We have to have poverty so we can have a tax cut

Written By: - Date published: 9:50 am, May 16th, 2016 - 163 comments
Categories: Economy, john key, national, same old national, tax - Tags:

200000 abandoned for national tax cuts ht william joyce

National’s 2017 campaign strategy is now out of the bag.  An earlier report by Richard Harman (paywalled) that Bill English was predicting a Government surplus in the billions is now being backed up by discussion of a possible tax cut in next year’s budget.

From the Herald:

Prime Minister John Key has signalled National will campaign in 2017 on a $3 billion package of tax cuts.

Last week Finance Minister Bill English ruled out offering tax cuts in this year’s Budget and said it was not currently in the plan for the 2017 Budget either, although that could alter.

Speaking to Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB this morning, Mr Key said tax cuts had been ruled out in the short term because it was a choice of spending $1 billion on tax cuts “to deliver very small amounts” or spending that money on healthcare and other areas.

However, he signalled National was working on a more substantial package of cuts for 2017. “We are not ruling that out for 2017 or campaigning on it for a fourth term in 2017, but having a bigger one, to be blunt, than $1 billion.” Asked how much was needed to deliver meaningful tax cuts, he said: “$3 billion, I reckon.”

The figure of $3 billion sounds large although it is not when you compare it to the total tax take.  But you have to question why National would do this instead of doing any number of beneficial things.  Such as (in no particular order):

  • Employ more police so that burglary resolution rates could be increased from the appallingly low 9.3%.
  • Employ more teachers to reduce teacher pupil ratios.
  • Build houses, lots of houses, so that the Auckland Housing Crisis can be addressed.
  • Pay down Crown debt which last year was $78 billion dollars.
  • Do something about child poverty.  Over 250,000 children live in poverty in New Zealand.  This is not how New Zealand should function.
  • Plant trees on every hectare of unstable land to not only help stability but also do something about our collective failure to address climate change.
  • Feed people in hospital properly.  And while they are at it fund Health properly so that the Health Boards and Pharmac can all recover from the per capita funding cuts that have occurred over the past few years.

There are many, many more things that could be done with this money.

Stand by however as National pushes the greed button and ignores the many things that the state should be doing in the pursuit of short term political gain.

163 comments on “We have to have poverty so we can have a tax cut ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. adam 1
    16 May 2016 at 10:05 am

    But, but, election bribes, national are entitled to them.

    • Chuck 1.1
      16 May 2016 at 11:38 am

      You conveniently forget adam that ALL political parties do the same…

      And comments below to the effect that only the 1% or wealthy will benefit is absurd. To attract votes it needs to be targeted according…that means average NZ mum and dad workers will stand to benefit.

      • adam 1.1.1
        16 May 2016 at 12:02 pm

        From what? Who this average you speak of? White NZ I assume?

      • framu 1.1.2
        16 May 2016 at 12:21 pm

        “To attract votes it needs to be” … marketed accordingly

        there is a global industry thats sole function is to trick people into buying things they dont need or that are different to the packaging

        political parties also employ these people

      • whateva next? 1.1.3
        16 May 2016 at 5:46 pm

        “And comments below to the effect that only the 1% or wealthy will benefit is absurd.”
        Oh no they are not absurd, it is absurd to imagine soft soaping with the illusion that teaser tax cuts will benefit society as a whole, whilst stripping all social infrastructure, housing for the slaves you require for your opulence, health service we all need (and even you will get old, or maybe even get sick ) who are trying to kid Chuck?

        • Chuck 1.1.3.1
          16 May 2016 at 6:57 pm

          I think we can agree that we disagree then.

          Can I then expect the opposition (Labour and Greens) to announce they will increase tax’s if elected in 2017?

          If what you say is not in dispute…then its a given.

          • In Vino 1.1.3.1.1
            16 May 2016 at 7:33 pm

            As a defender of the apostrophe…

            Tax’s can mean either ‘tax is’ or ‘of the tax’. Or maybe ‘tax has’. Plural is taxes, please.

            And “…its a given.” ‘its’ can mean only ‘of it’. For ‘it is’ or ‘it has’ you must use “it’s”.

            If you can’t be bothered to do simple things like that correctly, why should we give credence to your political arguments?

          • whateva next? 1.1.3.1.2
            16 May 2016 at 8:08 pm

            sure is, and then you won’t have to be bombarded with “givealittle” pages for desperate people , and having a gnawing sense that the people serving your lattes are sleeping in their cars, and crime and mental health (suicides) rates can start reducing again etc..worth it I think.

          • Paul 1.1.3.1.3
            16 May 2016 at 8:11 pm

            Wouldn’t that tax cut be better used to build more state houses?
            Watch this…do you have empathy for others?
            Or are you one of the rentier class, who exploit your position to rip off the poor.

            • Jack Ramaka 1.1.3.1.3.1
              16 May 2016 at 9:52 pm

              All the State Houses are being sold to property developers and speculators?

      • AmaKiwi 1.1.4
        16 May 2016 at 11:00 pm

        @ Chuck

        “To attract votes it needs to be targeted according…that means average NZ mum and dad workers will stand to benefit.”

        No! No! No! The average worker will THINK they stand to benefit.

        Impressions are everything. For God’s sake, don’t let them know the truth!

    • billmurray 1.2
      16 May 2016 at 5:53 pm

      Yes Adam the tax cuts are an election bribe, tax cuts are a traditional method of election bribery by right wing governments.
      The poor and the poorest will suffer the most.
      The way out of this is to vote in a left wing government, but of course NZ doe’s not have one, the Labour party is a six’s and seven’s political party which doe’s not know it’s arse from it’s elbow.
      The Labour party is against the TPPA but if elected will not withdraw from the TPPA. Wow is that left wing or what????.
      I sob in despair, why do they not join National and say ‘fuck the poor’ as National says the TPPA is policy and stays.
      Where is the point of difference between Labour and National on that issue???.
      The poor of NZ are caught in a pincer movement between the two major political party’s, both right wing.

      • Jack Ramaka 1.2.1
        16 May 2016 at 9:56 pm

        Labour just need to dissolve they are basically a non party with nothing to offer no wonder NZ has gone downhill in the past 30-40 years, Labour are weak oppostion who went further right than the Natzis at one stage.

  2. Paul 2
    16 May 2016 at 10:07 am

    New Zealand has become a greedy, cruel and selfish place.
    That tax cut will help the privileged have :
    another foreign holiday
    another rental property
    a flasher car

    And they just soooooo deserve it.

    • Draco T Bastard 2.1
      16 May 2016 at 12:17 pm

      +1

      A tax cut will increase poverty in NZ.

      • Ralf Crown 2.1.1
        16 May 2016 at 1:11 pm

        Why not just reduce the cost of the massive number of bureaucrats that stand in the way to solve the poverty problem. Instead of paying armies of stamp swingers and paper turners, use the money to relieve the poverty.

        • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1
          16 May 2016 at 1:57 pm

          You do realise that the majority of bureaucrats standing in the way are in the private sector don’t you? They’re looking for more profits from the crisis.

          • Ralf Crown 2.1.1.1.1
            17 May 2016 at 1:53 pm

            Bureaucrats are on government pay, government pay comes from taxes, the more they paid, the more they are, the less of the money goes back to the people. Just look at WINZ, stacked to the ceiling with stamp swingers and paper turners all trying to minimise costs and screw people.

            • McFlock 2.1.1.1.1.1
              17 May 2016 at 2:30 pm

              Bureaucrats are people, too – and generally based in NZ.

              Spending money on a government (not outsourced) bureaucracy is better than contracting international companies to do it, because the money is more likely to be kept in NZ and spent on food and housing.

            • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1.1.2
              17 May 2016 at 3:27 pm

              Ah, I see you don’t actually know English:
              Bureaucrat

              a person who is one of the people who run a government or big company and who does everything according to the rules of that government or company : a person who is part of a bureaucracy

              The biggest paid bureaucrats are in the private sector and they’re worth even less than the ones in the government sector.

        • The New Student 2.1.1.2
          16 May 2016 at 4:17 pm

          All public servants I know are massively overworked, bullied and paid a dollar over the minimum wage. but it’s a job, and one that needs doing. Perhaps theyre kidding themselves when they tell me that?

          • AmaKiwi 2.1.1.2.1
            16 May 2016 at 11:06 pm

            @ The New Student

            “All public servants I know are massively overworked, bullied and paid a dollar over the minimum wage.”

            This is the neo-liberal game plan as stated so eloquently by Reagan: “Government is not the solution to the problem. Government IS the problem.”

            Step 1. Fire as many public employees as you can.
            Step 2. The remainder are overworked and do a lousy job.
            Step 3. Point our they are doing a lousy job so you can fire more of them.

            • GregJ 2.1.1.2.1.1
              17 May 2016 at 10:28 am

              You forgot:

              Step 4: Outsource or privatize the now rundown Government service to the Private Sector so they can clip the ticket of both the Government directly and the individual taxpayer to make large profits off the state.

              Step 5: Minimize the tax liability on the profits to pay as little tax as possible and line the pockets of the shareholders and Executives.

        • mauī 2.1.1.3
          16 May 2016 at 7:58 pm

          Yep, scrap the whole of WINZ and pay a UBI (Universal Basic Income). It will do wonders for people in wellbeing alone to not have to deal with that authoritative nightmare.

      • Mosa 2.1.2
        16 May 2016 at 1:59 pm

        But will get Key re elected
        To hell with poverty!
        Its the poors fault they are poor and live in containers and cars.
        I predict this government will have at least two more terms,that’s how stupid and insane this country has become.
        Institutionalized greed and corruption have taken hold all sold on the promise of a brighter future.
        The nightmare you can’t wake up from has become reality.

        • whateva next? 2.1.2.1
          16 May 2016 at 5:48 pm

          I am worried you may be right, if people are fool enough to fall for this tactic as they did for Thatcher doing the same…..lets hope people will see through him, as they eventually did with Thatcher, despite her apparent invincibility

        • Lloyd 2.1.2.2
          16 May 2016 at 11:12 pm

          Then what are the Nats? What can they offer most New Zealanders that is different to what a house burglar offers? Poverty, loss and theft seem to be John Key’s stock in trade.

        • peter 2.1.2.3
          17 May 2016 at 8:34 am

          and in rolls winston……

      • Richard Christie 2.1.3
        16 May 2016 at 2:00 pm

        Tax cuts provide no long term gain to the recipients, particularly those on lower incomes. The economy quickly shifts to adsorb the windfall, monopolies and utilities etc charge whatever they think the market can bear.
        Increases in spending power of low and middle income earners from tax cuts are like spit on a hotplate, here today gone tomorrow.

      • billmurray 2.1.4
        16 May 2016 at 6:50 pm

        Yes of course Draco T Bastard tax cuts will decimate the poor, I am waiting for Labour to do a TPPA statement.
        ” we are against tax cuts ,but if we are elected we will not stop them”

  3. Ad 3
    16 May 2016 at 10:19 am

    This bold, vote-winning announcement by National will focus the minds of the Greens, Labour, and New Zealand First to be equally bold with an alternative election-winning announcement. Closer to the election. One hopes.

    • Colonial Viper 3.1
      16 May 2016 at 12:44 pm

      Election in 15 months, I reckon. Any seriously ground breaking policy will have to be announced soon so that the electorate can get it, and National’s inevitable scaremongering around it can be penetrated.

      • Sacha 3.1.1
        16 May 2016 at 11:12 pm

        Yes, none of this leisurely ‘we have forever’ bollocks.
        Craft and deliver messages now. Then launch policy every month at least, and keep going.

      • David 3.1.2
        17 May 2016 at 1:02 pm

        The next election has to be held in about 15-17 months time by law! The last election was in September 2014 so 3 years from then makes it somewhere about September 2017 by my poor maths.

        God forbid another National victory. They will be aware that it will be their last win for a while and so be a far more extreme right wing party to satisfy their core vote and donors.

    • Paul 3.2
      16 May 2016 at 5:58 pm

      Unbelievably greedy, selfish and cruel.

    • Hanswurst 3.3
      17 May 2016 at 4:16 pm

      There’s nothing bold about National announcing that they might cut taxes. It’s what they do with monotonous regularity, and there can hardly be a voter who doesn’t expect it (which is not to say that it won’t garner a vote or two). It would be bold of them to go an election cycle without indulging at least once in musings like these.

  4. Nic the NZer 4
    16 May 2016 at 10:48 am

    Not convinced that this new political strategy of
    *taking Bill English economic forecasts as read.
    * attacking election promises before they are even promises.
    Is a good one.
    Could the thrust of the opposition be looking at the actual budget and state of the economy and providing better promises at election time instead?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1
      16 May 2016 at 10:52 am

      What are the bullet points at the end of the post if not suggestions for better election policies?

      • Nic the NZer 4.1.1
        16 May 2016 at 11:25 am

        “The figure of $3 billion sounds large although it is not when you compare it to the total tax take. But you have to question why National would do this instead of doing any number of beneficial things.”

        Who knows maybe National are playing their cards close and will actually run on any number of these. But this doesn’t appear to say anything about labours actual campaign strategy does it. Frankly in that area holding your breath for an electable offering from Labour would be suicidal.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1.1
          16 May 2016 at 1:41 pm

          I’d expect to see Labour release Labour policy on Labour’s website.

          • Descendant Of Sssmith 4.1.1.1.1
            16 May 2016 at 10:33 pm

            You have much higher expectations than me.

            I’d expect Labour to release more of the neo-liberal bullshit policy they have released for the last few elections on their website.

            Last thing I’d expect from them is any of what I said back in 2012 and every year since.

            “I really enjoy hearing Labour’s leftwing policies articulated in public:

            8 hour workingday
            40 hour working week
            Decent minimum wage
            Increased taxation of the well off
            Increasing benefit rates to a liveable amount – at minimum putting the $20-00 per week back on benefits – you know the $20 per week they put back on super and the one they had 9 years to put back on benefits but did not
            Centralised wage bargaining forcing firms to compete on the quality of the product and service not on who can pay the crappiest wage
            Ensuring minimum salaries are say 120% of the minimum wage to stop employers getting around the minimum wage requirements
            Building more state housing and letting people live in their state houses for their entire life if they wish – you know giving people security
            Employing people with disabilites and young people in the public sector to give them an opportunity for a decent life and a good start – cause the private won’t and will never employ them all
            Regional development to support rural areas and not just farmers

            These things were not even “left” when I was growing up they were normal

            Maybe I’ve missed their press releases – don’t tell me Labours not a rightwing party.”

        • Sacha 4.1.1.2
          16 May 2016 at 11:14 pm

          “The figure of $3 billion sounds large”

          Because it’s rubbish. There is no ‘surplus’.

    • Sabine 4.2
      16 May 2016 at 11:06 am

      they bullet points are not detailed enough and budgeted and costed for any “Labour ain’t doing shit, and the Opposition ain’t doing Shit” whinger.

      • Nic the NZer 4.2.1
        16 May 2016 at 11:46 am

        Seriously hope Labour will not be fully budgeting and costing their election promises. This will probably result in their main promise being we can only afford to pay off crown debt. The reality is they can afford all of the above and tax cuts (maybe drop GST would be a good tax cut) but need to give up on promising to run a budget surplus.

        • Sacha 4.2.1.1
          16 May 2016 at 11:16 pm

          There are other ways to pay for needed investment. Labour is not competent enough to win by trying to out-do the Nats on fiscal smoke and mirrors.

        • peter 4.2.1.2
          17 May 2016 at 8:53 am

          these business people claiming on their tax for “client entertainment” of 30-40k a year and that drops their taxable income???? so we the taxpayer are funding a pile of alcohol consumption there should be a few loop holes shut then the tax drop would not be an issue hahaha but of course these politicians get taken out for these $1000 meals so their friends that know it is not going to cost them as it is tax deductable and comes off their income so 50 of these a year means that nz has lost 23c in the dollar times how many businesses are doing this?? And these dope growers that get forced into the life due to circumstances not greed (I know a few of these and most are everyday families) to get by IRD wants their tax from. One is tax evasion and the other is perfectly legal, yet the tradie does cash jobs and we the people ask the tradie if the job is any cheaper for cash?. If these business people wish to flash their money around at my expense then I am going to be a bit pissed. then everyone wants to look at southlands alcohol board that has a tax on it for health yet the rest of the country dont

    • Paul 4.3
      16 May 2016 at 8:14 pm

      This may be a game for you Nic, but for these people poverty is real.
      Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.

  5. indiana 5
    16 May 2016 at 11:01 am

    From the IRD online calculators, if you have an household income of $80,000 pa, you are entitled to $40 per week in tax credits, or $2080 pa. Any household income over $80k means you get nothing.

    So can the $80k household income be used at the bench mark for tipping over into the rich prick, privileged, selfish, 1%ers category and that if you are already, there should be no bitching from these people for a tax cut? What are the incentives for people to push their household income over $80k? Can you afford to buy a house in Auckland on $80k or less?

    • Sabine 5.1
      16 May 2016 at 11:09 am

      What are the incentives for people to push their household income over $80k?

      sell a kidney? a liver? a firstborn?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2
      16 May 2016 at 11:10 am

      Meanwhile, on Earth, to get into the 1% category you actually have to earn be in the top 1% of income.

      So no, $80k can’t be used as a benchmark, and maybe you want to rethink your entire thesis.

    • Draco T Bastard 5.3
      16 May 2016 at 12:33 pm

      Income simply isn’t a valid measure of wealth. It has to be measured on what’s owned. Many of the richest simply don’t have a lot of income but they do own a hell of a lot of stuff which they then get a rentier’s income from. These are the people who are destroying our society in their greed.

      There’s a very good reason why every major religion in the world bans usury and has done so for thousands of years. We’ve decided that usury is fine though and have, as a matter of fact, raised it up on a pedestal and it’s destroying us.

      • John shears 5.3.1
        16 May 2016 at 12:44 pm

        DTB I understand what you are saying but slightly confusing use of the word
        Income.
        “Income simply isn’t a valid measure of wealth. It has to be measured on what’s owned. Many of the richest simply don’t have a lot of income but they do own a hell of a lot of stuff which they then get a rentier’s income from. These are the people who are destroying our society in their greed”.

        Income is income is income regardless of how it is earned or collected as long as it is yours do what you will with it.

        I have always thought that the inability of the single home owner to claim against
        maintenance costs on their dwelling is unfair in that the rentier class can claim all expenses on all their income.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.3.1.1
          16 May 2016 at 1:49 pm

          Income is income is income regardless of how it is earned or collected as long as it is yours do what you will with it.

          Wrong. Very, definitely, wrong.

          Income from work has produced value.
          Income from rent hasn’t produced a damn thing.

        • Sacha 5.3.1.2
          16 May 2016 at 11:19 pm

          “as long as it is yours do what you will with it.”

          Congrats. You win this round of selfish neoliberal bingo. Your prize is a one-way trip to Somalia. Enjoy!

          • left for dead 5.3.1.2.1
            17 May 2016 at 9:01 am

            Ah Sacha, but the boat broke down, saving the Somalians from more foreign invaders, an giving the Pirates an income. hehe

        • Lloyd 5.3.1.3
          16 May 2016 at 11:21 pm

          John, if you use part of your home for your business, you can claim a portion of your household maintenance expenses. It is an incentive to become at least partially self-employed.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 5.3.2
        16 May 2016 at 1:43 pm

        Hence the word “earn” being struck out, and yes, I agree: as Piketty has demonstrated, unearned wealth accumulation is a problem

      • Anno1701 5.3.3
        16 May 2016 at 4:38 pm

        “There’s a very good reason why every major religion in the world bans usury”

        except for Judaism of course……

        you know money lenders, temple ETC…

        • DoublePlusGood 5.3.3.1
          16 May 2016 at 5:38 pm

          You probably need to go do some more reading about traditional Jewish religious practises regarding money.

        • Stuart Munro 5.3.3.2
          16 May 2016 at 7:10 pm

          Nope – Judaism bans it too – later reinterpreted to allow usury against outsiders, ie not God’s chosen people.

    • Lanthanide 5.4
      16 May 2016 at 12:38 pm

      According to National, who kept the top tax rate at $70,000 by repealing Labour’s change that set it at $80,000, if you earn $70,000 you must be ‘rich’.

      • indiana 5.4.1
        16 May 2016 at 1:04 pm

        But we must remind everyone that NZ has a progressive tax system and that you do not pay the top tax rate on the whole $70k. But as wages rise for various reasons, what is the incentive to move into higher tax brackets? (I’d like to see the top tax rate to be applicable to earnings over $100k and the progressive tax rate reduced below this.)

        The impact arises when a person gets a 3% payrise, but it pushes their upper income into the top tax bracket, so their net income becomes neutral. Begs the question if was worth getting the payrise.

        • Lanthanide 5.4.1.1
          16 May 2016 at 1:18 pm

          Umm…

          The impact arises when a person gets a 3% payrise, but it pushes their upper income into the top tax bracket, so their net income becomes neutral. Begs the question if was worth getting the payrise.

          No, that’s not how it works, because as you just said, we have a progressive tax system.

          Even if you’re taxed at 33% on the entire raise you’ve just been given, you’ll still be getting 67% of that in the pocket (at least before other charges, such as ACC, student loan and kiwisaver).

          Unless you’re talking about abatement rates for benefits in general. There are only a few very extreme cases where abatements can combine to be at 90% or higher.

          • DoublePlusGood 5.4.1.1.1
            16 May 2016 at 5:47 pm

            Yeah, the only people not incentivised to try and move into higher tax brackets are people on benefits where work that earns more than $80 pw effectively has up to a 90% tax rate (and is effectively for below minimum wage) until they’re earning enough that there is no benefit.

  6. shorts 6
    16 May 2016 at 11:07 am

    you’ve got to wonder what news the govt expects to break early this week that they’ve thrown out this wonderful “me me me” distraction

    sadly many kiwis see tax cuts as the only way they will “earn” more cause their employers sure as shit ain’t going to help them

    • Sabine 6.1
      16 May 2016 at 11:18 am

      you could be on to something.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.2
      16 May 2016 at 12:36 pm

      As soon as they get the tax cuts the bosses will put the prices up to capture the extra money in the system for themselves. This is why we need to set a maximum income.

      • shorts 6.2.1
        16 May 2016 at 1:11 pm

        max income – sounds good

        personally I’d prefer the state nationalised the utility companies and forced them to provide a service at affordable prices… not a competitive (sic) market that hits the consumer hard (fuck you power companies and your endless price rises)

        • Draco T Bastard 6.2.1.1
          16 May 2016 at 1:51 pm

          That to:
          See my comment here.

        • stigie 6.2.1.2
          16 May 2016 at 4:38 pm

          Correct me if im wrong but the power prices went up 72% under the 9 years of Labour but so far under National the prices have only gone up between 15% and 18%. Big difference !

          • James Thrace 6.2.1.2.1
            16 May 2016 at 7:27 pm

            it took Labour that long to figure out how to fix up Bradfords Clusterfuck from the 1997 breakup of ECNZ.

            Unfortunately, by the time it was realised that breaking up the ECNZ really was a very bad idea Labour was experiencing the inflow of cash from the generators which was then used to pay down the multibillion debt National left at the end of 1999.

            Add to the fact that Transpower had been allowed to run down their network during the 1990s under National (sigh – remember the power blackout in Auckland in 1997/1998?) massive investment was needed into Transpower to get the capability back up and running again.

            The majority of increases in power prices under Labour were actually due to the increased pricing for getting Transpower healthy again. Then there was the inevitable sorting out of the actual lines companies and what work needed to be done there as well.

            The increases under National are a “big difference” because all the required work for Transpower has now been largely done.

            What we’re seeing now though is a slow erosion of the ability for consumers to manage their power bills through installing solar panels by Meridian, Contact and Genesis saying:

            “hey, you want to install solar panels? Fuck you for not taking power from the grid. Here, pay three times as much for your daily line charges as everyone else”

            Couple that with buy back rates of 7c per kWh, and then charging power back to said solar users at a rate about 10c higher than everyone else, the so called benefits of solar no longer stack up.

            Unfortunately, John Keys government made it illegal for people to be self reliant on their own solar panels. If you have solar, you must connect it to the national grid.

          • Draco T Bastard 6.2.1.2.2
            16 May 2016 at 7:29 pm

            Did you notice the difference between the boom times under Labour and the depression we’re under now?

            • Colonial Viper 6.2.1.2.2.1
              17 May 2016 at 11:00 am

              Yeah, the private sector was gorging on debt during Labour’s reign, pouring private debt based money into the economy, particularly via mortgage debt.

              That’s the “boom times” you’re talking about.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                17 May 2016 at 11:22 am

                Yep but it allowed the power companies to increase prices as ‘the market’ would bear higher prices.

        • AmaKiwi 6.2.1.3
          16 May 2016 at 11:15 pm

          @ shorts

          “I’d prefer the state nationalised the utility companies”

          I’d prefer we nationalize the banks.

          Banks do far more harm than utilities. They sell the idea that borrowing is the path to a brighter future.

  7. someoneelse 7
    16 May 2016 at 11:21 am

    I wouldn’t mind tax cuts if they’d back date them so we could all afford our own keytruda.

  8. b waghorn 8
    16 May 2016 at 11:24 am

    Any idea on the structure of the possible tax cuts, and will there be as gst raise to pay for them??
    I’m going to assume national are to stupid to work out that tax cuts targeted to the poorest is what would be best for the economy!!

    • Sabine 8.1
      16 May 2016 at 12:03 pm

      tax cuts to the poorest may be best for the economy, but then National is not overly concerned with the economy as that is not where they make their money.
      tax cuts for the tax evaders however is something they like. Hey, i am not evading taxes nor am I avoiding them, i just got a new tax cut :). Whats not to like about that?

    • McGrath 8.2
      16 May 2016 at 3:31 pm

      Poor people don’t vote National. Lessens the incentive to help.

      • greywarshark 8.2.1
        16 May 2016 at 5:51 pm

        McGrath – strange things are being done by the right wing Australian government against top earners and their old age pension (superannuation).

        The Turnbull government wants to abolish an egregious tax lurk benefiting ultra-high-income earners. So why is Labor siding with an aggrieved rightwing thinktank?

        And Labour is all confused whether to lick the ice cream or bite it in chunks? What is the etiquette for this situation they ponder? The word on the radio news was that seeing it is affecting the top wealthy, who would never vote Labour anyway, then the Lib Coalition has nothing to lose.
        And I thought that right wing Oz politicians were to the right of Gengis Khan.

        Have you heard about the Turnbull government’s plans to rein in some of the outrageous superannuation tax lurks benefiting ultra-high-income earners?
        It’s a good policy. It’s one of those rare pieces of well-thought-through, expertly designed reforms that can still sneak into a federal budget, despite the odds.
        The Treasury officials who designed it are proud of it and they should be.
        http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/may/12/the-superannuation-changes-are-seriously-good-the-coalition-must-fight-for-them

        I wonder if our Treasury economists are capable of such mind-blowing innovation or are they all anal-retentive?
        edited

      • whateva next? 8.2.2
        16 May 2016 at 6:52 pm

        and encouraged to feel despondent and fearful, the two things Tony Benn said would stop people voting….job done

      • Stuart Munro 8.2.3
        16 May 2016 at 7:18 pm

        Yup – the people need a countervailing strategy to penalize Gnat sociopathy.

      • AmaKiwi 8.2.4
        16 May 2016 at 11:19 pm

        There are no poor people, only people who are pre-rich.

        With trickle down we will all be rich some day.

        /sarc/

  9. TC 9
    16 May 2016 at 11:28 am

    More economic vandalism from the folks that spent your money on a vanity flag project and lied about not selling anymore assets.

    Going all out now in the plunder stakes.

  10. Draco T Bastard 10
    16 May 2016 at 12:16 pm

    We have to have poverty so we can have a tax cut

    More accurately it’s We have to have poverty so that a few can be rich and powerful.

    Stand by however as National pushes the greed button and ignores the many things that the state should be doing in the pursuit of short term political gain.

    And then watch as those tax cuts go to the rich. Firstly by them getting the lions share of them in the first place and secondly by prices going up to increase profits.

    It really is only the poor that ever pay for anything.

    • Lloyd 10.1
      17 May 2016 at 12:00 am

      Actually if we raised taxes, gave more to the poor and retained more of our spending within the country, we’d ALL be RICHER and we’d ALL be MORE POWERFUL compared to the rest of the world. Even the rich would eventually become richer.
      Germany expanded fastest after the second world war when the maximum tax rate was 90 – yes – 90%. The US economy has consistently grown fastest when the richest own the smallest portion of the economy.
      Taxing the rich and redistributing that money by investing in the poor is worthwhile for everyone in the economy. Eventually giving the rich a tax cut must have a negative effect on the total wealth of the rich. Unfortunately that effect is so slow that only the thinking rich, e.g. Warren Buffet, realise this. Short term tax gains by the greedy seem to be more attractive than an equitable tax strucure with a long term healthier economy. Just like lemonade is more attractive than water – pity about the tooth caries.
      The Labour party needs to educate both its members and the electorate that a progressive tax regime, even an aggressively progressive tax regime, must result in all New Zealanders being better off in the medium and long term. Minor economic pain to the wealthiest should be seen as a small step that will eventually help even the heaviest taxed.
      Spending money on health and education almost inevitably improves the economy. Taxing the wealthy is intelligent and rational. Tax cuts for the rich while rationing health services and education is economic stupidity.

      • greywarshark 10.1.1
        17 May 2016 at 4:48 pm

        Lloyd
        We older NZs thought that all your good reasoning was part of the bedrock of our society’s politics. Much of our problem is that we can’t believe those ideas have been abandoned by the right-wing and find agreement amongst the ‘aspirational’ on the left.

        Hence Labour can’t quite bring themselves to think like the plebs, or to commit to them because they don’t fit the template of worthwhile humans any more. So when people are unemployed through Labour’s introduction of neo liberal revolution and labour shedding, they get the story of David Shearer’s put-down about a bennie being okay to work on the roof of his house, but not paid work. We beneficiaries have been seen through a glass darkly and propagandised negatively and those stories are believed and result in negative feelings towards those who should be representing them conscientiously.
        http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/7457141/Editorial-Shearer-

        The equity and equality message and nation-building with social mobility and progressive attitudes that would result in your comment’s line of action have been lost. And I think it is too late to recover, the impetus to embrace the whole country and move all to a good standard of wellbeing has gone. Now we have stopgap measures patching the holes on a short term fix.

  11. Richard@Down South 11
    16 May 2016 at 12:20 pm

    They could also reverse the health cuts (oops i meant savings, theyre not cuts, dont mention cuts)

  12. Enough is Enough 12
    16 May 2016 at 1:02 pm

    Greg

    This is a good thing for Labour and the left.

    New Zealanders do not want tax cuts.

    Everyone knows that tax cuts are daft as they will lead to the rich getting richer and core public services being cut. If National want to do this then I suggest we quietly allow them to, so that they can be hammered during the election campaign. This a suicidal policy for them which they will be pay for for in the election.

    Labour should campaign on much higher taxes for the rich with a proportionate increase in public spending with a genuine commitment to end child poverty within three years. Who will vote against that?

    • indiana 12.1
      16 May 2016 at 1:10 pm

      “New Zealanders do not want tax cuts.”

      Do you not think that people have worked out that if there is less tax deducted from their wages, the more they can bank in their accounts – so why would they not want a tax cut? It might lead to the rich getting richer, but so are they.

      • Enough is Enough 12.1.1
        16 May 2016 at 1:13 pm

        As I said. lets allow National to campaign on this.

        What use is the extra 50 bucks a week if you die in a hospital waiting list because your local hospital has closed down.

        This will be the defining issue in next years election.

        “Higher taxes and more public spending” v “Lower taxes, and no public services”

        It pretty clear which one is the winning strategy.

        • UncookedSelachimorpha 12.1.1.1
          16 May 2016 at 2:29 pm

          Yep, low tax and low spending is the third world’s recipe.

        • Chuck 12.1.1.2
          16 May 2016 at 2:55 pm

          As part of the “higher tax strategy” would you still keep the threshold for the top personal tax rate @ $70k?

          And what increase from the current 33% tax rate do you think is fair?

          • Enough is Enough 12.1.1.2.1
            16 May 2016 at 3:20 pm

            No – I think the there should be a much higher tax rate for those who earn above $150,000.

            What is fair is probably not the correct test, as fairness is so subjective? Rich Prick is already saying it is not fair that he pays 33% tax on his income above 70k. While at the same time poor kid says its not fair that Rich Prick keeps 77% of his income to spend on non-essentials when Poor Kid’s solo mum can’t afford to pay the power bill.

            Why would anyone want to live in that kind of society.

            • Sacha 12.1.1.2.1.1
              16 May 2016 at 11:33 pm

              Half of the richest people in NZ do not even pay the top income tax rate that kicks in at $70k. We need to tax their wealth.

          • Lloyd 12.1.1.2.2
            17 May 2016 at 12:05 am

            Tax rates should be progressive.
            By the time you are earning 250,000pa you should be paying enough tax to make any increase in income pointless

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 12.1.2
        16 May 2016 at 2:28 pm

        “…. but so are they.”

        Until they pay more for education, healthcare etc etc etc.

      • framu 12.1.3
        16 May 2016 at 2:59 pm

        “so why would they not want a tax cut?”

        because they are also smart enough to realise that their own costs will rise for things which used to be more fully covered by taxation.

        sheesh

        • Draco T Bastard 12.1.3.1
          16 May 2016 at 3:22 pm

          State provision of many services, especially natural monopolies, cuts the costs down significantly and it also doesn’t have the dead-weight loss of profit on it. The exact opposite of what we’ve been told for the last 30+ years.

        • indiana 12.1.3.2
          16 May 2016 at 4:04 pm

          ummm…if it means that they can choose private schooling or health because they can now afford it from their increased net income, I they would still prefer a tax cut. But I do realise that it requires a significant tax cut to get into this mind set.

          • Anno1701 12.1.3.2.1
            16 May 2016 at 4:46 pm

            “they can choose private schooling or health ”

            what planet are you living on ?

            so im going to pay for private healthcare and private schooling for my children with an extra $30-50 dollars a week in my paycheck ?

            ” My ideology (in total juxtaposition to reality) tells me they would still prefer a tax cut as long as the ramifications of said tax cut aren’t explained fully or indeed at all”

            FIFY….

          • framu 12.1.3.2.2
            17 May 2016 at 8:04 am

            jesus wept! – what planet are you on?

            im talking about the basic services they currently use getting more expensive – not the fantasy nonsense of magic beans

      • Draco T Bastard 12.1.4
        16 May 2016 at 3:06 pm

        It might lead to the rich getting richer, but so are they.

        No. As happens every time there’s a tax cut the majority of people get poorer while the rich get richer.

    • Jack Ramaka 12.2
      16 May 2016 at 10:07 pm

      Labour really need to think who their support base is, they need to stop pandering to the wealthy for funds to support their Election Campaigns and get back to their roots, I wonder who the “missing million will vote for?”

  13. WILD KATIPO 13
    16 May 2016 at 1:05 pm

    Erm….just where is all this money coming from to give bonus pay outs to the wealthy…?

    ” Dont ask stupid questions , Baldric , – from overseas , man , from overseas !!! ”

    ” Yeah but where overseas ? ”

    ” Well , where do you think ?!!! … the same place it came last time !!! Didn’t anyone tell you the Bank of America promised 2.5 billion if we set up zero tax legislation for foreign trusts ? ”

    ” Is that why the Americans are coming here in a warship ? ”

    ” Whats that got to do with anything , Baldric ? ”

    ” Nothing , really ,… I just thought I’d ask … but wouldn’t borrowing more put us more into debt ? ”

    ” Of course it would – but the benefits for all would be huge ”

    ”How , Mr Blackadder ?”…

    ” Well, the rich get richer and provide more jobs for people like you”.

    ”What ,.. servants jobs ? ”

    ”Yes, Baldric ”

    ” I see , Mr Blackadder , I feel thoroughly educated , now, .. thank you very much ”

    ”That’s ok , Baldric , the world of high finance and taxation is a vexing thing, and why we need people like you to not understand it at all and to make it function as it should – else it’d all fall down around our ears ”…

    ”Thank you Mr Blackadder , I feel ever so complimented by that and given a new sense of satisfaction of not understanding how it all works and so I shall henceforth take pride in being a servant to the rich” .

    ”Good man , Baldric, good man , that’s what we like to see ”.

  14. Ralf Crown 14
    16 May 2016 at 1:05 pm

    The catch 22 any government is facing when it comes to tax is.
    1. Increase the tax and people choose to make less money.
    2. Increase the tax and more business will move overseas the friendlier business cultures.
    3. Increase the tax and more people will cheat, and cost of catching them goes up, and no more money comes in.
    Lower the tax and the opposite may happen, but how can we trust a government to keep lower taxes. It is usually a long delay. EU countries increased the tax and intensified the tax chase, the expenses went up and the tax take down. I did it myself once. I was offered a better job with much more pay, to move from Auckland to Wellington. With the increased tax, selling my home, and moving, and uncertainty, it just Windows not worth it.

    • Ralf Crown 14.1
      16 May 2016 at 1:08 pm

      “it just Windows not worth it” should be “it just was not worth it”. The Autotype fooled me.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 14.2
      16 May 2016 at 1:47 pm

      Increase the tax and people choose to make less money.

      Says who? Warren Buffet says the exact opposite. Have you tried a simple reality check upon your funny notion? Like, show me one example of where your funny notion came true anywhere, ever.

      I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. Buffet.

      The truth is, you hate obeying the law when it comes to tax time, and you can’t admit that so you rote-learned some sophistry instead.

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 14.2.1
        16 May 2016 at 2:30 pm

        Excellent reply, OAB

      • Draco T Bastard 14.2.2
        16 May 2016 at 3:15 pm

        Yep, that would be it.

      • Bob 14.2.3
        17 May 2016 at 9:09 am

        “Increase the tax and people choose to make less money”
        “Says who?”

        Hausers Law
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law

        • One Anonymous Bloke 14.2.3.1
          17 May 2016 at 9:34 am

          Yes, the very first sentence of the article notes that far from being a “law”, it is in fact a proposition. The article goes on to note that various people believe it, and various people do not.

          Propositions are not evidence: show me one example of where your funny notion came true anywhere, ever: even your own source notes that

          the George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations received “massive” extra revenues as the result of tax increases while the George W. Bush administration tax cuts lead to a “massive” drop in revenues.

          Nice try though.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 14.2.3.2
          17 May 2016 at 9:37 am

          Not to mention Bob Jones’ anecdote: that the economy always slows under National.

          It’s no secret the commercial property industry, numbering over 100,000 people in all of its ramifications, favour Labour governments simply because they like vibrant economies. As the past 40 years show, these always accompany Labour’s periods in office.

          But, the stultification corresponding with National governments is welcomed by bigger players as it throws up acquisition opportunities, aside from which there’s more to voting than economic issues and dull governments never last forever.

      • Ralf Crown 14.2.4
        17 May 2016 at 2:02 pm

        “Says who”, I say, because I have done it, I have seen many do it, it is not just worth it, you rather have free time and a leisurely job. What Warren Buffet say is totally irrelevant in the high tax, user pay, rates, GTS and hidden taxes New Zealand environment. The problem with just investors is that tax makes the demand for profit go up. If the tax is 40%, the “investor”, as the ones massively hording other peoples homes so ordinary people can no longer buy them, want 100 in profit, he increases the price to 150 to pay the tax. That is the “sensible investment”. Better to go fishing and not pay the tax. .

        • One Anonymous Bloke 14.2.4.1
          17 May 2016 at 2:30 pm

          🙄

          I meant someone credible and competent. Your word isn’t worth shit.

    • The New Student 14.3
      16 May 2016 at 4:27 pm

      Choose to make less money? Umm ok

      • One Anonymous Bloke 14.3.1
        17 May 2016 at 2:32 pm

        Lazy wingnuts turning down investment opportunities: sounds like a gap in the market to me.

  15. Sacha 15
    16 May 2016 at 1:23 pm

    There is no surplus, only huge govt and private debt. Doesn’t stop the faithful media regurgitating that lie though: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11639503

    Now, what was that about people living in cars, you say?

  16. Nick 16
    16 May 2016 at 2:18 pm

    The thing is Key tells it right to every nzers face that he is about to screw them…. But because he is smiling, joking, even laughing, most think he’s giving us good news. He’s been able to keep that conman face mask going for years.

  17. Al the Impaler 17
    16 May 2016 at 2:39 pm

    Even more concerning than the fact the Nats have already had unaffordable Tax cuts and we cannot afford any more is the fact that it is a hell of a lot harder to increase taxes in future – thanks again you greedy scumbags

  18. Wayne 18
    16 May 2016 at 3:56 pm

    A tax cut that dealt with “bracket creep” or “fiscal drag” would hardly be unreasonable. By April 2018 it will be 8 years since the last tax package. Even at current low levels of inflation the CPI will have increased by 15%. Teachers and police officers who have promotions say to Head of Department or a couple of units of responsibility or to Sergeant will be now be hitting the top tax rate, whereas in 2010 people in such positions would have been well under it.

    It is perfectly possible to have a balanced manifesto with a package of social programmes and a tax package to at least deal with bracket creep.

    • Paul 18.1
      16 May 2016 at 8:18 pm

      You should be ashamed of what 8 years of National’s extreme neo-liberal policies have done to ordinary Kiwis.
      Instead you just want for yourself and your rich mates.
      Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.

    • Tricledrown 18.2
      16 May 2016 at 9:45 pm

      Wayne bracket creep.
      That would be fine but Bill English has admitted wages are going down.

    • Sacha 18.3
      16 May 2016 at 11:41 pm

      What would it cost to just make up for bracket creep?

      • Bob 18.3.1
        17 May 2016 at 9:15 am

        If they adjusted it in relation to income inflation (since the last adjustment) then it would have no effect on the tax take in real terms.

    • millsy 18.4
      17 May 2016 at 4:51 pm

      Your party closed down dozens of hospitals, and wound up as many social programs back between 1990 and 1999 to pay for tax cuts. Such a move is morally reprehensible and borders on a crime against humanity.

  19. Macro 19
    16 May 2016 at 4:12 pm

    So Bill demands a dividend from Housing NZ of $180 million. Then generously gives back around $13 million a year, so that they can build emergency housing . This emergency housing is for the people who should have been housed permanently, in houses that HNZ could have built, with the $180 million. But they had to give that $180 million to the govt, so Bill can balance his budget. With a “balanced” budget John and Bill reckon they can give themselves and their rich mates a tax cut. 🙂
    Yeah that figures.

  20. reason 20
    16 May 2016 at 4:49 pm

    “Back when he was in Parliament, Wayne Mapp didn’t exactly come across as the sharpest tool in the shed. He was a second-rate MP, and a second-rate Minister, notable only for taking on the “portfolio” of “political correctness eradication” for Don Brash.”

    http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/daily-cronyism.html

    I’d like to spend zero tax on crony appointments like Wayne Mapp and all the bad things that result from party hacks being gifted jobs ……

    I’d also like some tax spent to clean the cow shit and piss out of our rivers ……and restore the swimming spots/holes that have been polluted and stolen from our children for Nationals boom/bust economic plan ………….. of the cow.

    I’d also like to see the cuts national made to our countries bio-security reversed ………….. the useless fuckers will end up letting in foot & mouth into nz …… via some contaminated Indonesian Palm kernel cattle feed or some other lax dodgy shit.

    And lets not forget about the Nats very close association with rich tax dodgers …http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/8515361/Money-trail-leads-home-to-New-Zealand

    How come the nats are cutting staff at the IRD???……..or is that what you do when you set yourself up as a tax haven?

    • left for dead 20.1
      17 May 2016 at 9:44 am

      I’ve said it to Dr Mapp before and looks like we need reminded again.

      👿 their are far too many people “educated beyond their intellect”

    • left for dead 20.2
      17 May 2016 at 9:46 am

      I’ve said it to Dr Mapp before and looks like we need reminded again.

      👿 their are far too many people “educated beyond their intellect”

      edit: having trouble filing this comment

      edited: all good now, but worth repeating

  21. Atiawa 21
    16 May 2016 at 5:36 pm

    Workers would rather look forward to a tax cut than join a union and fight for wage increases. Then they will moan about having to wait three months for an appointment with a specialist to maybe have a public hospital surgery in 12 months or never.

    • Jack Ramaka 21.1
      16 May 2016 at 10:03 pm

      What about getting the economy growing and get people on a decent wage rather than starving the poor people further and have them living in cars and substandard housing.

    • Sacha 21.2
      16 May 2016 at 11:43 pm

      And who has failed to join the dots for them?

      • Atiawa 21.2.1
        17 May 2016 at 10:26 am

        You tell me. Mum & dad? Teachers and schools? The Labour party & Unions?

        • Sacha 21.2.1.1
          17 May 2016 at 1:30 pm

          We all fund political parties to articulate ideas and build support for them. Not a great ROI over the last 8 years or so.

  22. whateva next? 22
    16 May 2016 at 5:41 pm

    Teaser “tax cuts” worked for Thatcher for 11 years, worth a try for people who don’t believe in society, funny how “society” was forced to pay for her funeral though.

  23. johnm 23
    16 May 2016 at 5:54 pm

    This so called heartless totally incompetent government are sh*t that’s why the greedies will do their best to vote them back in 2017. The Greedies get lots of shit paybacks.

  24. Tory 24
    16 May 2016 at 6:44 pm

    At the end of the day voters can choose, tax hikes or tax cuts.
    Labour has made it clear what its plans are:
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/294400/tax-hike-among-labour's-employment-policy-options, and it appears JK is highlighting what Nationals plans are.

    • Paul 24.1
      16 May 2016 at 8:23 pm

      Or you could care about other people rather than just yourself.
      Tory…… part of the new selfish, ugly and cruel New Zealand.
      Feel proud of that fact, do you?

  25. dave 25
    16 May 2016 at 7:13 pm

    these bastards will deliberately run the country into the ground then run like cowards with the loot they will profit from misery until there kicked out there should be an uprising over housing what is there to loose nothing why do we put up with this crap

    • tc 25.1
      16 May 2016 at 11:20 pm

      Some will run but most will stay to count their piles and sneer down at the misery they refuse to take responsibility for. English seems to enjoy it.

      Like chch rebuild, unsafe waterways, derelict rail network, foreign owned power generation, criminally underfunded health, smashed education (pre school thru tertiary) etc etc.

      Hold onto your hat shonkys not done yet, far from it.

    • Sacha 25.2
      16 May 2016 at 11:52 pm

      People ‘put up with’ this because they are not being offered a credible alternative, after 3 electoral failures in a row. This is not on voters.

      The left needs to pull finger, all of us. Particularly whoever hires strategic comms staff for the Labour party. They have earned a special circle in hell.

  26. Jack Ramaka 26
    16 May 2016 at 10:02 pm

    What about getting the economy growing and get people on a decent wage rather than starving the poor people further and have them living in cars and substandard housing.

  27. Words 27
    17 May 2016 at 12:17 am

    Surely no one will fall for that bribe from liar and tax evader John Key? Let Northland set the example, they didn’t fall for the lies and bribes.

  28. Nessalt 28
    17 May 2016 at 8:18 am

    Ahhh, nothing like a good debate on tax to bring all the loonies of the left with the economically illiterate theories to the fore.

    “NZ doesn’t want tax cuts”

    “tax cuts don’t make you wealthier”

    “low tax and low spending is a third world policy”

    etc etc etc.

    Problem is, no one’s listening to the left activist base. they’ve proved themselves so adept at driving away any moderate vote that the walled compound their mind lives in has become their reality. a physical version used to be called a sanatorium.

    • framu 28.1
      17 May 2016 at 10:20 am

      what are you saying?

      a) that the rights arguments on tax are robust?
      b) the lefts arguments arent based on fact
      c) people arent listening

      they are all different things

      good to see that the right still cling to fact free sloganeering that ignores reality or nuance just so they can shift the goalposts in their own rhetoric at every turn (thats the game were playing right now isnt it?)

  29. save nz 29
    17 May 2016 at 9:18 am

    Bribes are the only thing Natz have to offer and no questions asked immigration to sell off the country.

    Polluted a river in your own country? – buy here and get a free NZ passport and offshore tax haven from the Natz!

  30. webbrowan 30
    19 May 2016 at 9:39 pm

    They say that it needs to the sun only comes out when the worst is over and I suppose the government financing and budget is the same. It takes ages for new policies to show the results from their implementation, and the people will have to go through the teething issues in order to enjoy the rewards and stability.

    • Pat 30.1
      19 May 2016 at 10:01 pm

      ” It takes ages for new policies to show the results from their implementation, and the people will have to go through the teething issues in order to enjoy the rewards and stability.”

      seem to recall hearing similar sentiments being expressed sometime in the 80s, then again in the 90s…..still waiting.

      (nah ,thats not true…realised long ago it’s a crock)