THERE’S A HOLE in Labour’s emerging policy framework – through which too little light is getting in. The party’s latest big announcement: three years of free post-school education; is a case in point. As a headline, it’s fantastic. But, Labour supporters’ euphoria is unlikely to survive the policy’s fine print. Nearly a decade will pass before the plan is fully implemented – but only if Labour wins the 2017, 2020 and 2023 elections on the trot. It’s not quite a case of giving something with one hand, only to snatch it back with the other – but it’s close.
And why is Labour unwilling to offer three years of free tertiary level education in its first budget? Because it’s not yet ready to adopt a social-democratic fiscal policy to pay for its social-democratic education policy. That’s the hole – and it’s a bloody dangerous one!
Does Labour really believe that it can make it to the next election without anyone noticing that it has failed to come up with a way of paying for its promises? Because if that’s the plan, then its chances of success are pretty slim. The essence of social-democracy is the redistribution of wealth. And the best way to redistribute wealth is through a comprehensive system of progressive taxation. A Labour Party unwilling to acknowledge that it intends to raise the taxes of the wealthy isn’t worthy of the name.
Labour’s reluctance to talk about fiscal policy is a strategic error. Little is to be gained, electorally, by offering the voters all manner of generous policies – like three years of free post-school education – if its opponents are left free to insinuate that Labour’s generosity is predicated on massive fiscal delinquency. The electorate will either come to believe that Labour has given no serious thought to how its promises are to be paid for – which makes it fiscally incompetent. Or, that Labour knows very well how its promises will be paid for, but is unwilling to say so before it has been safely elected – which makes it politically dishonest.
This is why it is strategically vital for Labour to set out its fiscal policies openly and honestly before releasing its key policies relating to education, health and housing. The party first needs to settle upon a revenue target, and then upon the fiscal instruments it will use to achieve it. These may include Income Tax, Land Tax, Inheritance Tax, Financial Transactions Tax, Carbon Tax, as well as a much stricter regime for extracting an appropriate level of taxation from New Zealand’s largest businesses.
Unquestionably, making the case for progressive taxation is the most important task faced by any left-wing political party. But unless it is done, everything else that it seeks to achieve becomes moot. “Show me the money!” was the taunt which sank Labour’s chances in the last two election campaigns. Had Labour’s leaders been able to respond, with a wicked grin: “Well, John, as a man with $55 million in the bank, you’ll be among the first to show us the money!” Key’s taunt could have been turned against him.
Of course Labour’s enemies will accuse the party of practicing the politics of envy – but this old taunt can also be turned back upon its authors.
“If you’re talking about the poor envying the security of the rich: the certainty that bills can be paid; food afforded; a roof put over their children’s heads; then, yes, of course they envy them. And if Labour’s determination to extend that basic security to everyone is what you mean by the politics of envy – then we plead guilty-as-charged. But if you’re accusing Labour voters of envying those who lack any semblance of empathy, solidarity and generosity towards their fellow citizens, and who see in money and material possessions the be-all and end-all of human existence, then you are dead wrong. For Labour voters do not envy such New Zealanders – they pity them.”
The power of social-democratic politics lies in its refusal to allow the parties of the Right to escape the question that is so often put to the parties of the Left. “Where’s the money coming from?” The Right wagers everything on the ordinary voter not understanding the causal relationship between his or her own straightened circumstances and the ease and comfort of the rich. That’s why it is Labour’s political duty to point out the gaping hole in the Right’s policy framework. Namely, that the wealth accumulated by the rich comes from the people, whose hard work created it, and to whom it is only right and proper that a fair share be returned.
Interestingly, the National Government are investing $360 million this year on a waste of time IES policy which gives money to clusters of schools. There is a third of the money for student loans, right there.
Does the key National government set out its fiscal policies OPENLY and HONESTLY before releasing its key policies relating to education, health and housing?
Does the National government settle upon a revenue target, and then upon the fiscal instruments it will use to achieve it? Openly and honestly?
Indeed. Our MSM doesn’t trouble itself too much on costings for National Party policies. Probably because they never add up, except when you use a Peter Pan calculator.
But as soon as another political party does it, the economists and bean counters burn the midnight oil analysing every brass razoo.
A bit inconsistent eh? Someone might even think that the MSM are (heaven forbid!) BIASED!!!!!
Nah, they aren’t biased, they are indoctrinated by National Party spin.
I completely agree. It’s important that voters make a choice between higher and lower taxes.
Unless the missing million are found then the left will have to wait another 3 year before they can turn on the spending tap.
You wish. You are paying far more tax now right across the board with nothing to show for it under the Key National government, whose spending tap flows unabated into the pockets of wealthy, often foreign corporations and bank accounts of the rich and shameless.
Tell me Trotter – What is the position of the party of the working class on legalisation of marijuana?
https://r1016132.wordpress.com/2015/06/03/a-sense-of-urgency-whats-that-the-adults-in-charge-ask-heres-big-t-aka-me-to-break-it-down-for-you-overgrown-children/
Is it still the same as nationals – Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge?
https://r1016132.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/get-some-guts-in-my-time-ive-seen-the-gummit-change-the-drug-laws-overnight-under-urgency-so-what-is-the-dam-hold-up/
I ain’t a bean counter but the numbers look promising
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/22/legal-marijuana-taxes_n_5863860.html
https://r1016132.wordpress.com/2015/07/31/there-aint-no-rest-for-the-wicked-money-does-grow-on-trees-i-got-bills-to-pay-i-got-mouths-to-feed-and-aint-nothing-in-this-world-for-free/
And no I’m not talking about pussyfooting around with medical marijuana – I’m talking lock, stock, the f*cking lot!!!
Don’t act like I never told ya’s
The country will be broke by the time Labour wants to introduce its policy the way National is borrowing money. “SHOW ME THE MONEY”!!!!
The Key National government has already made the country broke. But the National Party coffers are full and overflowing.
Once again, insightful. And in tandem with John Mintos article highlighting some of the pitfalls. And yet those very pitfalls serve to highlight some of the fundamental flaws and policy cringes of the left….
That of taxation.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
‘ the party first needs to settle upon a revenue target, and then upon the fiscal instruments it will use to achieve it. These may include Income Tax, Land Tax, Inheritance Tax, Financial Transactions Tax, Carbon Tax, as well as a much stricter regime for extracting an appropriate level of taxation from New Zealand’s largest businesses. ‘
………………………………………………………………………………………..
I would go a step further and pull Treasury into line – by regulation and if necessary – govt intervention. Letting Treasury dictate govt policy and how a party has to indirectly shape its policy’s around the whims of the nebulous markets is perhaps the greatest hamstring any social democracy can have.
Many of us have viewed ‘ Someone else’s country ‘ on The Standard.
That shows in graphic detail the sheer predominance of the Business Roundtable ( now the New Zealand Institute ) in tandem with the neo liberal politicians in working to shift fiscal policy from political party’s to Treasury. And that was the key-pin in enacting many of the neo liberal political platforms.
Taxation has always been a dirty word among the 1%. And they have always sought to shift taxation policy’s in their favour to pay far less than they should. Primarily through financial backing , think tanks, and lobbying.
The liberalization of trade and abandoning of regulations follows but is another topic.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
”The power of social-democratic politics lies in its refusal to allow the parties of the Right to escape the question that is so often put to the parties of the Left. “Where’s the money coming from ”…
………………………………………………………………………………………..
‘TAX CUTS ‘ …has become such an accepted term we even find those who would least benefit from them spouting them with an almost glib robotic parroting of the neo liberals who advocated them against those parrots in the first place…which demonstrates they DO NOT clearly understand the causal relationship of tax and its implications for those on the lower income brackets…
Nor do they understand or even care often enough to make a basic study of the difference between Social Democracy and Neo Liberalism. And much of that fault lies in the Lefts political cringe , – moreover , however – it never helped that the main Left party was hijacked 32 years ago by neo liberals in which many to this day still are behind the scenes manipulating , dividing and subverting any true return to Social Democracy.
There needs to be a general purge of those who would stand in the way of a genuine return to Social Democratic policy’s – and that COMPLETE with a realistic taxation program coupled with an utterly UNAPOLOGETIC rationale for doing so.
It was once said by Margaret Thatcher that social democracy is fine as long as it can spend someones else’s money …
The reality is that Social Democracy is the ONLY WAY that wealth can be realistically redistributed in an equitable and fair fashion.
And the second reality is that Neo Liberalism is fine as long as it can slate its innate sense of self entitlement to other peoples money… and usually that ‘ other peoples money ‘ is the unearned wealth of the commons.
I think its time for a little belt tightening for the rich and paying their fair share of the tax burden . They have had their 32 year old fiscal fun party at the expense of the rest of us and its time now the party was over and they all head on home to sleep off their hangovers.
And wake up the next morning ready and WILLING to pay their FAIR SHARE of the taxation.
Chris, all money comes from govt. spending. Govt. spending provides the for the non govt. sector the means to extinguish their tax obligations. The currency is a public monopoly. The govt. can buy anything for sale in N Z dollars. It would mean an increase in the govt. deficit which would be mirrored in increase in non govt. wealth. Taxation has the opposite result. ie.
the destruction of wealth. So your argument about where’s the money coming from fails the basic logic test. The neoliberal era has seen a thick fog of disinformation and propaganda concerning the ability of govt. to spend. Remember South canterbury finance. 1.8 billion dollars to bail a looting scheme. No one in govt. were concerned about were the money was coming from!
I don’t wholly agree with you Chris, largely because of where Labour is starting from at this point time. The offer of three years of free education represents a first move in a moderately long battle, and Labour needs to get itself out from seven years behind the eight ball if it is to do anything at all. I agree that they should know how they are going to finance their policies, but I do not think that revealing it makes a good early move – not from the position they are currently in. What they need to do is to get enough people to want what they are offering, so that it is made clear that this is what is wanted and so the money to do it must be found.
That said, I think they should be cautious about continuing to make the big announcement that is somewhat modified by the small print. One sees this time and time again, from both of the main parties – VAST SUM OF MONEY (by 2050) VAST NUMBER OF HOUSES (over the next 20 years). You do not build a following by continuously lifting hearts with a big idea and letting them slowly sink when it comes to the details. But you have to start somewhere, and I think the education idea is a good opening move. However much rides on how they follow it up.
show me the money well lets start with the 7 billion in tax evasion that’s out there mostly from the corrupt right wing fuckers that vote national
lets claw back the tax cuts key gave his mates ,lets tax those over sized profits of the energy companies ,lets remove the privileges the baby boomer’s have over the rest of us that we are paying for we cant afford not to invest what kind society do we want the current one is heading straight for civil unrest .
Government blamed for student loan blowout.
Labour leader Andrew Little is accusing the government of overseeing a huge student debt blowout driven by tertiary fee increases.
He’s defending his party’s free tertiary education policy against criticism that it won’t achieve anything other than a proliferation of short courses, poor achievement and spiralling costs.
That’s Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce’s take on it.
He also says it’s fair for students to fund around a quarter of their course costs because when they hold degrees they’ll earn a lot more than those who don’t.
Mr Little says Mr Joyce’s reaction reveals National’s true attitude to post-school education.
“Student loan debt has risen from less than $10 billion in 2008 to $15b today,” he said on Monday.
“That’s mostly driven up by the 37 per cent increase in tertiary fees under National, while government tuition funding has risen just three per cent.”
https://nz.news.yahoo.com/top-stories/a/30700958/labours-policy-desperate-bid-for-votes/
“He also says it’s fair for students to fund around a quarter of their course costs because when they hold degrees they’ll earn a lot more than those who don’t.”
I think that when tertiary education was free the top tax rate was a lot higher.
Aw Jesus ! I’m sorry Chris Trotter but I stopped reading at about where you write ” The party first needs to settle upon a revenue target, ”
What have I been writing? Do you know ? What have I been writing, about how Labour must court the farmer away from National?
All Labour has to do is promise, and deliver, security for our agrarian enterprises. And to do that? All they have to do is encourage peer to peer lending buffered by a smart -government savvy enough to block out the foreign banks and watch and wait as our agrarian producers come back on-line and begin to boil. OMG ! It’s honestly that simple. National would tank like a brick shit house falling off the fucking space shuttle. National would wither and die like a dry pot plant. National and it’s dodgy cronies would die like the flies they are. No disrespect to actual flies.
Dopy Labour turn their backs on our agriculture and fawn about the Intelligentia as if they were flirting with the dull minded pretty boy/girl/transgender/a-sexual at the party. Fuck off !
Dopy Labour are simply that. Dopy. They’re a dopy lot trying to over take National by terminally stepping in Nationals foot steps. Branch out for fucks sake! Think laterally ! Seriously ! Labour should take my advice. I know what I’m talking about here.
But Aaaah ? Here’s an hypothesis for ya.
What if Labour don’t want to over-take National? What if Labour are as concerned as National at the truth coming out?
What’s really going on when shearer and fuck-face, what’s his name ? Goff ! Start bouncing about like special needs circus clowns decrying their own party while carrying the stink of treachery on their breaths. Historically, they’d have preferred to play that particular game well hidden away from the public gaze.
Desperate times aye boys?
And then
A government can just ring wheeler up. Tell him to wire tresuary a billion. And then right it off. Governments can do that.
I never do get why only labour does it
@CB … I always tick you up,… and I still haven’t decided if its the blunt content of truths or the colourful imagery you use to express it . Not always do I agree but generally its a positive.
Don’t you ever quit posting.
That is exactly why Labour and other opposition parties must stop ignoring the missing million that have not bothered voting or have lost all hope in having any influence on election results.
There is a big chunk in that group of disillusioned and disheartened or even uninformed potential voters, that could make the difference in an election and help Labour and the Greens to gain power.
Chasing only after the middle ground, that vague centre, and the middle class voters is not going to make it. Too many middle class people that have vested interests like the homes they still own, the small businesses they may operate, the employers they serve for reasonable or even good salaries and wages, that they will see threatened by an alternative government that will increase taxes.
Most vote with their wallet and income and wealth on their mind, these are the most committed voters, who always vote and keep the status quo. They helped Key and Nats in three times.
That leaves the other half of the population out in the cold, those who have little or nothing, and who are more disillusioned, who either vote Labour, Greens or NZ First or who do not vote at all.
So to be able to sell an honest finacial and tax policy, that pays for what Labour wants to bring in, it needs support and votes. They will only come in sufficient numbers from the disenfranchised and disillusioned non voters.
To gain them is the main challenge, and so far Labour have not done enough to reach and win this potential support base.
We have close to 300 thousand on benefits at any given time, and sadly many of them no longer vote, as they have no faith in either party, Labour or Nats.
Perhaps a smarter and fairer welfare policy may win them over, just a thought.
The timing and depth of information supplied with the announcement of this new policy is nothing short of perfect at this stage of the election cycle.
National on the other hand is like a possum caught in the headlights. Joyces ill thought out childish puerile tweets are evidence of that.
and where’s Key and English on this …not a peep!!
Rehearsing their lines from Crosby Textor no doubt.
Every person I have spoken to doesn’t give a tinkers cuss where the money’s coming from. They all see it as an absolute necessity for future generations. It’s not an option .
They all say, if there’s money for useless charter schools, useless flags, useless media works sudsidies, useless Rio Tinto subsidies, then there’s money to allow everyone N.Z citizen a shot at a decent education.
Denmark do it , Germany does it , Brazil does it. Look who’s surging ahead in the world.
It doesn’t need justifying. It’s an essential item. End of story! !
From the fact sheet at http://www.labour.org.nz/working-futures –
“This policy is affordable within current budgets. The first phase, implemented in 2019, will cost $265 million per year. This is money that is already budgeted for and which the current government has earmarked for tax cuts.
“As the economy grows and the government gets more revenue, we will be prioritising education. Treasury projects $15 billion more fiscal headroom over the next decade. The Working Futures Plan will cost $1.2 billion once fully implemented in 2025.
“We will be conducting a line by line review of the tertiary education sector to ensure courses are providing value for money.”
Parties usually announce their revenue policies closer to the election and once the PREFU has come out, otherwise they can’t project with any certainty whether those policies will be able to afford their manifesto commitments. Labour has already signalled it is looking at raising taxes for the wealthy, just a week or so back on RNZ.
You’re correct Chris – This is just another dishonest, on-the-hoof policy statement from Little.
If Labour was thinking about its core values – supporting the common working person, then they wouldn’t be offering untargeted benefits for all, including the rich.
If they wish to lift the educational standard of the poor and working class, a far better plan would be:
a) Do something to sort out under-performing low decile schools. A far tougher approach to achieving basic literacy and numeracy is needed.
It’s no good offering them free tertiary education if they can’t read & write!
b) Target bursaries at children from low income families that have achieved good grades in high school.
This was one tertiary education policy. It’s not the entire education manifesto.
It was totally random and you know it.
No structure
No logic
No adherence to core values
No cost benefit analysis
And you base those assumptions on? What exactly. I suppose you’ll link a slater column next
[…] by 22%. The reaction to this has been somewhat subdued. Posts on the Daily Blog have queried the costs involved to implement the policy, and asked why a universal student allowance isn’t being offered […]
Comments are closed.