re now paying 21% in total tax but inflation’s gone up another 3%. So you get a 3% tax cut (‘cos you know that’s how we raise incomes around here). That’s all good and now you’re paying 18% in total tax.

    But then year three and OMG the rate of inflation rockets (probably because of all the money flowing into the economy). It’s at five yeas that’s right 5! percent. We’re all on the road to poverty now if we don’t raise incomes. I know we’ll cut taxes again. Let’s say 5% again just to make sure.

    Ahhhhhh that’s better… You’re only paying 13% in total tax now… But hold on a minute, there’s no money for hospitals and your kids’ school fees are outta control! What you need to offset these costs is another “income rise”…

    You’re a moron TDS and so is anyone else that claims Tax cuts are a sustainable way to raise incomes.
33. BeShakey 33

    14 February 2008 at 4:32 pm

    Michele – there has been discussion previously on the questions of tax as theft, tax cuts for the rich etc. Without wanting to rehash too much, the idea that people with lots of money should keep it, and tough on anyone else, is pretty unattractive to people across most of the political spectrum.

    In terms of your claim that tax cuts will necessarily grow the economy – you seem to be assuming a closed economy, in NZ it’s likely that a portion of any tax cuts will go overseas, for instance in overseas investments, as profits for foreign companies etc. Given you seem to be promoting a fairly libertarian approach, it’s likely that in your preferred system a very significant portion of the cuts would go overseas.
34. Robinsod 34

    14 February 2008 at 4:35 pm

    Just two days ago robinsod gets warned twice in one post and has his comment deleted because it’s so offensive and now he’s got a last warning

    Yeah bro and Burt repeatedly trolls, gets warned, has comments deleted and is warned again, finally gets banned and is then let back on site early. Jeez I tell yah those lefties get all the sweet treatment. Why don’t you take your Faux outrage somewhere else ELV? It’s getting dull here…
35. Michele Cabiling 35

    14 February 2008 at 4:43 pm

    BeShakey wrote:

    “the idea that people with lots of money should keep it, and tough on anyone else, is pretty unattractive to people across most of the political spectrum.”

    Really? Have you talked to them all?

    It’s only attractive to those who assume a God-given right to plunder others — whether for their own benefit — or so that they can spend other people’s money as their entrance fee to “Club Virtue.”

    I’ve got an idea … how about we change the tax system so that those professing all this collectivist concern for their fellow man can sign up to pay whatever tax rate they wish above a basic 10 percent.

    Imagine the bragging rights in leftard circles of being able to say “I only have to pay ten percent tax, but I choose to pay 50 percent.” Another leftard enters the pissing contest: “That’s nothing! I only have to pay ten percent tax, but I choose to pay …”

    Of course, there would soon be those claiming to pay more than 100 percent of their annual income in tax, but then we’d all know who was stealing from their fellow citizens in order to get that warm glow.
36. Robinsod 36

    14 February 2008 at 4:54 pm

    And once again Michele shows she has no understanding of what a society does – does that make her a sociopath?

    Honestly ‘chele – I reckon you and the rest of the world’s libertarians should chip in and buy an island together and then turn it into a stateless paradise. At least you’d stop bothering us…
37. dave 37

    14 February 2008 at 4:55 pm

    If I had a tax cut my income would effectivly reduce. See if Robinsod can work that one out. Just like he says noone on 70K can buy a house these days.

    Gee this guy is a plain idiot, really.
38. Tane 38

    14 February 2008 at 5:00 pm

    They’re already way ahead of you on that ‘sod:
    http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3328/floating_utopias/
39. Robinsod 39

    14 February 2008 at 5:02 pm

    Hey dave – I know plety of folk on that kind of wicket (combined income – remember?) and higher that can’t afford a house. And if you can’t read my comment about tax properly I’d suggest you are even more retarded than I picked you for. Can’t you got live on ‘chele’s island or something? You could be piggy…
40. Robinsod 40

    14 February 2008 at 5:04 pm

    From Tane’s link:

    “libertarianism,’ that peculiarly American philosophy of venal petty-bourgeois dissidence.

    Gold!
41. Michele Cabiling 41

    14 February 2008 at 5:13 pm

    Robinsodomite Porton wrote:

    “Honestly ‘chele – I reckon you and the rest of the world’s libertarians should chip in and buy an island together and then turn it into a stateless paradise. At least you’d stop bothering us …”

    Nah, it would mean you and your ilk would stop bothering us … at least insofar as you’d no longer be feeling in my pocket for my wallet (although with a pervert like you I couldn’t be sure it was just my wallet you were after).

    After a few years we’d have to build a barbed wire fence to keep out the millions of refugees from state socialism clamouring to get in there.
42. dave 42

    14 February 2008 at 5:20 pm

    people who are on 70K and cant afford a house of say 300 000 dont know how to budget and live within their means.

    OIve read your tax comment and really its pathetic. 5-3.5 is 2.5 but 2.5 is not what you have left. Because of other taxes.

    captcha kong moron.. heh
43. Leftie 43

    14 February 2008 at 5:23 pm

    My understanding is the argument is about hourly earnings between us and Australia.
    When I am talking to friends/family/workmates about employment, the conversation usually goes something like “In my (NZ)supermarket job I am earning $11.40 per hour. I know someone that did exactly the same work in Australia, they started on $17 per hour”.
    Nobody talks about taxes, they want to know what the starting rate in a job is.

    National has zero answers to this particular problem.
44. Robinsod 44

    14 February 2008 at 5:25 pm

    Shit ‘chele – I’m well in the top tax bracket. I take it you use public roads and other public facilities? I guess that means your hand is in my pocket you filthy bludger. In fact it’s my taxes and my long history of paying taxes that gives you the ability to spout your bullshit in comfort and security. Perhaps you could head to the sudan – I hear they don’t pay taxes there…

    Oh and don’t worry about me fancying you ‘chele, I only date good-looking women.
45. Robinsod 45

    14 February 2008 at 5:30 pm

    people who are on 70K and cant afford a house of say 300 000 dont know how to budget and live within their means.

    OIve read your tax comment and really its pathetic. 5-3.5 is 2.5 but 2.5 is not what you have left. Because of other taxes.

    Firstly Mike, you find me a decent three bedroom house in Auckland for $300,000 and I’ll buy it right now.

    Secondly Mike, what other taxes? and if there are other taxes then does that mean we need to cut income tax even more to ensure people stay ahead? And then run the tax base down faster??? It’s like you’re going all out to prove my argument…
46. Michele Cabiling 46

    14 February 2008 at 5:32 pm

    Robinsodomite Porton wrote: “Oh and don’t worry about me fancying you ‘chele, I only date good-looking women.”

    The best that money can buy, right?
47. Robinsod 47

    14 February 2008 at 5:36 pm

    Well no, but I’m sure they would have a higher market value than you do if we’re gonna quantify stuff…
48. Michele Cabiling 48

    14 February 2008 at 5:39 pm

    Robinsodomite … have you ever slept with a woman you haven’t had to buy? Somehow I doubt it very much.
49. Steve Pierson 49

    14 February 2008 at 5:41 pm

    Guys. Can we stop the ‘you’re a whore’ ‘you sleep with whores’? Cheers. Also, the homophobia’s a bit off Michele.
50. Michele Cabiling 50

    14 February 2008 at 5:44 pm

    [Tane: Deleted – your homophobia will no longer be tolerated]
51. Michele Cabiling 51

    14 February 2008 at 5:49 pm

    Principled opposition to unnatural behaviour is not “phobic” at all. That’s just a way of trying to pathologise an opponent rather than engaging with their argument. If you have to do that it simply points up the inherent weakness of any countervailing position you might hold.

    Feeble!
52. pete 52

    14 February 2008 at 5:55 pm

    Obviously a tax cut gives your take-home pay a short term boost. But that means there’s less pressure on employers to increase wages — eventually employers will claw back most of the tax cut for themselves by giving out smaller pay-raises than they otherwise would’ve.

    Since this reduces the cost of labour, they’ll invest less in capital, which will slow down economic growth.

    To grow the economy the gov’t needs to:
    1) provide incentives for investment,
    2) use worker-friendly labour law to put upward pressure on wages.
53. The PC Avenger 53

    14 February 2008 at 5:55 pm

    Michele, if your opposition to homosexuality was principled, and based solely on your perception of it being ‘unnatural’ then you should also be opposed to any other ‘unnatural’ acts, such as living in a house, cooking your food, and wearing shoes.

    In any case, homosexual behaviour occurs in nature, so .
54. Michele Cabiling 54

    14 February 2008 at 6:05 pm

    Not so, buddy. You conflate things that cannot be conflated to advance an illogical sophist argument.

    It’s perfectly natural to use one’s brain to improve one’s quality of life. Living in a house provides comfort and protection from the elements. Cooking food makes its safer (less bacteria), taste better, and bring a wider range of foodstuffs into consumption (eg grains that can’t be properly digested unless cooked

    Homosexuality runs counter to the natural teleology of the body. That which is normal is that which funtions according to its design. The anus is an organ of excretion, not procreation. Heterosexual intercourse creates life. Homosexual intercourse creates nothing but bacterial life. It’s biologically redundant behaviour.

    And to say that because some adolescent animals can be observed practising mounting behaviour together normalises a pathological sexual addiction in humans is drawing a very long bow.
55. Robinsod 55

    14 February 2008 at 6:09 pm

    Jeez and y’know what doesn’t occur in nature, PC? Property rights.
56. Robinsod 56

    14 February 2008 at 6:26 pm

    natural teleology of the body,???

    If you’re gonna use big words M than you should use them right. teleology has become an essentially phenomenological and deconstructionist term related to causative explanations of, and relating to, is-ness and its narrative. The idea that the biological entity that is the body can have such a thing is a contradiction in terms by definition and in practice. I would suggest Michele that you have made the mistake of too literal a reading of phenomenological theory. Or more likely, given the antiquated nature of your economic theory, are caught in the archaic and philosophically redundant definition of the term as it applies to “vitalism”.

    Don’t worry ‘chele, it’s an easy thing for a fool to do.
57. Dan 57

    14 February 2008 at 6:34 pm

    Must we talk in words of one syllable for the people on the right. A tax cut is not the same as a wage rise. A tax cut means reduction of hospital services, roads left unimproved, lousy provision for education, etc ie if you cut taxes, you cut services.
    If you get a wage rise, there is no cut in services, and you can spend the money as you wish rather than paying for services that are cut under a National government. In fact wage rises would mean an increase in the tax take so we could provide more services!!!
    Go Helen!!
58. Dean 58

    14 February 2008 at 6:56 pm

    “Must we talk in words of one syllable for the people on the right. A tax cut is not the same as a wage rise. A tax cut means reduction of hospital services, roads left unimproved, lousy provision for education, etc ie if you cut taxes, you cut services.”

    Except when Labour offers them, right? Also, theyre not inflationary, unlike Nationals?

    Honestly. Can’t you come up with anything better?
59. The PC Avenger 59

    14 February 2008 at 7:03 pm

    Michele, you shouldn’t be so surprised. I learnt how to conflate and oversimplify things from you.

    Oh, so if something that is unnatural by it’s, ah hah, nature, was developed as a consequence of a natural act, then it then becomes natural in and of itself? What a fascinating idea, and that can be easily used to rationalise homosexual behaviour.

    To address your “teleology’ argument, not all homosexuals enjoy or engage in anal sex. Case in point: Lesbians. Or is your hate only reserved for males?

    As for your ‘mounting’ comment. Hardly. Adult Bonobos regularly engage in homosexual acts, and it is a purely social interaction, thought to have the purpose of increasing the bonds within the troop.

    In any case, your argument was that homosexuality is unnatural, and hence your outspoken views are rational and acceptable. Unfortunately for you, the evidence says otherwise. Homosexuality occurs in nature, and not just in primates. If I recall correctly, there’s also a pair of male penguins that have been going through the motions of mating behaviour.
60. The Double Standard 60

    14 February 2008 at 7:07 pm

    Dan – must be galling for you that Helen is selling tax cuts all over?
61. Policy Parrot 61

    14 February 2008 at 7:30 pm

    “Homosexuality runs counter to the natural teleology of the body. That which is normal is that which funtions according to its design. The anus is an organ of excretion, not procreation. Heterosexual intercourse creates life. Homosexual intercourse creates nothing but bacterial life. It’s biologically redundant behaviour.”

    I gather then Michele that you have never had sex except in order to create off-spring?

    Otherwise your argument is hypocritical.
62. Murray 62

    14 February 2008 at 8:13 pm

    Tane – blowing goats is illegal. The part of Robinsods post where he/she accuses TDS of this act should have been deleted due to the illegal nature of the act. Your reprimand was pathetic, unless of course you think blowing goats is OK.
63. Dan 63

    14 February 2008 at 9:46 pm

    Dean and Double Standard old chaps,it is not in the least bit galling!! If John Key can swallow dead rats all over the place (He’s the King of Ratatouile), then I am sure Clark and Cullen can do the same on one or two issues. The fascinating thing at the moment is the gradual realisation across the spectrum that cuts cannot amount to much, that the Nats much vaunted “Vote for us and you will win the equivalent of Lotto’ is nonsense, and the only ones who will win are those very fortunate few in favour of a strategic deficit that results from the big spend. I would prefer my $20 or $30 per week or whatever was spent on roads, hospitals, energy development.
    When tax is effectively kneecapped as an issue, then what has National got? Boot camps? Increases in doctors’ fees? Bulkfunding in education? Yeh……..right!

    I waste my gall on the level of debate in this column. We are talking about tax and wages aren’t we? There sure are some cretins out there. I don’t believe they belong to any party!
64. AncientGeek 64

    14 February 2008 at 10:18 pm

    Cam: the problem is that the tories have this tendency to take gains in the short-term. Anyone can do that, just burn muscle while saying you’re burning fat.

    On in the case of an economy, rather than putting in the infrastructure of plant and training required for the next level of growth rate, go and spend it instead. Waste it on maintaining high levels of unemployment (cheaper than effective training), inadequete education, bad public health, and taxcuts.

    The problem comes after you’ve burnt out the economic drivers, there is little capacity for growth. To get it you have to put more money in than if you’d kept on a steady pace of investment in infrastructure all of the time.

    But that is the tory trademark – run down the systems and cry about the law and order consequences a generation later.
65. Dean 65

    14 February 2008 at 11:05 pm

    ” I would prefer my $20 or $30 per week or whatever was spent on roads, hospitals, energy development.”

    If you had it given back to you as a tax cut, would you just donate it to the IRD as a testament to your convictions? After all, it amounts to the same thing. But of course, that would require you taking responsibility for your own money instead of letting the government handle that for you.

    Why is this such a problem?
66. Michele Cabiling 66

    15 February 2008 at 9:37 am

    This is a long post.

    IrishBill says: yes too long Michele and you’ve posted most of this before. In the interest of brevity, try linking back to your old comments and sources next time.
67. chris 67

    15 February 2008 at 1:05 pm

    Tory, political designation, the meaning of which is, as usual, complex and ambivalent. Originally applied to Irish Catholic bandits, it was used derisively in the seventeenth century to characterize defenders of the principals of hereditary succession to the crown and non-resistance to the monarch. During the eighteenth century it was applied to conservatives who insisted upon the constituted authority of the Church of England, upon the divine right of kingship, and upon parliamentary privilege predicated upon the ownership of land.

    The Tory power base was the conservative rural squirearchy, which was violently opposed to the taxation required to pay for the wars with France that the Whigs stood rather to profit by.

    http://www.victorianweb.org/history/Tory.html

    Four hundred years on and they still have their “born to rule” attitudes.
    Captcha, “fair industries”

Links to post

1. John Key’s plan to cut your pay at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 20 February 2008 at 10:47 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS