Who will win the 2011 election?

[superman]

Let me see ..

The USA top tax rate is 35%
In Germany it is 45%
In Britain it is 50%
In France it is 41%
In China it is 45% (strange how a communist country has a tax rate the same as capitalist countries - except Homg Kong where it is 17%)
In Russia it is a 13% flat tax (looks like the old left has adopted new right ideas)

We sit at the lower end of all that ... neither capitalist nor communist

Lol, and pure capitalism = 0%.

Hong Kong highest tax is 15% on personal income.
Singapore 20%.
Switzerland 25%

[Banditbandit]

Lol, and pure capitalism = 0%.

Hong Kong highest tax is 15% on personal income.
Singapore 20%.
Switzerland 25%

How do you run a country with 0% tax rates ... you can't pay for the police force, the MPs (not a bad thing) ... the defence force ... prisons, the court system ...

[Drunken Monkey]

Let me see ..

The USA top tax rate is 35%
In Germany it is 45%
In Britain it is 50%
In France it is 41%
In China it is 45% (strange how a communist country has a tax rate the same as capitalist countries - except Homg Kong where it is 17%)
In Russia it is a 13% flat tax (looks like the old left has adopted new right ideas)

We sit at the lower end of all that ... they are all bloody far away from your idea of capitalism

It's not accurate if you don't back it up with where the breaks are. The Aussies may pay 45 cents in the dollar at the top tax rate, but they don't pay it until they hit $150,000. Ours may only be 33, but it cuts in at $70,000. The USA's 35 cents cuts in at $372,951.

[Drunken Monkey]

How do you run a country with 0% tax rates ... you can't pay for the police force, the MPs (not a bad thing) ... the defence force ... prisons, the court system ...

You get a generally unworkable user pays system, where only the wealthly get adequate security, healthcare and access to transport. Great if you're rich and live in a fort I guess...

[shrub]

You get a generally unworkable user pays system, where only the wealthly get adequate security, healthcare and access to transport. Great if you're rich and live in a fort I guess...

You forgot ruthless and corrupt. Superman thinks he is (or will be) extremely rich and powerful or won't need any of the needless trappings of a civil society while he roars around on his Ninja. I wonder who will maintain the roads and stop people beating him up and stealing his bike?

maybe he should visit the Peoples Republic of Congo to see what a lawless society looks like? Or does he fancy himself a warlord?

[Banditbandit]

It's not accurate if you don't back it up with where the breaks are. The Aussies may pay 45 cents in the dollar at the top tax rate, but they don't pay it until they hit $150,000. Ours may only be 33, but it cuts in at $70,000. The USA's 35 cents cuts in at $372,951.

Yes that's ttrue .. but you also have to factor in the actual cost of living in money terms - which is generally higher in those countries ...

I.e. $1million here will buy more than $1million will there Sorry - $1million of our money herer will buy moere than $1million of there money will there .. or something like that

Sheesh .. I'm an argumentative anarchist - not an economist

[Big Dave]

Yes that's ttrue .. but you also have to factor in the actual cost of living in money terms - which is generally higher in those countries ...

I.e. $1million here will buy more than $1million will there Sorry - $1million of our money herer will buy moere than $1million of there money will there .. or something like that

Sheesh .. I'm an argumentative anarchist - not an economist

Cost of living is higher here than Aus. Except for Bananas. $16 a kilo.

[Swoop]

Shit .. our overseas debt has increased hugely And you worry about Labour borrowing ...

The amount that labour want to borrow is rather more than what the nats are borrowing. Be afraid.

Actually National have done a bloody awful job, or more accurately they haven't done anything beyond a few half arsed tax cuts, an increase in GST and borrow more money. They're idiots and probably the worst people to run NZ outside of a sheltered workshop.

With the economic climate over the past while, sweeping changes would naturally have to go on hold. Certainly cutting back on the excessive amounts of public "servants" that have balooned over the past years had to come and rightly so. Just a shame a few entire ministries didn't go as well...

If the piggy bank hadn't been broken open, and the savings spent, by cullen, then we would be far better off and not having to face the tribulations we currently are. Add in a disaster or two and "hey presto", welcome to an economic predicament.
Being led by labour and their green "friends" during this time is not a pretty thought.

[shrub]

The amount that labour want to borrow is rather more than what the nats are borrowing. Be afraid.

Nominally they will, yes, but its short term. Borrowing is perfectly OK as long as the productive capacity of the economy is growing relative to debt and that there is a strategy evident to achieve that. Both parties are a little mute in that regard, but at least Labour are trying to transfer money out of houses and into business.

With the economic climate over the past while, sweeping changes would naturally have to go on hold.

..

When you're faced with an unprecedented crisis it is often a good idea to make changes, and perhaps my use of the term sweeping verged on hyperbole, but we needed to do things differently because the environment we were operating in had changed. Using my beloved motorcycle analogies, if you are having a blast riding over Arthur's Pass in a spirited and enthusiastic manner and as you go over the top it's pissing down with rain you have to change the way you ride.

Certainly cutting back on the excessive amounts of public "servants" that have balooned over the past years had to come and rightly so. Just a shame a few entire ministries didn't go as well.

How do you define excessive? Were the numbers of mine inspectors prior to the last cuts to public servants excessive? People in Greymouth might not think so. And how do you know the numbers were excessive - because you have been told they were? Who told you? An independent analyst or the National Party spin doctors? And what ministries should have gone?

Seriously, I would like your answer to these questions and will take silence as an admission you don't have one.

[Swoop]

How do you define excessive? Who told you? An independent analyst or the National Party spin doctors?

If we appreciate the growth in the public servant's over the last few years and the overbearing amounts of beauracracy, a lot can be trimmed back.
http://www.psa.org.nz/images/publicservicenumbers.gif

As we can see the upswing has been rather large over the last 9 years. Nothing like job creation schemes on the taxpayer's purse.

As for getting rid of ministries we could start with the silly ones like "Disarmaments" and then proceed onto the race-based ones. Cutting the number of MP's would be rather useful as well...


Interestingly, a discussion at work was of the mind that in the days before we went towards the "OSH" approach, the Department of Labour appears to have been much more effective. Presumably mine inspectors would also fall into that category?

[shrub]

If we appreciate the growth in the public servant's over the last few years and the overbearing amounts of beauracracy, a lot can be trimmed back. As we can see the upswing has been rather large over the last 9 years. Nothing like job creation schemes on the taxpayer's purse.

I see. I take it your rationale for cutting the number of public servants is based on the fact that there are more than there were in 2000? Have you considered that in 2000 we might not have had enough?

As for getting rid of ministries we could start with the silly ones like "Disarmaments" and then proceed onto the race-based ones. Cutting the number of MP's would be rather useful as well...

Why do we need to get rid of them?

And why do we need less MPs? Let's look at similar sized countries:
Finland has 5.4m people and 200 MPs
Singapore, population just over 5m has 87 MPs, but having a landmass of 700 sq km against over 4m sq km for NZ might influence things
Norway, population about 5m has a unicameral parliament with 169 members
Ireland, population 4.5m has a bicameral parliament, the lower house has 166 members
Croatia has 4.3m people and 153 politicians
Lebanon has 4.2m people and 128 MPs.

Apart from Singapore, we have the smallest government of any country our size by quite a reasonable margin, so why should we have even less? Can you give me an argument supporting that position?

Interestingly, a discussion at work was of the mind that in the days before we went towards the "OSH" approach, the Department of Labour appears to have been much more effective. Presumably mine inspectors would also fall into that category?

Where do you work?

The Health and Safety in Employment Act of 1992 was introduced by the then (National) government as a strategy to reduce the Department of Labour monopoly and to introduce efficiencies by combining the roles of government departments as part of the drive to reduce the number of public servants. I agree, the old system did it's job better, but it was seen as being expensive to run and not as employer friendly as the HSE Act of 92. So it was changed.

And yes, the removal of mine inspectors and reducing the safety requirements for mine operators came about in that time period.

[Indiana_Jones]

We have 120 MPs, right?

Why is it an even number?

Surely a odd number makes sense lol

I mean you could have 60/60 votes? ? :/

-Indy

[superman]

How do you run a country with 0% tax rates ... you can't pay for the police force, the MPs (not a bad thing) ... the defence force ... prisons, the court system ...

It's a completely different country... just like 100% pure socialism/communism is where every dollar you earn is taken away and distributed evenly (that's the idea...)

You can't talk about police force/defence force in the same way you seem them now. Imagine everything privatised, and only when there is a need for a certain type of job will people pay for it. IE, private road workers, your road needs repairing just the locals might get together and decide to hire. You want rubbish collected you pay a rubbish collection company. You want your kids to go to school, you pay a school. The less money you have the worse the school. Etc, etc. That is 100% pure capitalism... and is about as good for society as 100% pure socialism. But that's the idea behind capitaist policies, that people spend their own money on what they want. And socialist policies spend everyones money on whatever the government/voters decide upon.

I quite like the Swiss model, you can make seek a binding referendum for ammendment of a policy if you collect over 100,000 signatures. And the government constantly holds referendums on important policies. So the people actually decide, not the person you voted in. In that way the majority of the population get to contol what happens to the majority of tax quite directly.

[Indiana_Jones]

I quite like the Swiss model, you can make seek a binding referendum for ammendment of a policy if you collect over 100,000 signatures. And the government constantly holds referendums on important policies. So the people actually decide, not the person you voted in. In that way the majority of the population get to contol what happens to the majority of tax quite directly.

+1

I like the sound of that system

-Indy

[oneofsix]

We have 120 MPs, right?

Why is it an even number?

Surely a odd number makes sense lol

I mean you could have 60/60 votes? ? :/

-Indy

Ok first you are talking about Government so nothing makes normal sense. 120 MPs actually results in the odd number you grave. One voting MP loses their normal right to vote because they become the speaker, they get the casting but not a normal vote.