And another one bites the dust.

Poll puts NZ First back in contention
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=10692284
Hmmmm.

Or not... apparently the investigation consisted of asking Mr Wong whether his trips were for business. The answer was no, so Mrs Wong is clear!

John Key reveals plan for asset sales
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...or-asset-sales

A couple of interesting links doing the rounds at the moment..

http://slapdang.com/2011/01/what-did-labour-sell/

http://slapdang.com/2011/01/labour-p...it-tax-policy/

Sell them assets, fund me some tax cuts!

It's the same old shit, tax 'n' spend, vs cut 'n' sell. Ugh.

Interesting that Labour has learnt the lesson from that 80's neo-liberal free market roll of the dice?

I don't think that the people spreading these meme's really think that Goff has a right-wing privatisation agenda. Otherwise they'd vote for him :p

That's better than borrowing $120 million/week to fund tax cuts. Right?

Short term gains to balance the books, fuck the future. The usual "we'd rather have $10 now than $2 every year forever since we may not be in charge next year anyway." shortsightedness that will cost us all in the long run.

And having a tax-cut race to convince the bottom 50% to vote for you is retarded too. I can't believe no politician is willing to stand up and say "The country is broke, and has been spending more than it has been earning for decades. This has to stop."...

I'd rather borrow since this has a semblance of inter-generational equity if used for the right purposes. And, I much prefer an approach where the parameters are set for long term success and appropriate instruments are used to iron up bumps along the journey.

Even if National is crap, Labour isn't exactly the best candidate either. If Phil Goff can't handle one prima donna that is Chris Carter, how can he run the country?

I believe that's more or less what John Key has just done in his speech today.

I thought spending more than is earned is the status quo in Western states? Isn't that the basis for our economies?

Is that what Goff's tax cuts would cost? Yeah, I guess selling assets is better than borrowing.

That's what we are currently having to borrow because labour left us with such a shit house debt.

Well no. Goff has gone for option C & pledged not to borrow for tax cuts or sell state assets.

Just because you hear something on talk-back radio doesn't make it true.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10548753

That makes no sense. "We're currently increasing our debt because Labour got us in debt."

So where does he get the $1.5 billion it will cost to fund these tax cuts?

We'll have to wait until the final package is presented and the finer details of the top tax rate and the tax avoidance crack down are released.

Though the tax compliance report produced for the Treasury by a committee of tax experts reckons there's a few bob to be reigned in.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...ase-compliance

My guess? Cutting services. That'd be a stereotypical Nat strategy for cost reduction.

IMO New Zealanders love to avoid tax, it almost seems to be a national pass time - the number of times I've paid cash for trade work where the worker suggested a % off if I just pop down to the cash machine.

I think he's referring to Goff's suggested tax cut.

I think cutting the tax at the lowest tax tier is a VERY good idea. But that shits still gotta be paid for. Say even half no tax on the first $2500. Giving practically every earner an extra ~$30 a month to spend. To those on or above the median income in NZ, it's probably not significantly noticeable. But those of average income and below (i.e half the country), most of which will be employed as opposed to retired or on a benefit, it might mean worrying about one less monthly bill, visiting the dentist every couple of years, that kind of practical stuff.

Which in turn would of course return the money to the economy. So everyone's a bit less stressed out, life's that bit more bearable, parents have a bit more energy for their kids. Except the grumpy few who want to keep their money. As if they could generate their income without the average or below average earners.

Another way these average and below average wage earners could increase their income is upskill to better paying work or move to Australia. However, thing is, the reason why people have low-wage employment is because there are low-wage jobs. That need people to work them.

But $1.5b of tax cuts has got to be paid for and there's no point repairing one hole by tearing open another.

There's no question Key is smart with money, however I think he sees numbers and not so much people.

That was a nice little rant. :p

You got a source for that?

Well the list would be long wouldn't it?

How about granting new ACC benefits without collecting any premiums to pay for them? That's a gazillion that National needs to find to pay for those stuff ups.

How many billions do you need the list to add up to?

That's OK, the nats are just going to sell off our state-owned assets.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4582922/

That's the obvious way to raise short-term capital, surely. Sell off 20 billion in assets to your mates, tell the public it's only worth 10b, get 5 for it and need to buy it back when it's run into the ground in 10 years for 40b.

I have a few different words to describe Key's so called "sophisticated investors", none of which are polite.

But whatever you do, government of New Zealand, don't you DARE talk about raising the retirement age! Or means-testing aged care! Or cancelling the Seniors Get Shit For Free Card!

That second one has so much fail. I thought fiscal conservatives at least pretended to be good at maths.

I raged at Key saying "NZ mums and dads would love to own a bit of Air NZ or Genesis." Yah, they probably would, but they won't. It'll all be bought up by your tax bracket, not Mr and Mrs Average.

Those mums and dads possibly won't buy shares, but their Kiwi-saver provider most likely would.

The superfund and kiwisaver funds could buy a huge proportion of those assets, it'd stay in the country and with a 51% government holding I imagine they'd be really safe investments too.

I'm not sure that a National Govt. would be keen on legislating that only certain corporations are sold shares. Also PPPs have a history of private investors having limited incentive to monitor the company as the Govts. deep pockets can be guaranteed to bail out the company if it gets into difficulty (ie they privatise profits but make us all pay for the losses).

I meant does he actually have a credible source for this information, treasury data from 2008 showing an operating deficit etc, not just armchair empiricism from some guy on the internet.

This article in the Herald seems to indicate that the Labour government was running a 6.5 billion dollar surplus as of April 2007.

Fine. Replace where I said "debt" with "running deficits".

My source was Key's speech, specifically

Look, I don't like Labour's economic policies but if you want to prove a point against them, it's really best to cite some evidence not from a blatantly partisan political speech.

Running deficits?
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...ding-cuts.html

also, Net government debt (percent of nominal GDP)


That's why Bill English publicly stated:

If we're running a deficit, why did Key cut taxes in the first place?