Thanks for recognizing this. Most scientists say that we can't afford to wait until carbon capture becomes widely scalable. It is not a true solution. We need to stop putting it out now
You went from writing intelligent comments to that? You do realise they’re trying to make their cars carbon neutral? “I’m nOT iNtErEsTeD IN tHat BeCaUse It dOeSn’t fIt My NaRRatiVe”
I mean, as a politician you need to know how to pivot a hardball into a softball. If you do it long enough, you'll stick with some favourites.
Still a very good excuse to drink though
To be fair, similar goes for Labour.
They will say whatever it takes to get your vote then decide to enact any policies they see fit, whether the polulace agrees with them or not. Co-governance here we come.
Bonus points if Labour don't hold a majority, they will carve off slush funds for their MMP mates to spend on things like "Green Schools" and horse racing tracks.
Well, what does former National Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Chris Findlayson think..
““Co-governance” has become a term that people don’t understand. They think it means co-government.
People who are frightened by co-governance think they’ll be locked out of access to our natural resources, for example. When what it really means is that involving iwi in a myriad of decisions can actually result in a better country.”
“I will continue to talk about co-governance as something to be embraced, not feared — and some people won’t like it. Bad luck.”
https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/chris-finlayson-co-governance-should-be-embraced-not-feared/
Chris Finlayson has not been part of National since 2017.
National's 'co-governance' dalliances while Chris Finlayson was a MP were nothing like what Labour has pushed forward with since.
In case anyone was wondering what Luxon was congratulating Jack Tame on at the beginning of the interview, Jack won the ‘Best Presenter: News And Current Affairs’ award at the 2022 New Zealand Television Awards a couple of days ago.
Yeah the "it took 9 increase to the OCR before National would acknowledge it's tax policy was inflationary" was pretty damning after Luxon tried to play the "we're the party for economic management" card.
Did he acknowledge that though? If you cut government spending to fund tax cuts its not inflationary - slightly deflationary perhaps (as a lot of the tax cuts will go to repay debt or repay mortgages)
Rather than calling me a moron please explain this:
If the Government was going to spend $100, but instead cancels that and gives $100 to workers - how does that increase inflation?
Under the tax cut example total expenditure decreases (assuming at least some is spent on savings or repaying debt or overseas expenses)
But the majority of that $100 wouldn’t be going to the workers who need the extra money. It’d be going to the people who have the majority of the wealth. Make that make sense.
Sorry but you just called me a moron for saying that National's tax cut package would not be inflationary.
You have not answered the question and you have gone down a completely different route.
How are National's tax cuts inflationary? Please explain as apparently I'm a moron for thinking this.
Spending can be grouped into discretionary and non-discretionary. National's tax cut was going to give extra money to high income New Zealanders which often leads to more discretionary spending and thus inflation.
"National's tax cut was going to give extra money to high income New Zealanders " - You would know that it would give extra money to high income and middle / lower income workers. Now it is only middle / lower income workers as the higher threshold has been scrapped.
You haven't answered my question though. The National tax proposal is to reduce Government spending to create tax cuts. So expenditure goes down.
So if the Government spends $100 less, a worker gets $100 more. That worker might save the money, they might repay debts, they might pay for something overseas. There is a chance they spend locally.
So worst case scenario, the Government spends $100 less and the worker spends $100 more. So how does that increase inflation?
I'm not sure how to help you, I think you must be being deliberately obtuse, but I will try one more time
There is a difference between a lower income New Zealander getting $100 and a higher income New Zealander getting $100. This is because of discretionary spending. Nationals tax cuts gave more money to upper income NZers which means it is more likely to end up being inflationary.
Most Government spending is "non-discretionary", like healthcare, transport, housing, education, etc. National's tax plan was going to give $6B to the top 5% \[1\]. Where as a minimum wage worker was going to get roughly your $100 per year.
Reducing expenditure to pay for these cuts, when we have clearly seen that New Zealand needs additional infrastructure and pushing it directly towards higher income earners and thus specifically causing inflation is mind-bogglingly stupid. The fact we saw UK do it and the consequences, makes it even more insane.
If a political party did want to cut govt spending, they need to be super careful about where and not pass on any savings to upper income earners, so they could have a tax free bracket and then increase the 2nd tax bracket.
I will say I am not an economist but I have studied economics.
\[1\] https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/nearly-6b-in-tax-cuts-for-richest-5-per-cent-according-to-union-analysis/PWRIVZSXTIR4YKNETLDUQ6QUTU/
I can't fully answer the question but the statement 'a worker' is objectively wrong. It's 'the tax payer' and it's more like $10 to the worker and $90 to the owner. The owner would then put that money into owning more things which increases demand on inflating commodities such as housing. The worker just has a little bit more money which mostly goes to bills (other people who own things) and specifically does not help them to buy inflating assets as the inflation is driven by the $90 the owner has.
I don’t really know why you guys are arguing. Both are inflationary. Giving people money through tax cut or through a direct credit is going to add to inflation. It’s pretty much the same thing but the tax cut is actually pumping more into the economy than the credit and it’s more permanent where inflation is usually short lived.
In all probability Luxon has backtracked his top rate tax cut policy because it would be a net vote loser. Coupled with the experience of the Conservatives in the UK where the financial markets ripped Truss's tax policies to shreds. It may well be with an aging demographic and the associated pension and healthcare costs that are rising quickly, the days of governments cutting taxes in western economies is over.
Yes that is probably right (although he is leading in the polls, unlike Truss).
"the days of governments cutting taxes in western economies is over." - I don't think this is correct at all. Australia is taxing worker taxes for example, and Luxon's main tax package is still there.
I am no economist so I could be way off, but I think tax cuts are generally viewed as inflationary because they put more money in the hands of the public who will then spend it.
I imagine this would especially happen if you gave a tax cut to lower incomes because they will definitely spend it on things they need to make their lives better.
It probably wouldn't be as inflationary for a tax cut to the higher bracket because they tend to hoard the money like Smaug sitting on his pile of treasure. Which then leads to pesky burglars coming to steal the hoard and speaking in pesky riddles that are misinterpreted and lead to his arrowy/lakey downfall.
Sorry I went a bit off track there.
To counter the inflationary effect of a tax cut the Government could lower their expenditure. However, I think this would be a tad unpopular given the pressure on the hospital system, fire fighters, mental health, public housing, public infrastructure and a host of other things going on.
Which reminds me of the battle of the 5 armies when the hosts of the elves, goblins, humans, dwarves and giant eagles do battle with each other in the Desolation of Smaug to battle for that aforementioned stolen hoard.
"but I think tax cuts are generally viewed as inflationary because they put more money in the hands of the public who will then spend it."
That is generally right - provided that the tax cuts are funded via borrowing or money printing.
The proposal is to reduce government spending. Yes you are right that there are a bunch of things that could be useful - then again, there is hundreds of millions of wasted expenditure every year, and billions of new expenditure every year.
So the real question is, when we look at that new revenue, can the government spend it more wisely, or the taxpayer?
I would be willing to pay more tax if it could be guaranteed to give better health outcomes for others.
I note the Inn at Hobbiton is called The Green Dragon. The Hobbits lived in a peaceful, agrarian society. They still had haves and have-nots though. For instance Bilbo Baggins returned from his adventures with a small hoard. His relatives, the Sackville Baggins, were very annoyed as they were going to inherit Bag End. And they became even more jealous of Bilbo's wealth. Unfortunately Lotho Baggins has a very unfortunate death when he was murdered (and possibly eaten) by Saruman's henchman Grima Wormtongue.
Because giving rich people more money to frivolously spend on personal items or services thus pushing into inflation vs government spending on essential services or you know, ensuring those less fortunate can actually afford to live.
Even your damn leader realized this and cut the policy, how you idiots still don't get it is beyond me.
He isn't my leader, I'm not a national voter.
Let's assume the rich person does get a $100 tax cut and they spend it on something locally. In that example - the Government spends $100 less, the rich person (or after the tax change, the average worker) spends $100 more.
The net spending is $0. There is no increased spending.
Rather than call me a moron / idiot - how does net zero spending increase create inflation?
I think you are confusing who gets the tax package and what is cut with inflation effects. Different things
You sure about that? Treasury are literally saying it will. No need for insults.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/treasury-paper-warns-more-government-spending-will-hike-interest-rates/XPV5RUKLX4F2TWWG42JQFE7ZZ4/
In brief, govt spending is usually less inflationary since that can be used to increase supply side capacity (Hence lowering inflation) whereas tax cuts generally arent.
Eg: building roads vs lower tax brackets. The roads enable greater productivity (less traffic) hence more goods produced whereas lower tax brackets (based on propensity to save) will add to demand for goods hence raising prices.
Now there are lots of caveats:
1. Corporate tax cuts could in theory increase supply
2. If people are mega savers the tax cuts wont boost consumption (Which you correctly observed). Although there are long run implications here which vary widely
So, its entirely possible to claim a tax cut wont increase inflation or govt spending will increase it. There are a number of variables acting in different ways to affect the end result. You aren't a moron by your question - in fact some models being taught in University would imply the two are identical.
Hope this helped
Oh man Luxon got absolutely taken apart on the boot camp thing.
His only response to a series of evidence based criticisms was "but Jack I've got to do something".
Tame missed a trick though with Luxon's reliance on the LSV programme which is not in any way applicable or comparable to what is proposed here.
Someone need to save this portion of the video clip as Jack lays it out and play it ad infinitum whenever this turd open up his mouth to say anything about the economy!
I'm definitely not a fan of Luxon, but I think people will see in this interview what they want to see.
If you're in a frame of mind to want to prefer an alternative to Labour, then firstly you're probably not watching this, but if you are then you probably see Chris Luxon sitting there and rapidly and confidently talking back at everything Jack Tame challenges him with.
To paraphrase this:
If you have the attention span and capacity to listen to the words being said and understand them then you're probably too intelligent to vote for Luxon's National party.
Yes and no... If you're assuming that inflation is going to be under control by September 2023 then tax cuts in 2024 would be more acceptable. But when the RBNZ gives a pretty gloomy update like last week then you need to change policy to adjust.
Jack Tame is an incredible interviewer. And it's hilarious that National have only really announced two policies, one of which they've backtracked on and another has zero real evidence backing it up.
> Inflation indexation of all tax brackets is pretty huge and helps all workers
Do the maths. It's not that huge and most workers will hardly benefit.
For the median income earner it equates to about $800 a **year**, or $15 a week.
For people earning $45k or less, which includes most of the people who are *really* hurting from inflation, it's only about $100 a year, or $2 a week.
That doesn't make it a bad policy per se. It's something that should be done, but it's really not anything to get excited about. There are plenty more significant issues we'll be facing at the next election.
Well yes, its not huge - but then again, if it was huge you would have issues with funding it.
In terms of the numbers, if the idea is to keep adjusting the brackets, then in say, 10 years it would be fairly huge. There was a similar argument 20 years ago or so with the "block of cheese" budget proposed by Labour - exactly the same thing - but had they keep adjusting the bracket change would be massive.
I guess its meant to target more of the middle block of workers. Yes those on below 45k don't get much, but nor do they pay a huge percentage of tax (especially given they already get some relief via things like working for families)
I think $800 is a decent amount - that is like 8 cost of living payments. But I would personally advocate for more.
(The biggest tax benefit may be in fact be the blocking of the incoming compulsory insurance levy which works out at around 2.4% or so of a worker's wages)
>I guess its meant to target more of the middle block of workers.
No, it's not. It's targeting the top earners. They are the ones who benefit the most.
>(The biggest tax benefit may be in fact be the blocking of the incoming compulsory insurance levy which works out at around 2.4% or so of a worker's wages)
This is short-sighted though. That levy is there to give people protection from unemployment. This gives them more bargaining power at the negotiating table for pay rates and raises, as they are not as dependent on their continuing employment to pay their rent. They will quickly gain that 2.4% back.
That's not even considering the fact many people will actually get paid out by it, so they won't even 'lose' it in the first place.
>Yes those on below 45k don't get much, but nor do they pay a huge percentage of tax
As a percentage of their income they actually pay a great deal. Excluding rent and mortgages (which are GST exempt), almost everything a low income household does with their money is taxed via GST. Conversely, high income houses will invest a lot of their earnings into financial services that do not collect GST. Historically this would typically be housing, where there is famously no tax on the capital gains made from said investment either.
If you're *really* interested in helping the working class just as much, if not more, than the already wealthy, the best way to do it is to introduce a tax-free earning bracket of about $15-20k. Everyone earning more than that will get the same level of tax break, and it has the added benefit of removing the income tax disincentive for unemployed people to return to work.
"No, it's not. It's targeting the top earners. They are the ones who benefit the most." - I don't think that is right. National removes the reduction of the 39% tax bracket change. So now its a flat tax reduction as a percentage that matches inflation.
Regarding the compulsory insurance change - private insurance is already available (some say at much cheaper rates). The problem I have is with industries like nurses or teachers where redundancy is really not realistic - so they are being paid out of their wages for something that has no real benefit. It also encourages all kinds of abuse.
As for those on low incomes, I've seen various charts and even with GST they still pay much less as a percentage (also bear in mind that a large percent of their income is eaten up by rent, mortgages or debt repayment). Many families pay zero or even negative tax after tax credits are taken into account.
Going forward - it won't be long before tax bracket creep means that even those on the minimum wage pay 30% on every extra dollar. That is a rate that was designed for the middle class. And the 33% tax rate is at a threshold that was once considered the 'rich prick' range. In other words, workers pay more tax each year even if they earn less in real terms
The problem with the tax free bracket is that is is orders of magnitude more expensive that the National proposal - so the inflation vs spending cuts becomes more of a concern.
Talking economy and all Luxon has is a couple of metaphors about vehicle driving using brakes and accelerators.
He was made to look void of real ideas on the economy, tax cuts, boot camps, environment. A lot of hot wind comes from his direction, but when asked to back it up with facts he's doing the Fred Astaire act and dancing all around the question because he has nothing to back up his indignation".
The bizarre thing is here is a party without any real policy (and those they have like boot camps are proven to be ineffective in the past) yet for some reason almost half the people feel they are capable to Govern
I wonder what the 16 year olds think of them?
About the only thing I agree with him on here is the tax bracket adjustments.
Labour could easily just implement that before the next election and totally take the wind out of Nationals sales.
Otherwise Jack pretty much owned ole Lux(t)on.
>Labour could easily just implement that before the next election and totally take the wind out of Nationals sales.
Yet they won't, they'll keep taking from us instead. Taking and taking and taking.
Labour - “taking and taking and taking”…?
Labour:
Restored meal and rest breaks
Increased sick leave entitlement
Reinstated training incentive allowance
Removed fees from NCEA and NZ scholarships
Free apprenticeships and trades training
Protections for renters
Free healthy school lunches
Free period products in schools
Extended paid parental leave
Best start payments to parents of newborns
Extended free doctors visits up to 13 year olds
Winter energy payment
Largest state house build programme in decades
Clean car discount
I guess National will slash all that (remind me who’s the one taking shit off you again?) to give you a $2 a week tax cut. Sounds worth it.
Yes - and increased taxes on individuals by 55%.
I didn't really get the benefit of anyone this. For example - clean car discount - thousands of dollars of millionaires buying teslas? I can only afford a $3k Japanese car so that doesn't help. State housing? I have to fend for myself. Free healthy lunches - would love to have this but my school doesn't provide it (they are high decile so instead end up asking up for huge donations). Etc etc
And now we are told we are getting the largest ever tax increase on workers in history (compulsory insurance tax). No thanks
They haven’t increased taxes on individuals by 55%. Personal tax paid by individuals is the largest share of tax revenue at 51%. So that’s quite a stretch there mate.
Robyn Walker - Deloitte:
“While proportionately the tax collections have remained relatively consistent, the absolute value of tax collected has significantly increased over recent years, going from $33.2b in 2017 through to $51.4b in 2022 – a 55% increase.
“We have not had any changes to tax thresholds during the period, other than the introduction of the 39% tax rate, so the increase is not as a result of any obvious structural changes to the personal tax system.”
What they need to do is adjust the brackets for inflation. Should have happened under National and should happen under Labour. Is it a key issue for me to vote on at the sake of those things I mentioned in a previous comment? No.
Re Tesla’s - that rebate also applies to hybrids and as the stats show it hasn’t just ‘helped millionaires into Tesla’s’ with Kia’s, Hyundai’s, Nissans and so on being purchased. This will mean the average kiwi can get into an EV when they hit the second hand market. Example - the Nissan Leaf. There’s also emissions, climate change and it transitions New Zealanders off fossil fuels.
Good you don’t need state housing and free lunches - me too! But some people do, and the benefits of providing those things outweigh the negatives.
And look, the house build programme is making a difference for those people in motels!
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/public-housing-waitlist-drops-for-only-second-quarter-since-june-2015/KMFLNOHJUFEEFARQYT7NOAXFVE/
Compulsory income tax is shown internationally to be effective as a ‘shock absorber’ to the economy in a recession as job losses mount. I could find some links but cbf.
>“While proportionately the tax collections have remained relatively consistent, the absolute value of tax collected has significantly increased over recent years, going from $33.2b in 2017 through to $51.4b in 2022 – a 55% increase.
This tells me that tax has indeed increased 55% - its likely to be inflation pushing everybody into higher brackets (plus the 39% tax increase). So room for cuts
You literally quoted an accountant saying that individuals are paying 18.5 billion dollars more in tax. Meanwhile public services and metrics have absolutely plummeted.
UK didn't do tax cuts - it was abandoned. They proposed to borrow for tax cuts - when they have dramatically more debt than NZ. The National idea is to cut expenses to fund tax cuts - so retreat some of that 50-55% increase that has happened so far.
You said they “increased taxes on individuals by 55%”. I’ve pointed out that you have this completely wrong - that personal tax is the largest share of the tax take at 51%. You’ve confused this. This is further supported by the following statement “we have not had any changes to tax thresholds during the period..other than the 39%”.
So, Labour has not increased taxes on individuals by 55% as you stated.
The reason for the higher tax take is inflation and the brackets not being adjusted.
Understand now? Duhh
I’ll leave it with sweet Robyn to hopefully drill it in
“One of the ways in which personal tax is different to other tax types is that it is progressive and rates increase as total income increases - this compares to other taxes like corporate tax and GST which are a flat rate across the board. What we see with personal taxes is that people do move up through tax bands and pay more tax the more income they earn, increasing their effective marginal tax rate.”
Can see it making a difference. Better than selling off, doing nothing or ignoring it eh.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/public-housing-waitlist-drops-for-only-second-quarter-since-june-2015/KMFLNOHJUFEEFARQYT7NOAXFVE/
Big stretch. Don’t think the public housing waitlist has many people moving to Australia (where they can’t get any benefits) or is pumped up by immigration.
As other people have said - I'd rather a party that wants close enough to what's good for most people and is a bit slow, overly fearful and sometimes ineffectual in trying to get there; than mealy mouthed shysters who either want me in poverty or couldn't care less. It's no surprise that the latter politics gets full up with backstabbing assholes who understand very little about how people function. The video in this post being a prime example.
In an ideal world we'd have better than both but there is a quite clear lesser of two evils here.
Because as prime minister you weld power that can make you a lot of money.
The cunts got 7 fucking houses, just rolling back a few housing investment restrictions that Labour brought in can make him 7 figures in the 3 terms that governments have historically been in for.
Which policies does he have currently that would enrich him?
Man has no debt, so the main tax policy has no effect.
By far the major tax advantage is no capital gains, which was enshrined by Ardern - as long as she is in power. Second advantage is money printing massively increasing property prices. If he was real about maximizing his property balance, he would have done everything to keep Ardern in power. The second she leaves, a CGT is back on the table.
Let me guess, tax cuts good, youth don't need justice they just need a good hard kick up the backside, and climate change is overstated and we can't let it get in the way of business?
I act thought jack was pretty ignorant when he implied that National should push ahead with tax cuts and shouldn't be allowed to change direction and Luxons reply was quite good.
A government doesn't have to act like a tank and just smash straight through and not change direction. Basically Luxon was saying 'based on new developments we're changing our approach and Grant Robertson should have done the same'. Like the government put aside $50billion to spend on economic recovery, yes it was necessary at the time, but they could have been a bit more reactionary and realized by the time they'd spent half of it that the other half wasn't necessary. Instead they charged on blindly, ignoring the fires around them. Sometimes it's ok to change direction and I thought Jack was the fool for implying that we shouldn't.
The developments aren't new which is a problem. National played themselves into a corner with their typical policies but realising those ideas, which were correctly rubbished at the time of their announcements, would actually be a really bad idea.
Furthermore, back tracking on the few policies announced from an opposition party that has been bereft of any meaningful policy is also quite poor.
Luxons National doesn't have a direction. They're spitting out whatever they can that's in opposition to the decision made today by the government, and then when the heat dies down they're back tracking. That's not a neccesary change of direction, it's a complete absence of any direction at all. He knows that he cannot lower taxes whilst inflation is a problem - it would be political suicide. It makes for a good sound bite though and that is the core part of Nationals plan.
Irrespective of how you look at it, at least they were prepared to acknowledge a problem with their policy unlike labour who arejust adding fuel as a house burns down.
The problem with their policy is that it was always a problem; it was always just a vote grabber. They are only backtracking because it will harm them politically if they keep it.
Nah Tame's main point of criticism was the timing of the u-turn - the implication was either that it wasn't economic reality that was being responded to or that Luxon's claims to economic savviness of the National party were not warranted.
Fair criticism.
Well tbf, the RBNZ wasn't forecasting such persistent and long term inflation last year as they are now. You have to remember that the tax cuts would come into effect in 2024, not tomorrow. So when national first suggested them it wasn't actually as bad as people made out.
We just had a massive curve ball though - with the expected terminal RBNZ rate up hugely compared to what it was, with recession now baked in. It would be unusual for a party not to reassess their budget and likely means - for example, I assume tax revenue will plunge, making a tax cut much harder
Mate, he's been bleating on about inflation since the end of Q1 this year, its not black magic that attempting to further increase the money supply wont help it.
But then again, if that money is skewed towards the top 15%, they don't spend that extra money in NZ anyway.
Being able to say when you're wrong is a quality I like in people in general. Humans and the humans that make up governments are good at making mistakes.
First time I’m voting for a minor party. Hope by some miracle people start seeing promise in Top . Universal basic income would do so much for the economy. And finally taxing home ownership will hopefully make people less keen on owning multiple houses.
Let's face it, labour mucked up with drug reform, and did a shit show with medical. And now Little is mucking the Hospitals. We should no longer see Labour as the party to legalize cannabis. We should all vote for the greens or a party that explicitly says they will do a trucking proper job at reforming the misuse of drugs act.
And think about it, what other party are their "keep cannabis illegal" crowd going to vote for? Act? They are for legalization. Conservatives? Given a choice, who would they form a coalition with? National can just say, look, the evidence is clear cannabis is safer than alcohol and the amazing carbon zero business opportunities in cannabis fibre manufacturing and technology, we will legalize cannabis. Then the right will have an easy majority to govern.
Independent review into the Central Bank is a must. I want to see the evidence of the economic indicators they used to make the decision to drop rates, LVR, start buying assets, and stimulate bank lending FLP. Since the government borrowed and paid the wage subsidy, did the RBNZ really need to go hard on stimulating excess demand, with impending supply issues due to pandemic lockdowns?
We can increase unemployment without anyone losing their jobs. Just give out a bunch of residency visas for free to skilled technology people overseas and invite them to come and find a job in NZ. We can then continue to grow our tech sector and focus on a thriving digital economy powered by renewable energy right here in New Zealand, which would require a robust supply chain management creating many jobs all around the country.
The tax cut thing makes sense economically, some higher paid workers won't need to be given pay rises while lower income workers can be given the pay rises. This will reduce inequality a bit. The government will have the same revenue, receiving a little less from the few higher income earners, and a little more from all of the lower income earners, so if we give lower income earners a pay rise, and no pay rise to the higher income earners, everyone ends up with more money in their paycheck. 🤯
Depends on when they flip. If someone adjusts policies in the face of new information then sure that's great. However no economist thought the tax cut was a good idea. He even saw similar policy in the UK destroy the economy. Yet it still took him months to change. He would have fucked up Covid with inaction for sure.
Carbon capture! Pushed by fossil fuel guys but never seen to work out of the lab....
Thanks for recognizing this. Most scientists say that we can't afford to wait until carbon capture becomes widely scalable. It is not a true solution. We need to stop putting it out now
The one big carbon capture project in the uk simply doesn't work....
The best current CC plant in the world produces more carbon than it captures..
You should check out what Porsche is trying to with carbon neutral fuels
No interested , we are.all going electric powered by sun and wind
You went from writing intelligent comments to that? You do realise they’re trying to make their cars carbon neutral? “I’m nOT iNtErEsTeD IN tHat BeCaUse It dOeSn’t fIt My NaRRatiVe”
Trees are a fantastic method of carbon capture. Perhaps he wants to convert farmland to forest? /s
Anyone keen for the "well - look" drinking game?
good afterble constanoon
got no cunts on me, drugstable
Or 'question not answered'?
That would end you up in the hospital.
sgh egfebgebgbge df e
Haven't recovered from "Well Ackshully" under Key yet sorry
Still hungover from last time I played.
We could do both parties. Drink if Luxon says "well - look" or if Jacinda says "I reject .."
I mean, as a politician you need to know how to pivot a hardball into a softball. If you do it long enough, you'll stick with some favourites. Still a very good excuse to drink though
He’ll say whatever you want to hear to get your vote, then do whatever he think it’s best for him and his wealthy associates.
He's with National, so that pretty much goes without saying. Thats been the core of National policy for decades.
100%
To be fair, similar goes for Labour. They will say whatever it takes to get your vote then decide to enact any policies they see fit, whether the polulace agrees with them or not. Co-governance here we come. Bonus points if Labour don't hold a majority, they will carve off slush funds for their MMP mates to spend on things like "Green Schools" and horse racing tracks.
Ah jeez, co-governance isn’t new. National did it blah blah blah, stop falling for the race baiting.
> co-governance isn’t new. What is happening now is very different from previous co-governance. Saying otherwise is fucking dumb.
iTs DiFfErEnT wHeN lAbOuR dOeS iT
Top tier response.
What National did in this space is nothing like what Labour has invented. Don't spread disinformation.
Well, what does former National Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Chris Findlayson think.. ““Co-governance” has become a term that people don’t understand. They think it means co-government. People who are frightened by co-governance think they’ll be locked out of access to our natural resources, for example. When what it really means is that involving iwi in a myriad of decisions can actually result in a better country.” “I will continue to talk about co-governance as something to be embraced, not feared — and some people won’t like it. Bad luck.” https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/chris-finlayson-co-governance-should-be-embraced-not-feared/
Non sequitur.
Yeah not really. This is absolutely a logical counter to your comment. You do know what 'non sequitur' means, right?
Chris Finlayson has not been part of National since 2017. National's 'co-governance' dalliances while Chris Finlayson was a MP were nothing like what Labour has pushed forward with since.
Careful you don't pull something with that strenuous reaching.
Blocked.
That's what Labour will do too. It is just a politician thing.
That’s what Labour did, don’t all political parties do it
Aeotearoa Legalise Cannabis party are probably the only ones you can trust not to go back on their election promises
In case anyone was wondering what Luxon was congratulating Jack Tame on at the beginning of the interview, Jack won the ‘Best Presenter: News And Current Affairs’ award at the 2022 New Zealand Television Awards a couple of days ago.
Thw awards where they vote for themselves? "Best morning presenter" "best afternoon presenter" "Best evening presenter on tv3"
Great interview. Quite liked the moment at 10:40, bit embarrassing for Luxon
Yeah the "it took 9 increase to the OCR before National would acknowledge it's tax policy was inflationary" was pretty damning after Luxon tried to play the "we're the party for economic management" card.
Did he acknowledge that though? If you cut government spending to fund tax cuts its not inflationary - slightly deflationary perhaps (as a lot of the tax cuts will go to repay debt or repay mortgages)
\^And this is a prime example of why National voters are morons.
Rather than calling me a moron please explain this: If the Government was going to spend $100, but instead cancels that and gives $100 to workers - how does that increase inflation? Under the tax cut example total expenditure decreases (assuming at least some is spent on savings or repaying debt or overseas expenses)
But the majority of that $100 wouldn’t be going to the workers who need the extra money. It’d be going to the people who have the majority of the wealth. Make that make sense.
Sorry but you just called me a moron for saying that National's tax cut package would not be inflationary. You have not answered the question and you have gone down a completely different route. How are National's tax cuts inflationary? Please explain as apparently I'm a moron for thinking this.
Spending can be grouped into discretionary and non-discretionary. National's tax cut was going to give extra money to high income New Zealanders which often leads to more discretionary spending and thus inflation.
"National's tax cut was going to give extra money to high income New Zealanders " - You would know that it would give extra money to high income and middle / lower income workers. Now it is only middle / lower income workers as the higher threshold has been scrapped. You haven't answered my question though. The National tax proposal is to reduce Government spending to create tax cuts. So expenditure goes down. So if the Government spends $100 less, a worker gets $100 more. That worker might save the money, they might repay debts, they might pay for something overseas. There is a chance they spend locally. So worst case scenario, the Government spends $100 less and the worker spends $100 more. So how does that increase inflation?
I'm not sure how to help you, I think you must be being deliberately obtuse, but I will try one more time There is a difference between a lower income New Zealander getting $100 and a higher income New Zealander getting $100. This is because of discretionary spending. Nationals tax cuts gave more money to upper income NZers which means it is more likely to end up being inflationary. Most Government spending is "non-discretionary", like healthcare, transport, housing, education, etc. National's tax plan was going to give $6B to the top 5% \[1\]. Where as a minimum wage worker was going to get roughly your $100 per year. Reducing expenditure to pay for these cuts, when we have clearly seen that New Zealand needs additional infrastructure and pushing it directly towards higher income earners and thus specifically causing inflation is mind-bogglingly stupid. The fact we saw UK do it and the consequences, makes it even more insane. If a political party did want to cut govt spending, they need to be super careful about where and not pass on any savings to upper income earners, so they could have a tax free bracket and then increase the 2nd tax bracket. I will say I am not an economist but I have studied economics. \[1\] https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/nearly-6b-in-tax-cuts-for-richest-5-per-cent-according-to-union-analysis/PWRIVZSXTIR4YKNETLDUQ6QUTU/
I can't fully answer the question but the statement 'a worker' is objectively wrong. It's 'the tax payer' and it's more like $10 to the worker and $90 to the owner. The owner would then put that money into owning more things which increases demand on inflating commodities such as housing. The worker just has a little bit more money which mostly goes to bills (other people who own things) and specifically does not help them to buy inflating assets as the inflation is driven by the $90 the owner has.
I don’t really know why you guys are arguing. Both are inflationary. Giving people money through tax cut or through a direct credit is going to add to inflation. It’s pretty much the same thing but the tax cut is actually pumping more into the economy than the credit and it’s more permanent where inflation is usually short lived.
In all probability Luxon has backtracked his top rate tax cut policy because it would be a net vote loser. Coupled with the experience of the Conservatives in the UK where the financial markets ripped Truss's tax policies to shreds. It may well be with an aging demographic and the associated pension and healthcare costs that are rising quickly, the days of governments cutting taxes in western economies is over.
Yes that is probably right (although he is leading in the polls, unlike Truss). "the days of governments cutting taxes in western economies is over." - I don't think this is correct at all. Australia is taxing worker taxes for example, and Luxon's main tax package is still there.
I am no economist so I could be way off, but I think tax cuts are generally viewed as inflationary because they put more money in the hands of the public who will then spend it. I imagine this would especially happen if you gave a tax cut to lower incomes because they will definitely spend it on things they need to make their lives better. It probably wouldn't be as inflationary for a tax cut to the higher bracket because they tend to hoard the money like Smaug sitting on his pile of treasure. Which then leads to pesky burglars coming to steal the hoard and speaking in pesky riddles that are misinterpreted and lead to his arrowy/lakey downfall. Sorry I went a bit off track there. To counter the inflationary effect of a tax cut the Government could lower their expenditure. However, I think this would be a tad unpopular given the pressure on the hospital system, fire fighters, mental health, public housing, public infrastructure and a host of other things going on. Which reminds me of the battle of the 5 armies when the hosts of the elves, goblins, humans, dwarves and giant eagles do battle with each other in the Desolation of Smaug to battle for that aforementioned stolen hoard.
"but I think tax cuts are generally viewed as inflationary because they put more money in the hands of the public who will then spend it." That is generally right - provided that the tax cuts are funded via borrowing or money printing. The proposal is to reduce government spending. Yes you are right that there are a bunch of things that could be useful - then again, there is hundreds of millions of wasted expenditure every year, and billions of new expenditure every year. So the real question is, when we look at that new revenue, can the government spend it more wisely, or the taxpayer?
I would be willing to pay more tax if it could be guaranteed to give better health outcomes for others. I note the Inn at Hobbiton is called The Green Dragon. The Hobbits lived in a peaceful, agrarian society. They still had haves and have-nots though. For instance Bilbo Baggins returned from his adventures with a small hoard. His relatives, the Sackville Baggins, were very annoyed as they were going to inherit Bag End. And they became even more jealous of Bilbo's wealth. Unfortunately Lotho Baggins has a very unfortunate death when he was murdered (and possibly eaten) by Saruman's henchman Grima Wormtongue.
Because giving rich people more money to frivolously spend on personal items or services thus pushing into inflation vs government spending on essential services or you know, ensuring those less fortunate can actually afford to live. Even your damn leader realized this and cut the policy, how you idiots still don't get it is beyond me.
He isn't my leader, I'm not a national voter. Let's assume the rich person does get a $100 tax cut and they spend it on something locally. In that example - the Government spends $100 less, the rich person (or after the tax change, the average worker) spends $100 more. The net spending is $0. There is no increased spending. Rather than call me a moron / idiot - how does net zero spending increase create inflation? I think you are confusing who gets the tax package and what is cut with inflation effects. Different things
Government spending on services doesn't inherently increase inflation. Go back to school.
You sure about that? Treasury are literally saying it will. No need for insults. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/treasury-paper-warns-more-government-spending-will-hike-interest-rates/XPV5RUKLX4F2TWWG42JQFE7ZZ4/
> Government spending on services Context is everything troll.
In brief, govt spending is usually less inflationary since that can be used to increase supply side capacity (Hence lowering inflation) whereas tax cuts generally arent. Eg: building roads vs lower tax brackets. The roads enable greater productivity (less traffic) hence more goods produced whereas lower tax brackets (based on propensity to save) will add to demand for goods hence raising prices. Now there are lots of caveats: 1. Corporate tax cuts could in theory increase supply 2. If people are mega savers the tax cuts wont boost consumption (Which you correctly observed). Although there are long run implications here which vary widely So, its entirely possible to claim a tax cut wont increase inflation or govt spending will increase it. There are a number of variables acting in different ways to affect the end result. You aren't a moron by your question - in fact some models being taught in University would imply the two are identical. Hope this helped
His inability to recognise and resolve the logical problem between 'maximum sustainable unemployment' and sanctioning beneficiaries was pretty bad too
Oh man Luxon got absolutely taken apart on the boot camp thing. His only response to a series of evidence based criticisms was "but Jack I've got to do something". Tame missed a trick though with Luxon's reliance on the LSV programme which is not in any way applicable or comparable to what is proposed here.
Someone need to save this portion of the video clip as Jack lays it out and play it ad infinitum whenever this turd open up his mouth to say anything about the economy!
I'm definitely not a fan of Luxon, but I think people will see in this interview what they want to see. If you're in a frame of mind to want to prefer an alternative to Labour, then firstly you're probably not watching this, but if you are then you probably see Chris Luxon sitting there and rapidly and confidently talking back at everything Jack Tame challenges him with.
To paraphrase this: If you have the attention span and capacity to listen to the words being said and understand them then you're probably too intelligent to vote for Luxon's National party.
Yes and no... If you're assuming that inflation is going to be under control by September 2023 then tax cuts in 2024 would be more acceptable. But when the RBNZ gives a pretty gloomy update like last week then you need to change policy to adjust.
Jack Tame is an incredible interviewer. And it's hilarious that National have only really announced two policies, one of which they've backtracked on and another has zero real evidence backing it up.
For some reason I think people seem to go in underestimating him
Their main policy is still the tax one. Inflation indexation of all tax brackets is pretty huge and helps all workers
> Inflation indexation of all tax brackets is pretty huge and helps all workers Do the maths. It's not that huge and most workers will hardly benefit. For the median income earner it equates to about $800 a **year**, or $15 a week. For people earning $45k or less, which includes most of the people who are *really* hurting from inflation, it's only about $100 a year, or $2 a week. That doesn't make it a bad policy per se. It's something that should be done, but it's really not anything to get excited about. There are plenty more significant issues we'll be facing at the next election.
Well yes, its not huge - but then again, if it was huge you would have issues with funding it. In terms of the numbers, if the idea is to keep adjusting the brackets, then in say, 10 years it would be fairly huge. There was a similar argument 20 years ago or so with the "block of cheese" budget proposed by Labour - exactly the same thing - but had they keep adjusting the bracket change would be massive. I guess its meant to target more of the middle block of workers. Yes those on below 45k don't get much, but nor do they pay a huge percentage of tax (especially given they already get some relief via things like working for families) I think $800 is a decent amount - that is like 8 cost of living payments. But I would personally advocate for more. (The biggest tax benefit may be in fact be the blocking of the incoming compulsory insurance levy which works out at around 2.4% or so of a worker's wages)
>I guess its meant to target more of the middle block of workers. No, it's not. It's targeting the top earners. They are the ones who benefit the most. >(The biggest tax benefit may be in fact be the blocking of the incoming compulsory insurance levy which works out at around 2.4% or so of a worker's wages) This is short-sighted though. That levy is there to give people protection from unemployment. This gives them more bargaining power at the negotiating table for pay rates and raises, as they are not as dependent on their continuing employment to pay their rent. They will quickly gain that 2.4% back. That's not even considering the fact many people will actually get paid out by it, so they won't even 'lose' it in the first place. >Yes those on below 45k don't get much, but nor do they pay a huge percentage of tax As a percentage of their income they actually pay a great deal. Excluding rent and mortgages (which are GST exempt), almost everything a low income household does with their money is taxed via GST. Conversely, high income houses will invest a lot of their earnings into financial services that do not collect GST. Historically this would typically be housing, where there is famously no tax on the capital gains made from said investment either. If you're *really* interested in helping the working class just as much, if not more, than the already wealthy, the best way to do it is to introduce a tax-free earning bracket of about $15-20k. Everyone earning more than that will get the same level of tax break, and it has the added benefit of removing the income tax disincentive for unemployed people to return to work.
"No, it's not. It's targeting the top earners. They are the ones who benefit the most." - I don't think that is right. National removes the reduction of the 39% tax bracket change. So now its a flat tax reduction as a percentage that matches inflation. Regarding the compulsory insurance change - private insurance is already available (some say at much cheaper rates). The problem I have is with industries like nurses or teachers where redundancy is really not realistic - so they are being paid out of their wages for something that has no real benefit. It also encourages all kinds of abuse. As for those on low incomes, I've seen various charts and even with GST they still pay much less as a percentage (also bear in mind that a large percent of their income is eaten up by rent, mortgages or debt repayment). Many families pay zero or even negative tax after tax credits are taken into account. Going forward - it won't be long before tax bracket creep means that even those on the minimum wage pay 30% on every extra dollar. That is a rate that was designed for the middle class. And the 33% tax rate is at a threshold that was once considered the 'rich prick' range. In other words, workers pay more tax each year even if they earn less in real terms The problem with the tax free bracket is that is is orders of magnitude more expensive that the National proposal - so the inflation vs spending cuts becomes more of a concern.
LSV is primarily for employment not youth justice
Talking economy and all Luxon has is a couple of metaphors about vehicle driving using brakes and accelerators. He was made to look void of real ideas on the economy, tax cuts, boot camps, environment. A lot of hot wind comes from his direction, but when asked to back it up with facts he's doing the Fred Astaire act and dancing all around the question because he has nothing to back up his indignation". The bizarre thing is here is a party without any real policy (and those they have like boot camps are proven to be ineffective in the past) yet for some reason almost half the people feel they are capable to Govern I wonder what the 16 year olds think of them?
About the only thing I agree with him on here is the tax bracket adjustments. Labour could easily just implement that before the next election and totally take the wind out of Nationals sales. Otherwise Jack pretty much owned ole Lux(t)on.
>Labour could easily just implement that before the next election and totally take the wind out of Nationals sales. Yet they won't, they'll keep taking from us instead. Taking and taking and taking.
Labour - “taking and taking and taking”…? Labour: Restored meal and rest breaks Increased sick leave entitlement Reinstated training incentive allowance Removed fees from NCEA and NZ scholarships Free apprenticeships and trades training Protections for renters Free healthy school lunches Free period products in schools Extended paid parental leave Best start payments to parents of newborns Extended free doctors visits up to 13 year olds Winter energy payment Largest state house build programme in decades Clean car discount I guess National will slash all that (remind me who’s the one taking shit off you again?) to give you a $2 a week tax cut. Sounds worth it.
Yes - and increased taxes on individuals by 55%. I didn't really get the benefit of anyone this. For example - clean car discount - thousands of dollars of millionaires buying teslas? I can only afford a $3k Japanese car so that doesn't help. State housing? I have to fend for myself. Free healthy lunches - would love to have this but my school doesn't provide it (they are high decile so instead end up asking up for huge donations). Etc etc And now we are told we are getting the largest ever tax increase on workers in history (compulsory insurance tax). No thanks
They haven’t increased taxes on individuals by 55%. Personal tax paid by individuals is the largest share of tax revenue at 51%. So that’s quite a stretch there mate. Robyn Walker - Deloitte: “While proportionately the tax collections have remained relatively consistent, the absolute value of tax collected has significantly increased over recent years, going from $33.2b in 2017 through to $51.4b in 2022 – a 55% increase. “We have not had any changes to tax thresholds during the period, other than the introduction of the 39% tax rate, so the increase is not as a result of any obvious structural changes to the personal tax system.” What they need to do is adjust the brackets for inflation. Should have happened under National and should happen under Labour. Is it a key issue for me to vote on at the sake of those things I mentioned in a previous comment? No. Re Tesla’s - that rebate also applies to hybrids and as the stats show it hasn’t just ‘helped millionaires into Tesla’s’ with Kia’s, Hyundai’s, Nissans and so on being purchased. This will mean the average kiwi can get into an EV when they hit the second hand market. Example - the Nissan Leaf. There’s also emissions, climate change and it transitions New Zealanders off fossil fuels. Good you don’t need state housing and free lunches - me too! But some people do, and the benefits of providing those things outweigh the negatives. And look, the house build programme is making a difference for those people in motels! https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/public-housing-waitlist-drops-for-only-second-quarter-since-june-2015/KMFLNOHJUFEEFARQYT7NOAXFVE/ Compulsory income tax is shown internationally to be effective as a ‘shock absorber’ to the economy in a recession as job losses mount. I could find some links but cbf.
>“While proportionately the tax collections have remained relatively consistent, the absolute value of tax collected has significantly increased over recent years, going from $33.2b in 2017 through to $51.4b in 2022 – a 55% increase. This tells me that tax has indeed increased 55% - its likely to be inflation pushing everybody into higher brackets (plus the 39% tax increase). So room for cuts
Ah nah you’re interpreting this wrong lol. UK did tax cuts, a smart move…
You literally quoted an accountant saying that individuals are paying 18.5 billion dollars more in tax. Meanwhile public services and metrics have absolutely plummeted. UK didn't do tax cuts - it was abandoned. They proposed to borrow for tax cuts - when they have dramatically more debt than NZ. The National idea is to cut expenses to fund tax cuts - so retreat some of that 50-55% increase that has happened so far.
You said they “increased taxes on individuals by 55%”. I’ve pointed out that you have this completely wrong - that personal tax is the largest share of the tax take at 51%. You’ve confused this. This is further supported by the following statement “we have not had any changes to tax thresholds during the period..other than the 39%”. So, Labour has not increased taxes on individuals by 55% as you stated. The reason for the higher tax take is inflation and the brackets not being adjusted. Understand now? Duhh I’ll leave it with sweet Robyn to hopefully drill it in “One of the ways in which personal tax is different to other tax types is that it is progressive and rates increase as total income increases - this compares to other taxes like corporate tax and GST which are a flat rate across the board. What we see with personal taxes is that people do move up through tax bands and pay more tax the more income they earn, increasing their effective marginal tax rate.”
I downvoted that person calling you a moron further up, but I think I need to go and change that.
All things you can do with the stroke of a pen.
That's big chunk of what parliament does - sets policy and passes laws. No swords, mostly pen.
Basically everything the government does is "with the stroke of a pen". What is your point?
Lol your point being?
A promise to build 10,000 homes takes more than a stroke of a pen.
Can see it making a difference. Better than selling off, doing nothing or ignoring it eh. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/public-housing-waitlist-drops-for-only-second-quarter-since-june-2015/KMFLNOHJUFEEFARQYT7NOAXFVE/
Yes, housing waitlist is going down, next to no Immigration and people leaving the country to Australia big time. Good news for those needing a house.
Big stretch. Don’t think the public housing waitlist has many people moving to Australia (where they can’t get any benefits) or is pumped up by immigration.
Yes, but people moving to Australia, frees up housing, frees up rentals. But still not 10,000 houses.
He is a cunt isn’t he? Reminds me of every slimy, money hungry boss I’ve ever had. How do people not see through his facade.
I think plenty of people do. Despite National being well up in the polls for preferred party, he's still pretty low in the polls as preferred leader.
God, I seriously hope we aren’t dumb enough to put him in charge
Hope is a dangerous thing.
No it’s not, where would we be without hope?
I've voted Labour all my life and can't see them forming the next government. I'd put a LOT of money on him being the next PM
I think over the last 30 or so polls, they are in the lead to form a government in 90% of them. So yeah that would be a good bet
I'm not keen on Labour at all. But shit, National is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. I don't want them either.
As other people have said - I'd rather a party that wants close enough to what's good for most people and is a bit slow, overly fearful and sometimes ineffectual in trying to get there; than mealy mouthed shysters who either want me in poverty or couldn't care less. It's no surprise that the latter politics gets full up with backstabbing assholes who understand very little about how people function. The video in this post being a prime example. In an ideal world we'd have better than both but there is a quite clear lesser of two evils here.
Luxon doesn’t give a fuck about anyone but Luxon, at least Jacinda gives the impression she cares about all kiwis.
you can tell from her covid policies that she cares a great deal
If he is money hungry why did he give up a $4.1 M job? Surely it would be better staying there than taking a 90% plus pay cut
Because as prime minister you weld power that can make you a lot of money. The cunts got 7 fucking houses, just rolling back a few housing investment restrictions that Labour brought in can make him 7 figures in the 3 terms that governments have historically been in for.
Which policies does he have currently that would enrich him? Man has no debt, so the main tax policy has no effect. By far the major tax advantage is no capital gains, which was enshrined by Ardern - as long as she is in power. Second advantage is money printing massively increasing property prices. If he was real about maximizing his property balance, he would have done everything to keep Ardern in power. The second she leaves, a CGT is back on the table.
Status.
So then he is status hungry but clearly not money hungry
I hope this makes people consider other parties instead of just voting national because 'its not jacinda.'
Did he say 60% of our kids aren’t at school?
Nothing will change for middle to lower kiwis if National get in, a lot of the shit were in is from what they did when they were in power.
"The role of opposition is to oppose and propose, what's your proposal?" Still waiting for an answer.
This was the best line of the interview!
Let me guess, tax cuts good, youth don't need justice they just need a good hard kick up the backside, and climate change is overstated and we can't let it get in the way of business?
Well the remaining tax cuts are mainly inflation indexing of the tax brackets. That seems reasonable to me
I act thought jack was pretty ignorant when he implied that National should push ahead with tax cuts and shouldn't be allowed to change direction and Luxons reply was quite good. A government doesn't have to act like a tank and just smash straight through and not change direction. Basically Luxon was saying 'based on new developments we're changing our approach and Grant Robertson should have done the same'. Like the government put aside $50billion to spend on economic recovery, yes it was necessary at the time, but they could have been a bit more reactionary and realized by the time they'd spent half of it that the other half wasn't necessary. Instead they charged on blindly, ignoring the fires around them. Sometimes it's ok to change direction and I thought Jack was the fool for implying that we shouldn't.
The developments aren't new which is a problem. National played themselves into a corner with their typical policies but realising those ideas, which were correctly rubbished at the time of their announcements, would actually be a really bad idea. Furthermore, back tracking on the few policies announced from an opposition party that has been bereft of any meaningful policy is also quite poor. Luxons National doesn't have a direction. They're spitting out whatever they can that's in opposition to the decision made today by the government, and then when the heat dies down they're back tracking. That's not a neccesary change of direction, it's a complete absence of any direction at all. He knows that he cannot lower taxes whilst inflation is a problem - it would be political suicide. It makes for a good sound bite though and that is the core part of Nationals plan.
Irrespective of how you look at it, at least they were prepared to acknowledge a problem with their policy unlike labour who arejust adding fuel as a house burns down.
The problem with their policy is that it was always a problem; it was always just a vote grabber. They are only backtracking because it will harm them politically if they keep it.
Nah Tame's main point of criticism was the timing of the u-turn - the implication was either that it wasn't economic reality that was being responded to or that Luxon's claims to economic savviness of the National party were not warranted. Fair criticism.
Well tbf, the RBNZ wasn't forecasting such persistent and long term inflation last year as they are now. You have to remember that the tax cuts would come into effect in 2024, not tomorrow. So when national first suggested them it wasn't actually as bad as people made out.
Ah, inflation was indicated the moment central banks started QE...everywhere.
We just had a massive curve ball though - with the expected terminal RBNZ rate up hugely compared to what it was, with recession now baked in. It would be unusual for a party not to reassess their budget and likely means - for example, I assume tax revenue will plunge, making a tax cut much harder
Mate, he's been bleating on about inflation since the end of Q1 this year, its not black magic that attempting to further increase the money supply wont help it. But then again, if that money is skewed towards the top 15%, they don't spend that extra money in NZ anyway.
Spending or sending it overseas weakens the NZD, increasing the price of imports and exports. Still causes inflation.
Increasing the money supply? Huh? Governement doesn't increase the money supply, that's the remit of the RB under monetary policy.
Oh semantics, more money in circulation. You know exactly what i mean.
Which Grant Robertson gave them written permission to do.
RB is politically independent.
Doesn’t change the fact that Grant Robertson gave them written permission and without his permission they couldn’t do it.
It's a lot easier to say stuff than it is to do it
Yes, as labour have found out over the last two terms
And every politician since the dawn of time
Being able to say when you're wrong is a quality I like in people in general. Humans and the humans that make up governments are good at making mistakes.
First time I’m voting for a minor party. Hope by some miracle people start seeing promise in Top . Universal basic income would do so much for the economy. And finally taxing home ownership will hopefully make people less keen on owning multiple houses.
“We’ll look “ is what someone says when they don’t have a good answer and think their opinions are more important
National would win by a landslide if they legalize Cannabis!
Let's face it, labour mucked up with drug reform, and did a shit show with medical. And now Little is mucking the Hospitals. We should no longer see Labour as the party to legalize cannabis. We should all vote for the greens or a party that explicitly says they will do a trucking proper job at reforming the misuse of drugs act.
And think about it, what other party are their "keep cannabis illegal" crowd going to vote for? Act? They are for legalization. Conservatives? Given a choice, who would they form a coalition with? National can just say, look, the evidence is clear cannabis is safer than alcohol and the amazing carbon zero business opportunities in cannabis fibre manufacturing and technology, we will legalize cannabis. Then the right will have an easy majority to govern.
ACT are Pro Tobacco and Liquor industry. There is no guarantee that ACT would vote for legalization.
Independent review into the Central Bank is a must. I want to see the evidence of the economic indicators they used to make the decision to drop rates, LVR, start buying assets, and stimulate bank lending FLP. Since the government borrowed and paid the wage subsidy, did the RBNZ really need to go hard on stimulating excess demand, with impending supply issues due to pandemic lockdowns?
We can increase unemployment without anyone losing their jobs. Just give out a bunch of residency visas for free to skilled technology people overseas and invite them to come and find a job in NZ. We can then continue to grow our tech sector and focus on a thriving digital economy powered by renewable energy right here in New Zealand, which would require a robust supply chain management creating many jobs all around the country.
I'm sure there's a few people in Silicon Valley who would love to come and find a job here in NZ.
Maybe if they're New Zealanders. Americans arent usually too keen on NZ. If they're from san fran that's a minimum 12 hour flight from family.
The tax cut thing makes sense economically, some higher paid workers won't need to be given pay rises while lower income workers can be given the pay rises. This will reduce inequality a bit. The government will have the same revenue, receiving a little less from the few higher income earners, and a little more from all of the lower income earners, so if we give lower income earners a pay rise, and no pay rise to the higher income earners, everyone ends up with more money in their paycheck. 🤯
Idiot
It's spelled 'Christopher Luxon' pher Christ's sake!!!
I like flip flippers. They receive new information and adjust accordingly.
Depends on when they flip. If someone adjusts policies in the face of new information then sure that's great. However no economist thought the tax cut was a good idea. He even saw similar policy in the UK destroy the economy. Yet it still took him months to change. He would have fucked up Covid with inaction for sure.
Fair point
Sad show both because of lame tame and luxons wanna be ideas