Cunliffe's constituent Liu?

[mada]

Yes Mada, but do you want to pay a tax for someone elses bad eating habit? I enjoy junk food probably just as much as you do but in moderation and therefore I aren't obese. Education is the only answer, not taxation.

We already do... via the health bill mate. That health bill that keeps rising.

[Robbo]

I read this bit and thought that maybe you know me.



Then read this bit and realised you're just guessing.

No, not guessing, long time ago though. All good

[Robbo]

We already do... via the health bill mate. That health bill that keeps rising.

That's true but it gets to a point where enough is enough where taxes are concerned. The extra money only seems to go into forming committees to talk about it and not really acting on it. All governments have been guilty of this.

[Ocean1]

With inflation the tradeoff is with unemployment. The Phillips curve, pioneered by New Zealand economist Bill Phillips, showed that when inflation rises unemployment falls and vice versa.

Yes. It's a lovely story. But the government don't actually sack droves of hard working, productive employees in order to control inflation, do they?
Like every other first world country on the planet they restrict access to money, isn't that right? So the trade off isn't unemployment for inflation, it's availability of cheap loans for inflation, isn't it?

The fact is that only very prosperous economies can afford to keep marginally productive workers. Another fact is that unrestrained inflation rapidly causes living standards to plummet across the board, doesn't it? Like your example, that Socialist paragon of economic might, Somalia.

In fact the government, along with every taxpayer would much rather that those employees kept their jobs, ideally by producing at least as much as they cost their employers.

So if the received wisdom is that controlling inflation using some form of official cash rate is a uniquely right wing trait, and that it's inherently bad and unfair then where, amongst the world's most successful countries are all of these communist countries that don't control inflation that way?

[Where are all these lazy beneficiaries bleating about crap pay and it being too hard to work, I always hear righties go on about them - yet when it comes to providing proof, they are somehow scant with their evidence? They hanging out with the mythical hundreds of thousands of young women who have babies to go on the dole?

We've already done this, the majority of Kiwis are beneficiaries, didn't that fit your world view? Oh, right, you want proof.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/07/net_taxpayers.html

Not only are the vast majority of Kiwis beneficiaries but a comfortable majority of them receive benefits worth more than the tax they pay.

"households with income of $50,000 or below pay no net tax at all. Not only do they pay no net tax, they receive around $4.40 in benefits for every $1 of tax they pay. So they pay $1.7b in tax and receive $7.7b in welfare (and this excludes superannuation)."

I'm still waiting for an explanation about how most polls are unreliable, based on a single unreferenced example, probably one of the hundreds displayed on that wee graphic I posted showing that the majority of professional polls in NZ meet the 95% confidence they claim on the box.

And how this means National need a huge swing in their favour to win the next election.

And how viable it is to maintain some fuzzy alternative to productive employment.

[Ocean1]

Nothing wrong with it at all if that person doesn't mind paying a fat and sugar tax.

Or his own health bills.

And let's hear none of the rampant bullshit about how healthy food is out of reach for the poor dears, the fallacy that Maca's and KFC is cheaper than healthy food from the supermarket has long since been laid to rest.

[Ocean1]

We already do... via the health bill mate. That health bill that keeps rising.

That's true but it gets to a point where enough is enough where taxes are concerned. The extra money only seems to go into forming committees to talk about it and not really acting on it. All governments have been guilty of this.

Probably some truth to that. But given the standards compliance protocols the public, sorry the press demand of the industry their admin costs are relatively low. It's probably mostly true to say the extra budget has gone to increased services.

[Robbo]

Or his own health bills.

And let's hear none of the rampant bullshit about how healthy food is out of reach for the poor dears, the fallacy that Maca's and KFC is cheaper than healthy food from the supermarket has long since been laid to rest.

Absolutely Ocean. Maca's and KFC etc are bloody expensive. We can do a healthy fresh food dinner meal for two adults for around $6. That's less than one Mac burger so there are no excuses that it can't be done especially if you factor in the cost of petrol in driving down to your local fast food restaurant and back again. Healthy eating is not expensive so how do you get the eataholics out of the habit of junk food other than for the occasional treat.

[unstuck]

Healthy eating is not expensive so how do you get the eataholics out of the habit of junk food other than for the occasional treat.

Tax the fuck out of it, like smokes and booze and motorcycles and anything else that may be bad for your health.

[Ocean1]

Absolutely Ocean. Maca's and KFC etc are bloody expensive. We can do a healthy fresh food dinner meal for two adults for around $6. That's less than one Mac burger so there are no excuses that it can't be done especially if you factor in the cost of petrol in driving down to your local fast food restaurant and back again. Healthy eating is not expensive so how do you get the eataholics out of the habit of junk food other than for the occasional treat.

Dunno. The "correct" way is to charge them the price for health insurance commensurate with their risk.

But if that's not a starter, (and it's not, just as ACC levies don't give the authorities the right to dictate our behaviour) then either you assume the right to force them to behave according to their contribution to the health system, (also not workable, 'cause a lot of them couldn't pay) or you just average the cost out over the rest of the long suffering tax payers.

Taxing KFC is just the sort of market interference that, taken to it's logical conclusion just completely fucks the economy.

[Robbo]

Dunno. The "correct" way is to charge them the price for health insurance commensurate with their risk.

But if that's not a starter, (and it's not, just as ACC levies don't give the authorities the right to dictate our behaviour) then either you assume the right to force them to behave according to their contribution to the health system, (also not workable, 'cause a lot of them couldn't pay) or you just average the cost out over the rest of the long suffering tax payers.

Taxing KFC is just the sort of market interference that, taken to it's logical conclusion just completely fucks the economy.

Just a long term thought, but as the number of obese people are growing, then many of them will probably not live beyond middle age.
Therefore, we will not have to fund their pension and the savings in that alone should more than cover the cost of any temporary health repairs
they may require during their shortened years. This would be a win, win all round. If they choose to continue their living like that, then so be it.

[pritch]

Ok ok, carry on folks, but could someone please indulge me?

Does a Chinese person, living in China, without NZ residency, count as a New Zealand politicians constituent or not?

Just to indulge you mind; if Liu had an address in Cunliffe's constituency at the time - yes.

[Winston001]

f

In an economy, policy changes are about tradeoffs. With inflation the tradeoff is with unemployment. The Phillips curve, pioneered by New Zealand economist Bill Phillips, showed that when inflation rises unemployment falls and vice versa.

High levels of inflation are undesirable. However, if inflation is reduced by choking economic growth, this will lead to a rise in unemployment. Mass unemployment is also undesirable. Hence the RBNZ is charged with the delicate task of balancing inflation and unemployment."


Mainstream economics following Friedman's theories (right wing)

"Unemployment above 0% is seen as necessary to control inflation, to keep inflation from accelerating, i.e., from rising from year to year. This view is based on a theory centering on the concept of the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU)..."

With respect, you are confused.

Nobody wants anyone to be unemployed or to feel useless. That is not how human communities work. We are social animals and at a local level help each other out.

Economists deal with the big picture and even then disagree strongly, so its wrong to state that economic theory dictates certain outcomes.

Historically ie. before the industrial age, unemployment was the norm because work depended upon the seasons and the weather. In good years there was plenty for all, in bad years not so much, but if the king had a war on then there was work and food.

Full employment is a modern construct enjoyed by developed nations and argued over in air-conditioned rooms but if you go to Africa, India, China, and South America you will find that paid work is a precious and uncertain thing. Unemployment is very real with no social safety net.

[oldrider]

MMP is rather like a planetary system the sun is the financial system and is always at the centre the major parties are the planets and the minor parties are the moons!

They may differ a little in proportion relative to one another but the outcome is always relatively the same and will be forever!

Elections have very little effect on the final alignment but is there to appease the creatures living on the planets and moons to think that they actually belong and participate!

The final alignment will be destined by the sun the planets and moons themselves.

[Banditbandit]

Dunno. The "correct" way is to charge them the price for health insurance commensurate with their risk.

But if that's not a starter, (and it's not, just as ACC levies don't give the authorities the right to dictate our behaviour) then either you assume the right to force them to behave according to their contribution to the health system, (also not workable, 'cause a lot of them couldn't pay) or you just average the cost out over the rest of the long suffering tax payers.

Taxing KFC is just the sort of market interference that, taken to it's logical conclusion just completely fucks the economy.

OK .. so we have a very healthy economy with a huge number of sick people ... That's a really good trade off!!!!

[Ocean1]

OK .. so we have a very healthy economy with a huge number of sick people ... That's a really good trade off!!!!

Correct. In spite of the historically unprecedented range of health resources available to everyone.

I know you’re desperate to believe that’s all an evel govt plot, but it’s not. In fact health outcomes across the board have never been better. Life expectancy increases have tapered off after huge gains over the last few decades, but that's a matter of lifestyle choices, choices only available in seriously wealthy countries. And the further our collective behaviour drifts from that for which we evolved then the less effect all of those resources will have.

The govt. like most taxpayers would really really rather all you fat bastards left off the KFC, gave up smoking and broke a sweat occasionally.