Surplus by 2014/2015

[mashman]

I have a question: What is the Surplus they're talking about? All I ever see is "we'll be back in surplus" so I assume it's a single figure that has more of an explanation than just surplus.

[ellipsis]

...Gerry Brownlee will be even a bigger fatter wank?...

[yachtie10]

I have a question: What is the Surplus they're talking about? All I ever see is "we'll be back in surplus" so I assume it's a single figure that has more of an explanation than just surplus.

Means we will spend less than we earn

[SMOKEU]

It's another lie.

[mashman]

Means we will spend less than we earn

Awesome, that clears that up then, cheers... Who is the we and what is the area in which we will be spending less of what we earn?

[Coolz]

We will only be able to afford to clothe ourselves at surplus shops.

[steve_t]

Means we will spend less than we earn

Is it that our repayments on our debt will be more than the interest amount?

[ellipsis]

...what about it just being more meaningless words that spill from politicians lips every time they open them...

[puddytat]

that the poor will be surplus to requirements......

[yachtie10]

Awesome, that clears that up then, cheers... Who is the we and what is the area in which we will be spending less of what we earn?

haha

I dont know the context but
I assume you are referring to the governments books
i.e. the government takes more in taxes than it spends

but there many others like trade deficit etc

[riffer]

haha

I dont know the context but
I assume you are referring to the governments books
i.e. the government takes more in taxes than it spends

but there many others like trade deficit etc

It is that the government takes in more tax than it spends. The government has, in recent days, reduced their expectations on the amount, but still insist that we are on track to be taking in more tax than we spend by the 2014/2015 tax year (which really means by 1 April 2015).

However, the fact that we are now only 2 months after the election where they promised us nearly a billion in surplus and they've now reduced it down to a couple hundred million suggests to me that in the next 2.4 years it's going to be increasingly unlikely that we will hit surplus, and they're currently going through the motions of buttering us up for the inevitable.

Remember also that in order for the surplus to happen they also need to sell Mighty River Power at a really good (read unrealistic in today's economic climate) price.

[yachtie10]

It is that the government takes in more tax than it spends. The government has, in recent days, reduced their expectations on the amount, but still insist that we are on track to be taking in more tax than we spend by the 2014/2015 tax year (which really means by 1 April 2015).

However, the fact that we are now only 2 months after the election where they promised us nearly a billion in surplus and they've now reduced it down to a couple hundred million suggests to me that in the next 2.4 years it's going to be increasingly unlikely that we will hit surplus, and they're currently going through the motions of buttering us up for the inevitable.

Remember also that in order for the surplus to happen they also need to sell Mighty River Power at a really good (read unrealistic in today's economic climate) price.

thats a different question
he wanted to know what "surplus" meant

there are so many factors but more people working and less on benefits would be good

[mashman]

Is it that our repayments on our debt will be more than the interest amount?

Heh, even easier... funny that they're borrowing heavily at the moment and saying that it'll cost a fortune otherwise and the cost of money isn't changing. Could be to cover the above?


haha

I dont know the context but
I assume you are referring to the governments books
i.e. the government takes more in taxes than it spends

but there many others like trade deficit etc

cheeky bugga :bleh:

I was assuming both of the things you highlight. Govt expenditure and/or Trade Deficit. I believe that the trade deficit is up and down like a bloody yoyo and it is more than possible that we could have that sorted by the dates they keep shifting... however I have a question in regards to govt expenditure: Is that the total spend or just the operational spend? It would look, to me, as though they're talking operational expenditure as they're culling staff and service as much as possible whilst borrowing VERY heavily in order to be able to pay for the services through the private sector.

No matter how much I search, I can't find an answer to the questions and if there are so many contexts why do the media, let alone the people, not ask what the surplus refers to? It would seem that everyone is useless.

[bikaholic]

Surplus is made easier as there is a couple of financial years ahead in which no payments for borrowings have to be made or are due.
Therefore interest payments become capital repayments if taken, and we shouldn't have to borrow in those years.

[pete376403]

I thought it was just something they said that sounded real good but didn't mean anything, in order to get elected. Now that they've been elected, it's no longer relevant.

[Usarka]

The Surplus is where you buy your cammo pants.

[Murray]

And I thought all along it mean that ACC won't be broke anymore and they will actually take more money than they spend (choke choke) as this doesnt happen now (double choke choke)

[mashman]

I thought it was just something they said that sounded real good but didn't mean anything, in order to get elected. Now that they've been elected, it's no longer relevant.

Don;t be silly... it must be really really important if they're always talking about it.

I'd still really really like someone to ask the PM the question for sure... all of this speculation just gives rise to conspiracy and misinformation... good job we trust them.

[bikaholic]

And I thought all along it mean that ACC won't be broke anymore and they will actually take more money than they spend (choke choke) as this doesnt happen now (double choke choke)That's as likely to happen as the cost of a flat white will come down with milk prices.:bash:

[rainman]

This (http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2012/the-optimism-bias) might be of some relevance as to why we keep coming up with these cockamamie predictions... as might be this (http://dss.ucsd.edu/~jhamilto/handbook_climate.pdf) if you fancy a more theoretical look at what constrained resources tend to do to economic growth.

The chance of us returning to a happy state of growth as usual any time soon is nigh unto zero. The structural reasons for poor job growth and low consumer and business confidence look to be entrenched, and most of what Treasury is basing their forecasts on makes me think they put Prozac in their tap water.

The surplus projection (National's or Labour's) is a delusion designed to dupe the voters, and should quite simply be ignored as the irrelevance it is.

[mossy1200]

Most likely means by 2014 no body will risk lending New Zealand any cash and demand we pay some back...

[puddytat]

Sounds like a Tui Ad to me....a bit like promising that privatisation will mean better sevice at a lower cost....

[blue rider]

the optimism bias.......oh well

there is also George Soros

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/22/george-soros-on-the-coming-u-s-class-war.html


followed by Paul Krugman

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/



as for our Dear Leader and his words of wisdom :facepalm:

[mashman]

This (http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2012/the-optimism-bias) might be of some relevance as to why we keep coming up with these cockamamie predictions... as might be this (http://dss.ucsd.edu/~jhamilto/handbook_climate.pdf) if you fancy a more theoretical look at what constrained resources tend to do to economic growth.

The chance of us returning to a happy state of growth as usual any time soon is nigh unto zero. The structural reasons for poor job growth and low consumer and business confidence look to be entrenched, and most of what Treasury is basing their forecasts on makes me think they put Prozac in their tap water.

The surplus projection (National's or Labour's) is a delusion designed to dupe the voters, and should quite simply be ignored as the irrelevance it is.

heh, amazing what people will believe eh :innocent: (funny how they rated their chances differently based on the information given, I'd have gone 50/50 all the way... after all, things happen or they don't) . I'd rather the rose tinted specs came off coz I don't think a violent wave across the planet is gonna make a blind bit of difference to those who think we have it good because none of it is on our doorstep. That kind of rose tinted spec wearing nightmare is the reason we're such a backwards society in the first place. The Oil document lost me on page 20 (a lot of it nothing new, thought similar about the abandonment of the english coal industry being saved for a rainy day or for a future where oil no longer exists and we revert to steam :rofl:), anyway, gave up at page 20 with conflicting results blah blah blah... I guess that's what you were trying to highlight?

The way I see it is that some idiot gets out his calculator, dicks around with some data, decides that they have a data "model" backed by a probability calculation that best matches the "past" "curve" from the data available and then "plans" are made to ensure that the predicted path is followed in order to maximise profit and schedule resource... shame that when it all starts going tits all they do is fuck around with a variable here and a variable there and create a new probability model. One of these days they'll stop looking at that pie in the sky point they've calculated and will stop ignoring the fuck ups along the way... and all because the calculation says that she'll be right. ra ra ra, I'm fed up with people running the country on the basis of reports derived from probability calculations. I don't care how "accurate" they are, they ignore too many other factors along the way, like people and society.

Shame noone seems to know what the surplus is and that the recurring theme seems to be one of it's bollocks... I still don't understand why anyone who believes that its bollocks votes. Praps that goes back to Tali territory.



there is also George Soros

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/22/george-soros-on-the-coming-u-s-class-war.html


I enjoyed that... I don't see the financial system lasting more than 20 years before it collapses. People are getting wise to the shit that's being spouted by our glorious leaders and if Occupy isn't beaten into the ground with the US turning into a Policed State (when are the army due home?) I doubt it'll last another 5 years.

Wonder if Soros will lend me some money to design a different society that could help avoid, or at least postpone the inevitable and give us, well the next generation really, a fighting chance :blink:

[mashman]

Ok, let's try something a little easier (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/12737125/govt-s-books-in-red-by-4-48b/#)... Billy Bob English says "returning to surplus is essential to future proof the country from further shocks."... I thought taking drugs was illegal? So it's the books that are the problem. Anyone know what's on the books? Cos it seems pretty important according to Billy May English.

[rainman]

I'd have gone 50/50 all the way... after all, things happen or they don't)
...
Shame noone seems to know what the surplus is and that the recurring theme seems to be one of it's bollocks... I still don't understand why anyone who believes that its bollocks votes.

Sure, things happen or they don't, but not all outcomes are equally likely. As an example, I'll either get lucky tonight or I won't, but I wouldn't put 50/50 on it...

Also I think lots of people know what the surplus is (have a look at this (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/downloads/pdfs/fsgnz-snap-jun11.pdf) for a quick summary of our end of year position), it's just that politicians of all shades always lie about forecast surpluses (doubly so in times of recession) and as a result discussion about these isn't worth anything. Not a reason to stop voting in itself though.

[Oscar]

Ok, let's try something a little easier (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/12737125/govt-s-books-in-red-by-4-48b/#)... Billy Bob English says "returning to surplus is essential to future proof the country from further shocks."... I thought taking drugs was illegal? So it's the books that are the problem. Anyone know what's on the books? Cos it seems pretty important according to Billy May English.

If you want to know what's in the books, why don't you look?
http://www.treasury.govt.nz

Oh yeah - I forgot, your little rants don't go well when exposed to actual facts:facepalm:

[mashman]

If you want to know what's in the books, why don't you look?
http://www.treasury.govt.nz

Oh yeah - I forgot, your little rants don't go well when exposed to actual facts:facepalm:

Just asking a question that noone seems to have an answer for, other than "don't sweat it mash, surplus is just political shit talk for nothing in particular". :facepalm: ... no rant on-topic here, perhaps a little off-topic :)

[Oscar]

Just asking a question that noone seems to have an answer for, other than "don't sweat it mash, surplus is just political shit talk for nothing in particular". :facepalm: ... no rant on-topic here, perhaps a little off-topic :)

Having a fiscal surplus is a good way to insulate the country from international economic turmoil.
There, I've answered your question.

[mashman]

Sure, things happen or they don't, but not all outcomes are equally likely. As an example, I'll either get lucky tonight or I won't, but I wouldn't put 50/50 on it...

Also I think lots of people know what the surplus is (have a look at this (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/downloads/pdfs/fsgnz-snap-jun11.pdf) for a quick summary of our end of year position), it's just that politicians of all shades always lie about forecast surpluses (doubly so in times of recession) and as a result discussion about these isn't worth anything. Not a reason to stop voting in itself though.

pfffff, that's more 1:99 eh :shifty:... it ain't like rank outsiders don't win the derby... but in contradiction to your RSA link, thinking that you're going to be alive after a crash does not mean you will be. At the end of the day the odds don't really matter, you die or you don't, 2 outcomes that I'll always attribute 50/50 to. Good luck for tonight :wings:

Fair enough... although if my politicians are lying to me, I won't vote... they do, so I don't, but we are all different.

[mashman]

Having a fiscal surplus is a good way to insulate the country from international economic turmoil.
There, I've answered your question.

My original question was looking for a little more than a political sound bite that joe public would be able to understand i.e. it's the total tax take - total expenditure = surplus (positive result). They must have a formula to calculate these things and was also wondering why that isn't published, as then I wouldn't need to ask the question and I could see for myself. But thanks for the answer :)