So it’s out and it’s National’s ‘Socialism for the Rich, Capitalism for the rest’ Budget.
-National are spending $1.2 billion per year on tax cuts for the top 10% while 285 000 children live in poverty – it’s a political obscenity.
-NO PLAN for climate change.
-Surplus is being achieved by keeping ACC levies up, hiding NZTA spending as a zero interest loan and spending half a billion less on local infrastructure in Christchurch.
-NO PLAN for jobs.
-National have now borrowed $56 billion in debt since becoming Government and the cost of that interest per day is $10million.
-NO PLAN to eradicate child poverty.
-National’s great plan for housing affordability will remove a mere $3500 on a home.
According to this budget there is no global warming, there is no housing affordability crisis, there is no manufacturing crisis, there is no inequality in NZ and there are no 285 000 kids living in poverty.
Where extra money has been dedicated to social services it’s for privatisation of services.This budget looks after the wealthy while shrugging off their obligations to those less well off.
How is making doctors visit free for under 13’s privatising of services?
They could have made it free for ALL children still living at home with their parents and while still at school.
I mean, where did they ‘pluck’ the age 13 from?
Also, they could have done this same thing with dental care (or at least subsidised it), our teeth are just as important.
Standard trolling behavior, pick a small detail and focus on that so that people don’t think about the wider picture.
Right wing trolls should pay an extra $ 10 per doctors visit, I suggest.
This is a typical “election year bribe budget”, nothing else. It is delivering a few humble bits of extra support to mostly families and sole parents with young children, to support the early weeks and months of childcare, and to also offer free doctors visits and prescriptions for kids up to 13 years.
It offers carrots to mostly middle class voters, to vote National, while appealing to them to sink onto their knees in sub-servIant gratitude, and to forget the medium to longer term future.
It is a total BRIBE to those already struggling, to tell them to not think they deserve more, but to accept the morsels handed out from the high table, where the real “masters” sit, untouched and uncriticized, the ones that own the wealth in disproportionate degrees, and who have incomes the bulk of society would ever only dream of.
It must be ELECTION YEAR, right? So here we go, hand out a little, and otherwise “balance” the books by underfunding the already slow Christchurch rebuild. There is even talk of possible tax reduction, for the middle and upper class, I presume, or have they got their messages mixed up, for the election campaign.
We get NO direction and no plan for a more secure, more diverse, productive and better economic and social future, no steps to offer lasting security.
Of course, climate change is not even mentioned, nor other issues, and manufacturing is reduced to continue as is, with more milk from tired udders, to be processed into powder, and baby formula powder, to nurture Chinese mothers’ babies.
Major trading partners are China and Australia, but Australia’s major trading partner is also China, so the real picture is DOMINANT DEPENDENCE ON ONE ECONOMY, to keep functioning and paying New Zealanders’ incomes. One economy that is slowing and has bubbles that will burst.
Thank you, Bill English, from Dipton, you are not only a “Diptoner” or “Diptonite”, you have proved, that you are indeed an economic DIPSTICK!
It seems they did some accounting tricks, to shift funds from the Christchurch rebuild into spending elsewhere, to cover gaps, that save the budget over the debt threshold.
It was well presented, and the rant by Key gave it the salesman’s spin, while he was rubbishing Cunliffe, who could have done a bit better with his speech, as I believe.
After that almost all the National caucus walked out, to have drinks, food and be merry, I suppose.
Bits extra here and there, more of the same, and NO real extra spending on getting sick and disabled on benefits offered treatment and support (e.g. mental health counseling, therapies and whatever there may be), to perhaps support them to get better and start some form of work that way.
No, they will (as I suspected) be expected to swallow pills the doctor prescribed, told to “toughen up”, and if they suffer musculo skeletal and other conditions they will be sent to chosen cheap rehabs, for a quick and cheap “back massage” and “fixes” of sorts, and then be considered “fit to work”, as the rest of remaining “illness behaviour” will only be viewed as being “illness belief”, according to Paula Bennett’s senior welfare reform advisors Prof. Mansel Aylward, David Beaumont and Principal Health Advisor Bratt:
WORK AND INCOME INTRODUCES “INDEPENDENT” WORK ABILITY ASSESSMENTS PROVIDED BY PRIVATE, OUTSOURCED CONTRACTORS
http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/topic/16092-work-ability-assessments-done-for-work-and-income-%E2%80%93-partly-following-acc%E2%80%99s-approach-a-revealing-fact-study/
What did they celebrate Paula Benefit for during English’s speech, I ask? For kicking more mentally ill, physically disabled and sole parents off the welfare ladder?
Shame on this government, to use statistical and actuarial tricks to dis-entitle and marginalise the most vulnerable in this country!
They would have thanked Bennett for kicking off those 21000 beneficiaries last month, and for implementing their “lets make lots of poorer people” policy!
Sickening isn’t it, the obvious, in-your-face lack of care where it needed to be placed.
I wouldn’t put it past them to have manipulated all the figures they used.
This is proof that they really truly don’t actually care.
What was addressed to tackle the increasing sexually violent crime?
How to feed the hungry?
Control electricity prices?
Lower rental properties rent?
How to get into your first home?
Be interesting to see if IRD will try to get the tax back from the top income % of tax dodgers, or if they will only chase up the $30 here and there.
This government need to feel the emotion of shame. I hope their mothers aren’t proud of them! And if they are, then they should be ashamed of the way they raised them all.
Bunch of arrogant idiots the lot of them.
Opinion and belief.
“National’s great plan for housing affordability will remove a mere $3500 on a home.”
Martyn, this government believes, “the market” will sort it all out, right?
As the market has only catered for the richer upper bracket, and as there is no effort made to establish and measure the problem with off-shore real estate buyers, we will have little or NO solution to the housing un-affordability crisis in Auckland, Christchurch and a few other places.
$ 3,500 is like a drop into the ocean, it is like a trickle piss into the Mangere sewage ponds.
Oh, and what about CHCH.
If I were a CHCH resident right now, I would start a riot. A big fat smashing riot!!!
Opinion and belief.
Whats the point in rioting when we know how long it’ll take to fix the damage caused
@ Marc .
” Shame on this government, to use statistical and actuarial tricks to dis-entitle and marginalise the most vulnerable in this country! ”
Shame indeed but they still don’t need to give one fuck .
And it’s that not-a-fuck-giving that should really be causing us concern .
Have you seen how the Turks respond to dodgy safety in mines ? They fucking riot ! How would we respond ? We’d have an I’m-a-bit-miffed sit in .
These two Professors are here for a good reason .
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11253734
Action ! Time for action !
That’s why I was disappointed that David Cunliffe said that he and jonky got along as people on Aunty Campbell Barely Alive . . What the fuck does that mean ? Really ? What does that mean ? I don’t know about you but when I’m fucked off at someone I don’t get all ; ” Oh but they’re nice people when they’re not eating babies OR selling us out like whores . ” I get all ” kick them in the balls ” !
Seriously ? Don’t you get like that ? When push comes to shove ? You don’t back down and yet that’s all we Kiwis do . We back down , back off , go home , eat dinner , sleep fitfully , wake up . Repeat as above and on the weekends we get pissed up and take out our anger on innocent others and God help us , our kids and partners .
No bloody wonder we have two professors peering at us as if we’re laboratory mice and dumb ones at that .
The reason for our unique position is simple to explain but very , very difficult to expose , such is the nature of the beastie .
We Kiwis have vast money flowing through our coffers and yet that must be kept secret lest the Lie gets out along with the cat from the bag . Not to mention the worms in the cans . How zoological ?
The riot better happen at the ballot box with the silent majority giving the nats a giant sized kick in the balls.
COUNTRYBOY, we need NO more “equality” or “inequality” debates, the evidence is bloody obvious, what we need is Kiwis stand up, and rebel, and put a stop to this rot and corruption, and at least get out and vote on 20 September, to cast these vermin out of government. Thanks for your comment, you are a “real” Kiwi.
The evidence is, indeed, ‘bloody obvious’.
Cite: http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-social-indicators/Home/Standard%20of%20living/income-inequality.aspx
Inequality, according to the Gini coefficient (after housing costs), is lower than it was in 1992. In fact inequality peaked in 2004 (under a Labour Govt.) at about 3.2. It now sits at around 2.9.
4 IV,
According to my understanding the Gini coefficient is a ratio between zero and one, so what do your 3.2 and 2.9 figures refer to? I suspect you have multiplied by ten without citation, tut-tut.
It would seem to me that removing “housing costs” would render the calculation worthless for, as we well know, these costs may be considerable.
The Gini coefficient is an extremely blunt instrument for inequality measurement. It can also be manipulated. You choose to ignore housing costs, while this site tells us the Gini coefficient has remained the same since 2006, if taxes and benefits are not factored in. It could be argued that taxes for the rich have fallen while benefits for the poor have also been falling.
http://www.statschat.org.nz/2013/12/09/inequality-in-nz/
Intrinsic’s wholly aware of just how dodgy his stats are. He just hopes against hope that the rest of us are ignorant peons who simply take him at his word. A bit like John Key.
“I suspect you have multiplied by ten without citation, tut-tut. ”
Nope. Look up the cite, the data is all there.
“It would seem to me that removing “housing costs” would render the calculation worthless for, as we well know, these costs may be considerable.”
Again, look up the citation. Both pre and post housing costs are shown. The trend is the same.
4 IV,
I thought all educated people knew this, I was wrong- without being vindictive enough to draw the other obvious conclusion – “A Gini coefficient of zero expresses perfect equality, where all values are the same (for example, where everyone has the same income). A Gini coefficient of one (or 100%) expresses maximal inequality among values (for example where only one person has all the income).
I refuse to toll through your link unless you give me a specific address to your claim; too often in the past I have wasted my time in a futile search for your fraudulent claims.
In any case I’m not particularly interested as the internet and statistics can be manipulated to prove virtually anything. (If interested see my comment to “Glossy”)
My apologies…I mislabelled the data the ‘Gini’, it is in fact the P80/20 data.
With regards the Gini, however, this is interesting:
http://www.tvhe.co.nz/2013/11/26/nz-inequality-statistics-some-of-the-research/
And if you want a really good example of how the left can distort data, read this: http://blog.greens.org.nz/2010/04/06/inequality-in-aotearoa-a-brief-history-of-inequality/
which bits are distorted?
Quote from your Green link, IV, which implies taxes and benefits are taken into account…”Real incomes for lower and middle income families fell while rich households saw their incomes soar.”
It would seem you and Gosman prefer using Gini info which ignores these important considerations…”The Gini index for raw income (before taxes and benefits) has stayed fairly stable in NZ recently.”
Re the Gini:
“In New Zealand’s case there was a steep rise in the Gini co-efficient, that is in inequality, between the mid-1980s and the mid-1990s.
Since then it has wobbled around an essentially flat trend line.”
“When revised in light of the error, the 2012 Gini co-efficient before housing costs in 2012 was 32.4, essentially unchanged from 32.5 in 2010, 2007 and 1996.
Among developed countries New Zealand is in the same neighbourhood as Australia, Canada and Japan, higher than some European countries with Ginis in the mid-20s but well below the United States at 38.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11214548
So in summary, my comments above are correct whether you take the Gini or the P80/P20 measure.
That link you chose supports the view that inequality hasn’t changed much if at all compared to 5 or 6 years ago.
Yes, if you “Glossy” over the fact tax cuts, trust funds, and a lack of capital gains for the wealthy are not factored in, while the lowering of MSD benefits, ACC payments, the raising of VAT and rents for the poor are also not accounted for in the figures.
As I previously stated and will now quote from the site for you… ” The Gini index for raw income (before taxes and benefits) has stayed fairly stable in NZ recently.”
Using statistics someone smarter than me could probably prove black is white, by using a sophistical argument along the lines that they must be equivalent as white is all colours while black is the lack of all colours…or vica versa!
http://www.colormatters.com/color-and-design/are-black-and-white-colors
This is the same measure of inequality Labour frequently referred to during their term in office. It is only when it shows them a truth that doesn’t suit their dishonest rhetoric that they choose to deny it.
What do you mean they haven’t been factored in? If you disagree with the widely accepted method of determining inequality perhaps you could set up a new one. Good luck with getting that accepted.
While free health care for under 13 year olds sounds like a good idea, it is actually a red herring. While National might say to the parents and kids in poverty “now you can get free doctors visits, aren’t we good to you!” I bet a lot of those parents would, if given the chance, rather be free of poverty so they didn’t have to take their kids (for free) to the doctor because of hooping cough, TB, pneumonia, etc caused by living in poor, cramped and damp conditions which are part of living in poverty. To put it another way, National won’t help you stay on your feet, but they will gladly patch you up (for free) after you have fallen. It appears that this is not income tested either so we will have the rich kids with parents that are perfectly able to pay also getting free medical care. Is this fair and should we be grateful for this? Nah!
the percentage to fit that age bracket will be low, so that will have been calculated through, I am sure.
[…] seriously be called a “family focussed” budget while they’re still doing next to nothing about the housing affordability crisis, the jobs crisis, child poverty and […]
Which ever way you slice it, this Govt. has done a superb job at stewarding the economy over the past 5 years.
They have reduced interest rates, inflation and the CA deficit to GDP; they have overseen record export receipts, and considerably reduced increases in electricity and housing costs.
Despite the GFC, they have reduced the unemployment rate from a peak of 7.3% to 6%, with further reductions imminent. We now have the highest labour force participation rate in recorded history.
After inheriting an economy in recession, and having to deal with the GFC, National have turned a 2008/09 fiscal deficit, and a decade of further projected deficits, into a surplus inside 6 years.
What is remarkable is that they have achieved this without taking the axe to support for working families and those in need, and the result is that inequality, as shown by the Gini Coefficient (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9672616/Inequality-Is-it-growing-or-not) has not increased. (http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-social-indicators/Home/Standard%20of%20living/income-inequality.aspx
NZ’s economic performance over the past few years is the envy of much of the world, a stark contrast to the economic conditions this Govt. inherited in 2008.
Always amuses me how the right love to create an alternative economic history of New Zealand.
Alternative to your delusions, perhaps.
No IV, the delusions come from yourself. Treasury figures say that net debt rose from 5/% of GDP in 2008 to 23% of GDP in 2013. If you regard these figures as being the envy of the world then I have something just for you. Economics for Dummies at your local library, you really need to read it. Thanks for your essay on the alternative history of NZ but I’m afraid it scored a D – fail!
According to my understanding we now have 285,000 children under 13 of poor parents and now evidently we have another 400,000 children under 13 of rich parents also receiving socialist help. It begs the question – how many children under 13 do we have in this country?
One thing that strikes me about this budget is that it is a classic Reaganist “trickle down” budget. It relies on the old theory that if you put in enough at the top some of it will eventually trickle down to the bottom. This kind of dinosauric thinking has long been dismissed as sheer right-wing hokey pokey but National obviously still believes it. They haven’t changed much have they? Still have their heads in the past.
I don’t think they ever believed in the “trickle down” and “float all boats” malarkey, Mike, they just hoped we would would swallow it hook, line and sinker.
Which part of the budget suggests it is based on the trickle down philosophical school of thought? Is it the free doctors visits for under 13 or is it increasing paid parental leave?
refer to my earlier comment, sunshine!
[…] Labour Party voters didn’t support the Budget. TDB has provided many analysis of the Budget showing it up for the sad joke it […]
Comments are closed.