Labour is doing a lot to focus on ‘ it’s the economy stupid’ and the main way they are signalling this shift is by dropping high profile policies that National has previously targeted.
Like the efficient car subsidies. The Greens were disappointed in their policy being dropped but in truth it was a truly dumb policy not because the intent was bad but because the reality is the businesses that supply cars just raise their base price to absorb the subsidy, i.e. the overseas producers of cars can read english, so they just move their base price to absorb the subsidy.
This is the same problem that happened with Mr Robertson’s first budget when he increased the accomodation allowance by $50 a week. Landlords simply raised their rental prices to absorb it and laughed in his face all the way to the bank. It was entirely predictable, and same with this car subsidy. The pricing process is driven by neo-liberal logic to maximise profit; pricing under neo-liberalism is too independent of price restraints.
The easiest way to get round this price inflation is for the government to take over supply of part of the market, like it once did for housing construction, insurance, banking, electricity supply etc etc. That is the only true competition model with a proven track record of keeping prices low. (If you want a competition feature in your economy).
In terms of keeping inflation down, Labour appears to doing the right thing by sticking with three waters boards and the Resource Management Act centralisation into boards. The councils are simply inefficient and out of their depth when managing three waters and applying the nationally set rules for the Resource Management Act. Councils currently run costly, inefficient and untimely processes, so the boards will allow great experience levels and specialisation to grow.
Council rates should therefore come down or stabilise with these boards. I can see why Labour wants simplified processes for house building. This means less chances for challenges so that the boards don’t get swamped with ‘small cases’. But Mr Parker and Megan Woods have taken the wrong approach. They should generically protect the finite and small number of remaining historic residential suburbs to reduce the challenges. If they don’t voters will be furious with losing sun, privacy, heritage, and liveability of their cities.
Labour can then permit mid rise housing in central commercial areas. For example Napier around Thackeray and Carlyle Street is just low level horrible cheap commercial buildings surrounded by customer car parks. This would be better for mid-rise social housing with all the services right on their door step. The insane current plan to build social housing way out in Te Awa where there has just been high levels of flooding is stupid.
Cyclone Gabrielle has given the greatest focus yet on climate change being a real and dangerous threat to business. Not that long ago business groups scoffed and cheered anti science slogans. Voted for right wing politicians who with lies inflamed wilful ignorance. Or said even if climate change was true it was too difficult and could be left to future generations; like previous generations left us problems. E.g. the colonial generations of not that long ago who chopped down the forests or set fires on steep hill country. Almost all that hill country now needs to return to native bush and not pine plantation.
All these costs to get business back to ‘normal’ can’t be met us, by government, we are simply not rich enough. It is simply too much money. These steep country farms must simply close or find ways to work in harmony with indigenous forests, e.g. they could plant Manuka and collect honey. But the rural roads that go to those farms must become the farms and users responsibility, it’s just too much money to publicly fund these roads. This is very harsh. But think of the Dust Bowl farmers who had to simply abandon their farms and move with nothing to California.
Loss from climate change is simply a normal business risk and loss is simply the neo-liberal market mechanism of accountability for risks taken. Climate change was always high risk for business but rather than be conservative and take it seriously and minimising risk by going along with Helen Clark’s Fart Tax, they vigorously protested and carried on exposing their farms and homes to the risk of climate driven damage. It’s tough; just like it was for city workers who lost their jobs under the neo-liberal market reforms.
Excellent that Waste Management NZ’s Ingrid Cronin has called out ‘fast fashion clothing’ as mostly ending up being dumped. We need to buy locally produced so more expensive but better quality, and less of it.
We can easily do this by creating a comparative advantage for small scale domestic production, by:
- Taxing Gross income (no deductions for expenses except domestic salary and wages paid through Inland Revenue). No deductions means no losses and this applies to the 2nd step; we tax gains; and losses stay with the risk taker.
- Removing the capital revenue distinction for non-individuals (any gains are income to a non-individual entity. ) I.e. define income very simply and very broadly so it is truly a broad based low rate tax system.
These two things would allow a tax rate of 10% and it would collect more tax than is currently collected with 28% on net income. It would remove the current tax subsidy for high cost farms or wasteful and exploitive businesses. And we could fully get rid of the unjust GST which contributes to inflation and a distortion of our economy towards cheap imported products.
The efficient car subsidy was dumb because electric cars aren’t efficient. They have to travel about 100,000kms before the additional emissions used to create them is covered, and once they’re on the road, they necessitate the burning of additional coal at Huntly.
Landlords didn’t put up their rents because the government added $50 to the subsidy. They did it because the government added several costs plus punitive taxes to the rental business.
oh please andrew rents in a capitalist market settle at what the ‘market will bear’ and with shortage of housing…well you get the picture… your ‘poor landlords’ diatribes are disingenuous at best.
I am inclined to think that rent subsidies should be fazed out. At the same time rent should perhaps be regulated. A rent formula for such regulation might be: outgoings (excluding mortgage costs) plus an equitable percentage to allow the landlord some profit. If it turns out the landlord can’t operate on that basis, the the government should take over the property, and the balance of the mortgage, and run it as social housing.
The government as a landlord can afford to double up as a social agenrcy and ajust rent to suit the clients needs and it is good that that service is there for those that need help . The private landlord is not part of the social, system and as such they are entitled to run their rental,business at a profit . Many get into renting under the impression of easy money but soon find bad tenants and unexpected costs eat into the profit and cause many sleepless nights .The rent rarely cover more than expenses and the real gain is in the house value increasing over time however property values can fall as they are now so the landlords need to sell at a lose.
whaaa whaaa whaaaa I love the salty taste of landlords faux tears
From what I see and read our AO/NZ’s a fucking mess and when a mess arises out of private wealth sequestering one can guarantee that someone, somewhere, somehow’s being crooked.
An excellent Post @ S.M. Aggressive greed, rich, dysfunctional psychotics and inbred old boys with deep state charters to protect, to serve, to profit, and to keep mouths shut is de rigueur for our rich little country bobbing about in the middle of nowhere.
The problem is greed plus stupidity. The rich are greedy but worse, they’re stupid. They’re so gassed on the odours of their own greatness that they overlook a most basic tenet of power, domination and control and all enabled by wealth. They got greedy. They take too much. They wallow confidently in their ill gotten fortunes will laughing at those living in poverty but sooner or later their severed heads will be stuck up on pikes and perhaps that’ll not be the metaphor one might think it is.
The Australian banks steal $180.00 net a second from us and make 20% more out of we Kiwis than they do out of their own Australian ‘customers’ read ‘sucker-victims’ then they try to gaslight us into believing that somehow it’s not their fault but ours for being less than savvy with our debts they throw us under a smug bus for. We have, according to popular media, nine multi billionaires. They didn’t earn that money, they stole away with our assets paid for with our taxes. We should remember that and I’ve been told that had the billionaires tried that shit on in most other countries they’d be doing jail time. Isn’t that mind blowing..? Foreign owned banks and Multi billionaire AO/NZ’ers can freely do things here that are illegal in many other countries. Interesting aye?
You have identified the reason for banks making large profits from NZ in your own in your post .We are a small country so unless they can make a large profit it is not worth their while being here . This country would be stuffed without their investment in businesses farms and houses . They are not big players in the home loan market in Australia they concentrate on businesses so get a smaller return but the scale is far far greater. Our own government uses one of these Australia banks as they know they need them more than they need us
God you are so cucked to the big banks. YOu love them and worship them.
[Taxing Gross income (no deductions for expenses except domestic salary and wages paid through Inland Revenue). No deductions means no losses and this applies to the 2nd step; we tax gains; and losses stay with the risk taker.
Removing the capital revenue distinction for non-individuals (any gains are income to a non-individual entity. ) I.e. define income very simply and very broadly so it is truly a broad based low rate tax system.]
This, of course, is all rubbish. However, no sane government will ever adopt these measures anyway, so there is no point reiterating arguments which I have presented on earlier occasions.