PM Chloe Swarbrick

[R650R]

“The Greens say if they were in government they could borrow 122% of GDP. To put that in perspective that’s $550 billion of debt. Last time they were in government they borrowed $150 billion, and nothing got better. What did change, is that we now pay $9 billion a year in interest.

On $550 billion we would be paying at least $30 billion in interest, about the same as the entire health budget right now. We don’t doubt that they could spend the money, the issue is they have a track record of getting no value for money, and they have no idea how we have to pay it back. That’s why these people must be kept out of government.”

[TheDemonLord]

Say it with me Kids:

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

[pritch]

TDLs little quote looks good but... Our national debt is low compared to the UK and the USA both of which are over 100% of GDP. Twelve years of Tory government austerity did nothing to lower the UK national debt. It would be a stretch to describe them as socialist.

The US national debt is even higher and it's mostly due to the Republicans. They constantly whine about balancing the budget while the Democrats are in power then spend like drunken sailors when they themselves are in power. Trump's contribution last go round was the biggest ever hike in history. Now he wants to boost it even higher. Currently even the Republicans in the Senate are resisting. It would be a stretch to describe Trump's tax cuts for billionaires as socialist.

[TheDemonLord]

TDLs little quote looks good but... Our national debt is low compared to the UK and the USA both of which are over 100% of GDP. Twelve years of Tory government austerity did nothing to lower the UK national debt. It would be a stretch to describe them as socialist.

It would also be a stretch to describe the Tories as Conservative. Maggie would be rolling in her grave if she saw what they had done to the country.

The best way I have seen it articulated is "They adopted Tony Blair's framework" - Blair is when everything went wrong for the UK and the current state of UK politics is as a direct result of his constitutional reforms and the Tories absolute failure.

The US national debt is even higher and it's mostly due to the Republicans. They constantly whine about balancing the budget while the Democrats are in power then spend like drunken sailors when they themselves are in power. Trump's contribution last go round was the biggest ever hike in history. Now he wants to boost it even higher. Currently even the Republicans in the Senate are resisting. It would be a stretch to describe Trump's tax cuts for billionaires as socialist.

Here is the thing though - I agree that the US National Debt is a problem and it has implications for us down in NZ.

The key question though is where is the Money being spent? Infrastructure that will help boost productivity and generate more taxable money exchanges? I could live with that. Or pet projects that are of dubious value (or in some cases have been shown not to work completely) and just piss away tax payer money.

And to be clear - both sides of the coin get the smoke on this one. I remember well the $27 Million we pissed away on a Flag redesign that no one wanted.

[sugilite:Me]

Ahhh, the old "Spending other peoples money" trope from the right.
When somehow blowing out deficits for tax cuts for the rich is somehow not "Spending Other Peoples Money".
Give me a fucking break.

And yeah, the greens wanting to borrow that much money, fucking stupid. Also self defeating if they ever want to get voted in at numbers to make a difference.

[TheDemonLord]

Ahhh, the old "Spending other peoples money" trope from the right.
When somehow blowing out deficits for tax cuts for the rich is somehow not "Spending Other Peoples Money".
Give me a fucking break.

I mean, from a point of pure pedantry, tax cuts are - definitionally - not spending other people's money...

And yeah, the greens wanting to borrow that much money, fucking stupid. Also self defeating if they ever want to get voted in at numbers to make a difference.

I mean the borrowing is bad and all - but the big issue for me is what would it be spent on?

Mostly it would be spent on pipedreams, feel-good projects, NGOs, Technology that is not mature to fulfill the required roles and other nonsense.

[sugilite:Me]

I mean, from a point of pure pedantry, tax cuts are - definitionally - not spending other people's money...

By definition, every dollar spent by a government is other peoples money.

I mean the borrowing is bad and all - but the big issue for me is what would it be spent on?

Mostly it would be spent on pipedreams, feel-good projects, NGOs, Technology that is not mature to fulfill the required roles and other nonsense.

For sure, that is the exact types of things they would blow the money on.
I do not find tax cuts for the wealthy any more palatable though.

[TheDemonLord]

By definition, every dollar spent by a government is other peoples money.

Exactly

For sure, that is the exact types of things they would blow the money on.
I do not find tax cuts for the wealthy any more palatable though.

I guess that is a fundamental difference - I don't mind that.

But on a serious philosophical note - Imagine for the moment a scenario where the Wealthy and the Government came to an agreement - they would cut taxes for the Wealthy, on the provision that the Wealthy on-shore their wealth, invest in New Zealand Business, Donate to their community etc.

Let us also for the sake of this wild hypothetical assume that the Wealthy would agree to this and not do any tax loop-hole lawyering to get out of this obligation.

Would that be more or less palatable?

[sugilite:Me]

But on a serious philosophical note - Imagine for the moment a scenario where the Wealthy and the Government came to an agreement - they would cut taxes for the Wealthy, on the provision that the Wealthy on-shore their wealth, invest in New Zealand Business, Donate to their community etc.

Let us also for the sake of this wild hypothetical assume that the Wealthy would agree to this and not do any tax loop-hole lawyering to get out of this obligation.

Would that be more or less palatable?

I'm assuming this will morph into some sort of gotcha, but I "guess" I would find that more palatable. The word wild is apt, as I cannot see the wealthy agreeing to it, as it would be great for the country (I think) but quite restrictive for them in terms of investment opportunities in NZ that would return as much, or more to them than off shore ones would.

I would be happy with closing all the wink, wink, nudge, nudge tax loopholes and the wealthy paying a fair portion of their wealth in taxes, not more as a percentage wise than your average middle income worker, but certainly not less.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm assuming this will morph into some sort of gotcha, but I "guess" I would find that more palatable. The word wild is apt, as I cannot see the wealthy agreeing to it, as it would be great for the country (I think) but quite restrictive for them in terms of investment opportunities in NZ that would return as much, or more to them than off shore ones would.

I would be happy with closing all the wink, wink, nudge, nudge tax loopholes and the wealthy paying a fair portion of their wealth in taxes, not more as a percentage wise than your average middle income worker, but certainly not less.

Nah, No Gotcha - More like - I have been looking at some history recently - and I notice a lot of:

"Person So-and-so donated this Building to the people of the Town".

I think we, as a society, lost something or missed something when we used to have wealthy individuals regularly doing little things here and there to improve the lives of the community they live in.

It is not a fully fleshed out idea, as I said - a Wild Hypothetical. I also think that gratitude and being able to see the good that your Taxes are doing would make paying it less painful.

[sugilite:Me]

Nah, No Gotcha - More like - I have been looking at some history recently - and I notice a lot of:

"Person So-and-so donated this Building to the people of the Town".

I think we, as a society, lost something or missed something when we used to have wealthy individuals regularly doing little things here and there to improve the lives of the community they live in.

It is not a fully fleshed out idea, as I said - a Wild Hypothetical. I also think that gratitude and being able to see the good that your Taxes are doing would make paying it less painful.

Great point, now I think about it, that sort of altruistic behavior did go on back in the day. I feel these modern day lots would only donate earthquake risk buildings.
I like where your thinking is going with this one, and yes, I would agree that gratitude and a feel good factor of seeing tax dollars being used in the betterment of society as a whole is a most worthy and noble endeavor. Do carry on and get back to us with any expanded updates

[frogfeaturesFZR]

Nah, No Gotcha - More like - I have been looking at some history recently - and I notice a lot of:

"Person So-and-so donated this Building to the people of the Town".

I think we, as a society, lost something or missed something when we used to have wealthy individuals regularly doing little things here and there to improve the lives of the community they live in.

It is not a fully fleshed out idea, as I said - a Wild Hypothetical. I also think that gratitude and being able to see the good that your Taxes are doing would make paying it less painful.

I’ve noticed this in quite a few smaller towns in the South Island actually
I agree, sadly it’s something missing from current society

[pete376403]

I’ve noticed this in quite a few smaller towns in the South Island actually
I agree, sadly it’s something missing from current society

And in bigger towns too, in the form of parks and reserves - can you see any modern day developer setting aside large areas of green space for the public good, rather than cramming in hundreds of houses cheek by jowl

[pritch]

"Person So-and-so donated this Building to the people of the Town".

Ah yes. This brings to mind the Sacklers. They famously donated libraries and laboratories to multiple universities. Champions of noble charitable giving they were and patrons of the arts. They also conned the FDA and hooked millions of Americans on opioids. Their legacy is killing Americans every day to the extent they are rather more realistically known now as the most evil family in America.

There was another billionaire was quoted as saying he'd rather give to charity than be taxed. A reporter, more diligent than most, checked his charitable giving, it was 1% of his income. I'd prefer 1% too.

[JimO]

And in bigger towns too, in the form of parks and reserves - can you see any modern day developer setting aside large areas of green space for the public good, rather than cramming in hundreds of houses cheek by jowl

Developers get charged hundreds of thousands of dollars on large scale developments for "amenities"

my brother turned a double garage that had existing sleepout into a granny flat and his contribution to "amenities " was $10000