The spin lines from National are that Labour’s attempt to tame interest rates by bolstering Kiwisaver will hurt low income families and that’s awful because low income families can’t afford it.
I’m sorry, but seriously – what the hell? Since when did bloody National give a rats arse about low income NZ? They govern for the rich! They have raised GST which hurts low income families hardest while borrowing billions in tax cuts for the richest NZers.
Labour is proposing increasing the minimum wage, backing the living wage, reducing power bills and making housing affordable! What the Christ have National suggested for those on the bottom other than punitive welfare policies, demanding Housing NZ screw the poor over for a revenue return, and make it more difficult for first time home buyers to get into a house while overseas investors buy them out of the market!
I’m sorry, but these crocodile tears for the poor by National are as disingenuous as Key’s sudden concern for animal welfare.
If only John Key could care about the welfare of the 285 000 children living in poverty as much as he does for animals tested with legal highs. Isn’t it extraordinary how quick Key can move when the poor liddle fluffy animals are at risk yet sit on his hands as children go to school hungry.
I digress.
This monetary policy will lead to lower interest rates and a more competitive dollar which will help manufacturing build higher waged jobs in NZ. Why would we want to piss dollars away for higher interest rates to feather the nest of the Ozzie banks? We need to support our exporters with a more competitive exchange rate so we can compete with the rest of the world. In the long run, low income and middle income NZers will benefit from lower rents and mortgage repayments. When you add that to the raft of other policy Labour are suggesting, (increasing minimum wage, backing living wage, reducing power bills and making housing affordable) low income and middle income families will be far better off than under National!
Listening to National cry crocodile tears over low and middle income families when the Government have done nothing for those families in 6 years is tedious and eye rolling.
Key and National have abdicated their responsibility to NZers by refusing to have an active role in the economy. After hearing what Government can’t do for 6 years, NZers want to hear what the Government can do for them. Labour are providing those answers.
“Since when did bloody National give a rats arse about low income NZ?”
Since they realised those voters are going to cost them their BMWs and the opportunity for their next round of asset looting.
Absolutely, Stuart!
In my opinion, the Nats are doomed.
They have created a situation in NZ where there are now more poor people in NZ, than in their group of elite rich.
Shot themselves in the foot really.
There’s nothing left to strip from the poor, and disabled – they have been put firmly in their place by this govt, and election day will prove it.
Even the UN are sitting up and taking notice of the dubious ‘carry-ons’ of this Nat government, and they have to face up to the UN with their answers in September this year. Good job.
I wonder if they will answer the UN with actual truth, or their well-heeled style of made up truth.
Opinion and belief.
The proportion of rich and poor in NZ has hardly changed over the past 4 or so years.
An example of Nationals friends in the media helping to counter this policy announcement featured today (29/04/14) in Stuff.Co:
They (Stuff.Co) have, for almost the entire day, carried the head line “Labours KiwiSaver Plan hits low earners”.
Yes, that headline is Bill English’s misleading, knee jerk, postage stamp analysis on Labours policy, but Stuff make it look like it has objective substance qualifying this. Unusually for Stuff it remained on their website top headlines for hours.
Furthermore it also comes with a comments section with the usual Junior Nat’s working hard for Johnny boy adding their National Party script and to finally put the boot in an almost Autocue poll where one of the answers is “No – this can take money away from people who need it” and guess what, its leading the poll. Who would have thought?
This kind of parti$an shit from the media to sway public opinion away from anything but Nationals failed economic policies is seriously worrying but not at all surprising. English knows this makes sense and knows, even worse, its a workable logical policy whilst he’s got NOTHING!
Just to let you know Stuff.Co, not everyone is on Nationals payroll!
Another National Good Labour Bad Article by MSM. Tory Tabloid Trash!!!
Er… he doesn’t care about ‘the poor liddle fluffy animals’, as you so disrespectively put it, any more than he cares about children in poverty..that was just a publicity stunt since its election year. Alot of people care about the issue regarding the testing on animals of synthetic highs… it is as absurd as it is completely unnecessary.!.. apart from that ..yes just about choked on my cup of tea when I heard the Gnats pretentious concerns re lower income families!!!! the gall of them!
John Banks may be a rats arse but at least he gives a rats arse about a real rat’s arse.
John Key is a complete idiot and a liar,…he knows damn will that if animal testing goes ahead that they would use two different species , so saying that only rats could be tested on is a bare faced lie and his comment acknowledging that the drug Thalidomide which caused severe defects in human baby’s DESPITE testing safe in rodents… SO REMIND ME AGAIN JONKEY WHY WOULD YOU USE RODENTS or any other animal to determine safety for humans..????????????????????????????
Testing of drugs to ensure they are safe cannot be reliably done at this stage purely from modelling. You may wish to stick your head in the sand about this but it is a necessary ‘evil’ of modern society.
Not in the case of synthetic recreational drugs, they’re simply unnecessary. They should have to meet the same standards as clinical drugs. That’ll make the cowboys lose interest fast.
I too don’t agree with this policy, although I agree with the sentiment.
What some of the nay sayers are not getting-missing is, it’s better to pay more into “some thing you get back’ than to the overseas banks profits, …………who also are very clever at not paying taxes.
So if Kiwi saver increase equals the drop in (the alternative increase in) mortgage, then it’s a great financial move (inprinciple)…..(a)
p.s. This is probably why the BANKS are trying to stop this idea, using the NAT’s as the front guys.
Give the RBNZ the ability to limit immigration to available housing or similar, would help matters too.
How about we charge X% increase in Kiwi-saver (or similar) PER HOUSE you ‘own’. That way it removes a few other complaints about this policy. e.g
1) If you don’t own a house your Kiwisaver increase is NIL. And that would also ‘protect’ the vast majority of the low paid.
2) Those (speculators !!) that have multiple houses pay multiply increases………although I see that as a GOOD thing for them, IF (a)……….. So make the increase per house exponential such that it kills off cash flow, AND remove the tax claim back for rental properties.
A few extras are needed. e.g
i) Make any increase due to this policy in ones Kiwi-saver, suceptable to being seized as an asset if one defaults on ones mortgage.
ii) BAN overseas ownership of NZ houses.
……….or allow JUST ONE holiday home, but something like in say Guernsey-Jersey, where I understand you can only buy from a set pool of properties, which are so expensive that the vast majority of locals won’t remotely buy in that price range.
All in all as I’ve said above, I DON’T like this Labour idea, however I salute the intent of doing something about this HUGE problem we have in NZ, which will effect (negatively in my opinion) this country for generations to come.
We have a (don’t care about the vast majority of Kiwis) National party purposely doing NOTHING which allows the problem to get worse, as it probably suits it’s financial masters and backers to continue with the present situation.
SADLY too many Kiwis vote for this party as they (some how !!!???) think they get a good deal from National……typically they are middle class, who typically are educated…..is there something wrong with the education system or morals of modern day Kiwis?????
Well, the big problem with the education system is that it teaches the delusional economic system that we use as gospel.
Yes I think morals have gone out the window along with good economic education by most of those of these kiwis you are talking about to.
“Labour are providing those answers.”
They are (very) slowly catching up with the Greens who are pretty much providing the best answers on everything to do with the economy.
The constant refrain from English and Key seems to be that the Kiwisaver-RBNZ plan is “confused”.
I guess that’s the best that the Nat’s spin doctors have come up with; refer to the policy and “confused” and keep pushing the line.
Which indicates they have no other valid criticism to throw at it.
Labour is on a winner with this one!
“Confused” is transNational speak for sophisticated.
No. Confused as in it is not clear who will be exempt from the compulsory contributions. Do you know this Frank?
Confused as in Labour are only going to ‘investigate’ the idea, which they haven’t yet done, and because there is absolutely no empirical evidence the policy will even work!
For the healthiest economy, lower income participants need the maximum amount of take home pay. Lower income earners as they reach the lowest level of income, become more perfect consumers, thus increasing the economy’s propensity to spend. A higher propensity to spend leads to a higher total tax take, and a lower proportion of government participation in the economy.
So locking up peoples income until retirement could lead to higher incomes in retirement than when working. How does a family raise children and pay for housing?
Sam – we had this debate in 1975, when Muldoon attacked – and later scrapped – the Kirk-led government’s superannuation policy.
Had we rejected Muldoon’s populist bullshit and kept the super investment schemes, this country would now have saved $278 billion .
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/9916584/Compulsory-super-would-be-worth-278b
Such a pot of cash would have meant that the economic crisis in 1984 would have been averted and we would have sufficient investment funds without need to borrow from offshore. Our state assets would most likely still be in public ownership.
By contrast, our Aussie cuzzies have saved around A$1.6 trillion in their super scheme.
Low income families/individuals need to be supported in other ways. My suggestions;
* making the first $30,000 tax free
* raising the top-end of income tax to compensate
* introducing a UBI
* implemernting a capital gains tax and set it at the Corporate Tax level, not GST
* implement a Financial Transactions Tax
* take GST of food – all food
* take GST off rates – essentially a tax on tax
* re-nationalise all power companies (including Contact), and subsidise electricity for low-income families/individuals
* implement building 10,000 homes per year, which will generate thousands of new jobs, both in construction and down-river.
That’ll do for starters.
Doubt any left wing parties would support that policy mix. Why do you think that would be?
That’s only partially true. Yes, we would have a huge cash stock piled by that huge cash stock pile would continue to drive unsustainable growth.
Thing is, we never needed a huge cash stock pile as the government can create money and spend it into the economy to build infrastructure or loan it to businesses. After all, the whole point of money is that it can be used to distribute our natural resources without central planning.
“So locking up peoples income until retirement could lead to higher incomes in retirement than when working. How does a family raise children and pay for housing?”
This is precisely the issue being raised by a number of investment analysts already. Savings needs to be encouraged, but there is little point being comfortable in retirement when you’ve spent you entire working life struggling.
Since when did the National Party care about the poor?
They don’t, not now or ever.
They are simply, true to form, using them as objects for political point scoring in order to further their own agenda – which most certainly won’t advantage those in strained circumstances – The National party’s agenda will simply cause more strain, as it always does.
Treating a human as a means to one’s own end is the definition of unethical behaviour – and this is what the National party consistently do; whether it be bene bashing or now, feigning concern.
Conclusion: The National Party are unethical.
The National Party is sociopathic.
The real question is – does Labour care for the poor?
Before election year David Shearers response to high housing prices was blame the Chinese, when our housing situation was screwed before the Chinese wanted to buy our homes.
Labour should be proposing reform to the Reserve Bank, along with the OIO to combat this problem, but they are just giving lip service to the ignorant – why don’t they just come out and say “only NZ Citizens and 100% Kiwi owned companies and non-profits can own property in this country?”
I’m guessing they don’t want to upset their immigrant friends.
Why aren’t Labour proposing to reduce GST and buy back our assets?
You know why.
Labour is National on the rebound. Let’s stop voting Blue or Red. Vote Green, Black, Yellow, Orange or whatever.
Otherwise nothing will change.
And who would you vote for Bronson?
I’ve voted for the Maori Party, and Mana. Neither party are guilty of selling our country, neither opened up our country to foreign investment and then cried when the foreigners came. I’m probably gonna vote Mana and NZ First this time round.
Foreign speculators
More than 11,000 overseas investors own New Zealand properties that they don’t live in. This drives up housing costs and drives New Zealand families out of the market.
This problem is especially bad in Auckland. There were 4,700 new homes built in Auckland last year, but the number of new homes for Aucklanders to buy was much less than that because 2,600 homes nationwide were bought by overseas speculators who had no intention of living there.
Labour will address this problem by restricting foreign speculators’ ability to buy residential property in New Zealand. Under Labour, non-residents will no longer be able to buy existing houses, flats, or apartments in New Zealand.
Many other countries already have similar restrictions, including Australia, China, Singapore, Switzerland, and the UK.
It’s a start
I agree re: foreign housing speculators.
I’m not sure what the Labour party are going to do with those non resident or citizens that ALREADY own a property.
Does any one know?
I hope they ‘encourage’ them to sell up OR become (in country !!) residents-citizens. Say by giving them time to sell BUT with an increasing tax to make them sell (or change status) sooner rather than later.
e.g. 10% tax on sale after six months rising to 50% after two years.
Nothing. They’re only restricting new buyers, not banning foreign ownership outright which is what’s actually needed.
No need to encourage them immediately.
Ensuring all sales are to those holding citizenship or residency is enough for now.
Also, the idea is to cool the housing market, not crash it or to inflame xenophobia.
Just allow the other policies like CGT, proper state housing, building more housing etc to kick in first.
The stabilisation of domestic capital markets will also help the transition of capital divesting from the housing market to investment in productive industry.
Ok . A few of things I’d like to say Martyn Bradbury .
Firstly , I liked the way Cunliffe conducted himself on TV3 this morning . He was credible , a gentleman and showed an uncommon grace .
Then there are your comments I’d like to just touch on ;
” …while borrowing billions in tax cuts for the richest NZers. ”
That borrowing is leveraged against the agrarian industry . Therefore , it should be a Labour priority to bring farmers in from the Cold Blue Ocean of Bullshit they’ve been drowning in for generations .
Then ;
“ …… we need to support our exporters with a more competitive exchange rate . “
No . No we don’t . We need to enjoy our higher dollar because it gives us greater off-shore buying power . Yearning for a low NZ dollar ‘ to help manufacturing ‘ is a misplaced yearn . The non agrarian NZ manufacturing industry would never have gone past the crudest planning stages if it were not for swindled farmer money being diverted into private hands to be laundered by the Manufacturing Industry who can never survive without substantial subsidies from , you guessed it . The Farmer . For example , how well did Fisher and Paykel survive against the cheap Asian Industry ? Not that well I’m afraid . Would Watties be here today if it were not for the Apple and Pear Marketing Board ? I think I can safely say No . It would not . Did export quality fruits disappear from the road side stalls in Central Otago when the Apple and Pear Marketing board came into being ? Yes . They did . In fact , growers selling export grade fruits to us traveling Kiwis was banned by the Apple and Pear Marketing Board . Could you buy NZ fruits cheaper in Australia , and of better quality in Australia than in New Zealand ? Yes , you could .
Our farmers manufacture the very best product IN THE WORLD . So , would you not expect our dollar , by association to be , ya know ? High . And that . ( I’m excluding Dairying from that . That’s not farming per se . That’s farm land industrialisation and is , in my humble view , extremely dangerous for a number of reasons . )
The beastie that no one seems to be able to see in Aunties lounge , rolling around in all its farting vulgarity under a naked two hundred watt light bulb , is the agrarian swindle that’s led us Kiwis into this shitty , dead end ally way .
And if some of you are still to be convinced about Labours true identity , it’s true intentions and its integrity watch closely at how Labour deals/ negotiates with the Farming sector . And vice versa importantly . Farmers also have a huge responsibility to reach for the life raft .
But that’s another story altogether .
The whole reason for floating exchange rates is that as trade between nations shifts in one direction or the other the exchange rate also shifts returning the trade to balance. That’s not happening with the NZ$. Instead, because our interest rates are so high, the NZ$ has been speculated up well over it’s natural rate. This has caused/allowed us to import far more than we can afford which pushes up interest rates even more and thus the NZ$. Result: Nasty circle of ever increasing indebtedness.
That indebtedness needs to be paid back and the only way that’s going to happen is if the NZ$ drops to a proper level – 50c to the US$ or less. This will stop imports and cause NZers and other countries to buy NZ goods and services boosting the economy.
Throughout our history the farmers have been the biggest receivers of subsidies and they still get them through still being allowed to pollute our rivers and the government stepping in case things get too difficult for them such as the drought that happened a year or two back.
Well, you got that bit right.
Having read all the comments from those who have an interest in this policy from those in the financial area to those working with those on low incomes, the reaction appears to be two fold. Most are congratulating Labour for presenting a policy which is different and innovative, which I agree. However, there is a fair amount of scepticism as to how effective it might be. There is also comments coming out of Australia where they have compulsory savings that people are retiring with a fair amount of debt which they are having to use their savings to pay off. I don’t there is a perfect system or a silver bullet to this, rather it’s swings and roundabouts.
I’ve said it before. Whether you agree with them or not, Labour actually has policies, it doesn’t just shrug its shoulders and say “que sera sera” aka “Let the Market decide”. Nearly all the important innovations in government since the 1930’s have been done by a Labour government, most good, some not so good. By contrast I can only think of two groundchanging things that National has ever done. One good (ACC) and one shocking (The Employments Contract Act), But that is National for you, sit there and do nothing and sneer at anyone that comes up with at least a half decent idea. I’m not sure how good this policy is, I am not an economist or financial guru but the fact that it has some qualified support from sources not usually friendly to Labour suggests that it is a reasonable idea at worst.
Now here is a challenge for you IV and Gooseman, come up with some reasoned thinking and tell us why this idea is so bad! I know it will be hard but I’m sure you can do it, after all you are financial experts, are you not? I’m not, but at least I’m honest about it.
I’m still waiting boys! Haven’t got an answer yet?!
National don’t care about the poor, they care about the rich who get all the gains from high interest rates.
National and ACT care more about rats and beagles than poor people. “Like babies, cute animals are magnets for politicians, and testing legal highs on them does not go down well with the public. “They strap these beagle puppies to gurneys and pump them full of fun drugs until they scream to death,” says ACT MP John Banks. “It is wrong.”” http://www.3news.co.nz/Synthetics-animal-testing-debate-heats-up/tabid/1607/articleID/342023/Default.aspx.
Listening to talkback, there are some rednecks out there that want to test synthetics on prisoners. Perhaps when Mr Banks goes to jail soon, he might be the one being strapped to the gurney instead of the cute, cuddly beagles..
Comments are closed.