Cunliffe's constituent Liu?

[Ocean1]

The commerce commission and serious fraud office, like all government departments don't do their job effectively because they would require an endless supply of resources to do it properly and they have interference from their political overlords.

Righto.

Explain to me how the fuck they would function in your fantasy lala land of limited taxes?

All tax is limited. Limited by the ability of it's supplier to provide it.

I have no problem with corporate tax, but like personal tax it's a bit counterproductive to prune the fucking apple tree at ground level, innit?

Like ever other parasitic component of govt compliance there is a point at which more is less. Currently a lot of industries can't afford the taxes they'd have to pay, so there's no business in those industries. No tax either.

Don't it make more sense to tax at a rate that sees some growth, instead of complete redundancy?

According to free market dogma, we need LESS REGULATION and can TRUST businesses to do the right thing... what your saying is the opposite and goes against the main driver in markets - SELF INTEREST.

What do you think allows businesses to corner a market, or otherwise behave in an anti-competitive manner?

It's sure as fuck not a free market, we don't have anything remotely like a free market.

It's LACK of freedom that produces parasitic commercial behaviour.

[mada]

Allow me to remove one of the crutches your world view relies on: There are no classes. Working class = those that work. By definition those that don't provide anything others want are neither workers or working class.

And I wasn't suggesting tax was the reason workers left, I was pointing out that NZ could make a fucking sight more out of it's productive workers by providing an environment that supports them. Which means an environment that supports business.

Unless you've ever managed a business you have no fucking idea how unfriendly to business NZ is. Most countries treat their businesses as what they are: the source of revenue that drives the whole economy.

Oh, and your "working" and "middle" "classes" have never had it so good, the most productive 20% in the country significantly subsidise them.



So which is it, NZ has invested in those qualifications by way of cheap loans and it turns out the investment wasn't worth it, or the students have invested in their own education, taking advantage of cheap loans and now find it wasn't such a great investment?

See, you can't separate the cost from the return. Doesn't work. Literally.
And why is either of those

How do they provide such an environment? Go back to the good old days of protectionism, subsidies, hand outs? A stronger government oversight of businesses and more auditing by IRD, Commerce Commission (requiring more taxes to pay for investigators, govt. staff) to ensure compliance?? Lower regulation and give them trust - trust them not to fuck us over like the Leaky Housing Crisis, Finance Companies etc etc?

All my partners family members run and operate small businesses. I'm well aware of the struggles they have and face - working 12 hours a day etc. They will not be affected by a top bracket increase.

Part of the problem is many (not all) NZ employers themselves who undermine their own workers productivity by having shit work environments and doing things as cheap as possible eg. hiring cheaper and more desperate workers from overseas who will work in crapper conditions (in many occasions not even being paid above minimum wage).

Your comment that the bottom and middle class have never had it better is a load of shit. In the past (70s - 80s) we had better social mobility, there was less of a difference between the poor and rich, housing ownership was high - even for families on low wages with only one income earner. Low and fucking behold, INCOME TAX was bloody high too.

Most the problems our society face stem from the rightwing idea that "GREED IS GOOD". It's fucking not. People see shitloads of greedy cunts at the top of society - Lawyers, Accountants, Politicians, CEOs, Bankers, ripping society off, ripping off elderly investors, ripping off consumers, ripping off the taxpayer, whoever. This is the only time the "TRICKLE DOWN" works - the result shitloads of everyone saying fuck it, why not lets just make a P-lab and get rich over night, builders saying fuck it why not rip off EQC, people saying why not commit insurance fraud.

I don't think you quite get the point I was making with Student Loans and Interest. If you want cheap health care in your old age, it makes sense to try and retain the medical students you are investing millions into by not placing excessive debt (and in particular high interest) on them when you cannot pay them high enough wages for them to effectively repay such debts. The interest on todays current cost of a medical degree ($90,000 + compounded interest of 6% over six years if ACT get in) would probably only amount to approximately $10,000 - $15,000 per annum - while a first year house officer would earn $70,000 - $80,000 per annum from working 70 - 80 hours a week. I guess the government could look at your analysis and stop training doctors altogether, or students could just stop studying medicine. Or we could just restrict medicine for rich people who are motivated by money only? That way we could have a doctors shortage potentially 75% worse than present (given 25% of doctors currently head off overseas). We could always privatise and make the whole of health a nice big market I guess, where those lucky enough to get entry into the work can charge as much as we want for our services? Then you could experience things like the States where most can't even afford health care and the health care provided actually ends up being substandard to most other western countries - I recall a labourer who needed two of his fingers reattached in the states could only pay get one done as he could not stump up $12,000 for each finger. Seems like a good system to me.

[mada]

Righto.



All tax is limited. Limited by the ability of it's supplier to provide it.

I have no problem with corporate tax, but like personal tax it's a bit counterproductive to prune the fucking apple tree at ground level, innit?

Like ever other parasitic component of govt compliance there is a point at which more is less. Currently a lot of industries can't afford the taxes they'd have to pay, so there's no business in those industries. No tax either.

Don't it make more sense to tax at a rate that sees some growth, instead of complete redundancy?




What do you think allows businesses to corner a market, or otherwise behave in an anti-competitive manner?

It's sure as fuck not a free market, we don't have anything remotely like a free market.

It's LACK of freedom that produces parasitic commercial behaviour.

Like I said before, free markets = great theory, just like socialism. But impractical, especially in NZ which is a small country isolated in the Pacific. In ten years time if the Neo-Libs continue to dominate politics, we'll hear cries from multi-million dollar earning CEO's that taxes of 10 - 15% are just too damn high and restricting growth.

The root causes of restricted growth = the greed mentality, and the constant focus of pouring bucket loads of money into property speculation, and the debt industry. It's not hard to see how if houses were as cheap as chips the economy would be better performing: people would have more money to spend = more money in the pockets of businesses, people would be able to survive on lower wages = more money for businesses, etc. etc. The same is for student debts - if these were reduced there would be more money available for businesses.

The problem hasn't been taxes, they have decreased significantly and substantially over the last 30 years.

[mada]

Remember the brain drain eh?

Brain drain blamed on student loans

22 SEPTEMBER 2000

New Zealand's student loan system is driving graduates overseas, with the number of borrowers leaving the country almost doubling in just one year.

The exodus is causing difficulties in collecting debt repayments, as graduates living overseas are harder to track down, and has left New Zealand with a skills shortage.

Michael Cullen, New Zealand's minister of finance, has revealed that 10,344 former students absent from New Zealand owed NZ$135.9 million (Pounds 41 million) as at April, compared with 5,942 who owed NZ$71.2 million a year earlier.

In a separate report, the conservative opposition party, ACT, said that 9,562 qualified people had fled New Zealand since the November election, costing the economy NZ$969.5 million in lost income and education and training bills. Critics are blaming the student loan scheme for the brain drain.

Student organisations say user-pays education is forcing graduates to chase higher wages in countries such as Australia, Britain and the United States to pay off their debts, particularly as the New Zealand dollar has fallen to new lows.

The average student loan is worth NZ$12,413 - more than three times higher than when the loan scheme began in 1993 - and the average woman with a bachelor's degree will take 28 years to pay off her tertiary debts.

Sam Huggard, co-president of the New Zealand University Students Association, said that the loan scheme should be scrapped. "People are going overseas to earn higher wages as it is much quicker (for them) to pay off their student loans than if they stay here."

ACT party researcher Grant McLachlan said professionals were leaving because they could not pay off their student loans if they stayed, following a hike in personal tax rates from 33 to 39 per cent on incomes over NZ$60,000.

Mr McLachlan said the loan scheme should stay, so long as the rest of the economic environment encouraged graduates to remain in New Zealand.

"It is now increasingly difficult for employers to find the skilled workers they need. Vacant positions are often filled with inexperienced people," he said.

The findings come as a parliamentary select committee investigates loan scheme changes this year that have wiped the 7 per cent interest rate and raised the income threshold from NZ$12,000 to NZ$24,000 before graduates must pay back their debts.

Concern is rising over the national debt mounting from the scheme. In June, the auditor-general said students would owe an estimated NZ$20 billion by 2024, and many would die from old age before paying off their debts.

Tertiary fees will be frozen next year for the first time in the history of user-pays.

The solution is not to become more market based either - look at the states and their college debt problem if you think it is.

[bogan]

The root causes of restricted growth = the greed mentality, and the constant focus of pouring bucket loads of money into property speculation, and the debt industry. It's not hard to see how if houses were as cheap as chips the economy would be better performing: people would have more money to spend = more money in the pockets of businesses, people would be able to survive on lower wages = more money for businesses, etc. etc. The same is for student debts - if these were reduced there would be more money available for businesses.

Well where would you save on housing prices? Can't imagine the builder would be too happy if they got paid less, or that the owners would be too happy if shit got half-assed.

Yeh the same is true for student debt, the same is true for any debt, or any cost; give people money and they will spend it. But that doesn't mean the solution to get people spending is to just give them money, get people working, productive, so they earn the extra money to spend, lift the whole country's GDP up.

[mada]

Well where would you save on housing prices? Can't imagine the builder would be too happy if they got paid less, or that the owners would be too happy if shit got half-assed.

Yeh the same is true for student debt, the same is true for any debt, or any cost; give people money and they will spend it. But that doesn't mean the solution to get people spending is to just give them money, get people working, productive, so they earn the extra money to spend, lift the whole country's GDP up.

So in the scenario I provided with medical graduates, the solution is for doctors to just double their productivity by doubling their working week? How keen would you be to have an operation and consultation with someone who has worked 140 hours a week?

[bogan]

So in the scenario I provided with medical graduates, the solution is for doctors to just double their productivity by doubling their working week? How keen would you be to have an operation and consultation with someone who has worked 140 hours a week?

That scenario addresses none of my points, unless the med grad moonlights as a builder? Try again.

[mada]

That scenario addresses none of my points, unless the med grad moonlights as a builder? Try again.

Govts. have had mass housing building programs in the past - in NZ from the 40s - 50s after the War and also during the great depression - 30s. That resulted in families actually being able to have a house they could afford. The builders weren't ripped off, they were paid their fair share and worth. A significant amount of these houses remain in our housing stock and their building standard is not considered to be shit - don't have to worry about leaky building syndrome with them. Govt's have the power to override councils on all the development fees charged by them etc. They could cut out the middle men developers. However a project like that would result in potential losses for banks (due to lower borrowing for mortgages) and property investors (due to house prices falling).. thats why nothing will ever happen these groups are powerful lobbies, and most politicians are property investors themselves.

Arguably you could apply your same argument to businesses and people on higher incomes that demand lower taxes.... that they don't need more money to spend via lower taxes (afterall taxes have never been so low before) that they need to work more productively and need to earn more if they are having problems buying the latest audi.

[bogan]

Govts. have had mass housing building programs in the past - in NZ from the 40s - 50s after the War and also during the great depression - 30s. That resulted in families actually being able to have a house they could afford. The builders weren't ripped off, they were paid their fair share and worth. A significant amount of these houses remain in our housing stock and their building standard is not considered to be shit - don't have to worry about leaky building syndrome with them. Govt's have the power to override councils on all the development fees charged by them etc. They could cut out the middle men developers. However a project like that would result in potential losses for banks (due to lower borrowing for mortgages) and property investors (due to house prices falling).. thats why nothing will ever happen these groups are powerful lobbies, and most politicians are property investors themselves.

Arguably you could apply your same argument to businesses and people on higher incomes that demand lower taxes.... that they don't need more money to spend via lower taxes (afterall taxes have never been so low before) that they need to work more productively and need to earn more if they are having problems buying the latest audi.

Just how unaffordable is housing now? Seems everyone i know who works is buying houses or able; ie, what are percentage of income for how many years would go on house payments then and now. I'm skeptical that all those groups contribute so detrimentally.

Indeed, in either case the govt giving them breaks/handouts purely so they have more money to spend is a shit idea. However giving breaks which increase our gdp allows them to create wealth, which can then be spent.

[mada]

Just how unaffordable is housing now? Seems everyone i know who works is buying houses or able; ie, what are percentage of income for how many years would go on house payments then and now. I'm skeptical that all those groups contribute so detrimentally.

Indeed, in either case the govt giving them breaks/handouts purely so they have more money to spend is a shit idea. However giving breaks which increase our gdp allows them to create wealth, which can then be spent.

All the facts and figures show compared to post 30s onwards, now more than ever our income:house price ratio is most distorted and with prices at their highest. Now more than ever home ownership is at its lowest. Now more than ever more income is being spent on paying off mortgages - and in recent times student loans then mortgages.

And sure some places may have cheap and affordable houses, but no fucking work nearby. I take my hat off to someone who moves to Murupara and can find a job.

You do realise that the government partly subsidises qualifications in NZ? When people with a NZ qualification go overseas we LOSE the productivity that they and that training could have contributed to NZ and LOSE what we invested.

That's why I specifically bought up doctors. We lose out economically and GDP wise - as we end up with shortages and then expensive short term fixes such as bringing in expensive specialists from overseas. Graduating doctors don't give a toss if their income at 150,000+ is taxed 3% higher. It will take them 4 - 5 years before they even earn that. But they do care about 6% interest every year for as long as the loan exists on a $100,000 loan. As I've pointed out, its not realistic that they can just "work harder" to "earn more".

[bogan]

All the facts and figures show compared to post 30s onwards, now more than ever our income:house price ratio is most distorted and with prices at their highest. Now more than ever home ownership is at its lowest. Now more than ever more income is being spent on paying off mortgages - and in recent times student loans then mortgages.

You do realise that the government partly subsidises qualifications in NZ? When people with a NZ qualification go overseas we LOSE the productivity that they and that training could have contributed to NZ and LOSE what we invested.

That's why I specifically bought up doctors. We lose out economically and GDP wise - as we end up with shortages and then expensive short term fixes such as bringing in expensive specialists from overseas. Graduating doctors don't give a toss if their income at 150,000+ is taxed 3% higher. It will take them 4 - 5 years before they even earn that. But they do care about 6% interest every year for as long as the loan exists on a $100,000 loan. As I've pointed out, its not realistic that they can just "work harder" to "earn more".

Can you post some of those facts and figures?

I know, surely the solution is to bring our economy up enough to remove the financial incentive for them to go overseas though?

Loan interest is written off as long as they stay in nz. What exactly is your point?

[mada]

Also, regarding your comment most people are able to get now...

From the 2000s onwards the banks significantly lowered their thresholds for mortgages. Hence the increase over the years in mortgagee sales and only this year a tightening up by the Reserve Bank which has affected many first home buyers.

[mada]

Can you post some of those facts and figures?

I know, surely the solution is to bring our economy up enough to remove the financial incentive for them to go overseas though?

Loan interest is written off as long as they stay in nz. What exactly is your point?

HOUSING OWNERSHIP:

"Home ownership peaked in the late 1980s / early 1990s with nearly 75% of households owning the home they lived in. By 2010 this had fallen to around 65%, split evenly between those living in homes with and without mortgages respectively. With rapidly rising house prices during the 2000s and relatively stable rent, the proportion of household living in private rental accommodation increased substantially from the late 1990s to 2010."

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publicat...3/13-14/05.htm

"The data on home ownership by households shows that 64.8 percent of households owned their home or held it in a family trust in 2013, down from 66.9 percent in 2006. This includes households who made mortgage payments and households who did not.
The percentage of households who owned their home, excluding those whose home was in a family trust, was 49.9 percent in 2013, down from 54.5 percent in 2006.

Of those households who owned their home and specified whether they made mortgage payments, 56.4 percent (398,373 households) made mortgage payments in 2013. This was very similar to 2006 (56.5 percent or 405,267 households)."


"Over 1 in 3 households do not own their home
In 2013, 35.2 percent of households did not own their home, up from 33.1 percent in 2006. Most of these households were renting (453,135 households). There were 53,889 households living rent-free, and a small number of households who did not indicate whether they were paying rent.
The regions with the highest percentages of households who did not own their home were:
� Gisborne � 40.8 percent
� Auckland � 38.5 percent"

"The data on home ownership by individuals showed that the percentage who owned their home fell to just under half. In 2013, 49.8 percent of people aged 15 years and over owned or partly owned the home they lived in, compared with 53.2 percent in 2006.
Home ownership was highest for those aged 70�74 years, at 77.5 percent.

A drop in home ownership occurred across all age groups, from those in their 20s to those in their 70s. The largest falls were for those in their 30s and 40s. In 2013, 43.0 percent of people aged 30�39 years owned their home � down from 54.6 percent in 2001. For those in their 40s, 60.8 percent owned their home in 2013, down from 71.5 percent in 2001."

Increase in dwellings with no heating
Private dwellings in which no heating fuels were ever used increased 35.1 percent. In 2013, 44,832 private dwellings never used heating fuels, making up 3.0 percent of occupied private dwellings. In 2006, there were 33,177 of these dwellings, making up 2.4 percent of occupied private dwellings.
Every region in New Zealand had dwellings in which no heating fuels were used, but the highest percentages were in the Auckland (5.9 percent) and Northland (5.3 percent) regions.
The Auckland local board areas with the highest percentages of dwellings that never used heating fuels were:
� Waitemata � 15.8 percent or 4,671 dwellings
� Mangere-Otahuhu � 12.3 percent or 1,851 dwellings
� Otara-Papatoetoe � 10.6 percent or 1,863 dwellings.

Source: NZ STATS 2013 CENSUS


MORTGAGES:

It now takes 63.1% of one median income to pay the mortgage on a median priced house purchased in May, up from April�s 62.5 %(r). A typical buyer is assumed to be in the 30-34 age group.

This index was 56.6% a year ago and 55.8% five years ago. The affordability index reached its highest point of 83.4% in March 2008.

Essentially the median income for the typical buyer is not high enough to buy a median priced house, even with a 20% deposit. However, they may find the lower-quartile priced house is affordable (check our first-home buyer series). It is also true that a couple/family with more than one income may find the median house price is affordable. (Check household income section below).

http://www.interest.co.nz/property/h...-affordability

Affordability was the hardest for first home buyers on the North Shore in Auckland, where the Roost reports estimated a single first home buyer would have to spend almost 95% of their after-tax income on servicing their mortgage, even with a 20% deposit.

Affordability for regular home buyers and first home buyers worsened across most of the country and remains at its toughest in the biggest cities of Auckland, Christchurch and Wellington, where housing supply shortages and a fall in fixed mortgage rates over the last year have heated up the housing market.

Life looks set to get even tougher for first home buyers in the big cities in coming months if, as expected, the Reserve Bank puts �speed limits� on low deposit home loans. The government is pushing for some sort of exemption for first home buyers, but the Reserve Bank is determined to slow riskier lending growth. About a third of mortgages with deposits of less than 20% are to first home buyers

http://www.roost.co.nz/uncategorized...bility-report/

RBNZ on potential causes:

Between 2000 and 2007 house prices in New Zealand more than doubled, and household indebtedness increased from 100 to 150 percent of household disposable income.

the terms and conditions of mortgages were significantly relaxed after the banking sector was deregulated in the 1980s, and mortgage finance became substantially easier to obtain. The amount a young household can borrow has increased by more than 100 percent in real terms since 1990. Second, there has been a four-fold expansion of mortgage debt in New Zealand, from $30 billion at the end of 1993 to $120 billion by 2005. Last, New Zealand house prices have increased substantially, by 166 percent between 1993 and 2005, or by 106 percent more than the increase in the consumer price index (see figure 1). Increases in house prices and mortgage debt of this size are unprecedented in New Zealand.

The relaxation in mortgage conditions that occurred after 1990 has two separate causes. Prior to 1984, the New Zealand mortgage market was heavily regulated and access to bank mortgage finance was limited. These mortgages were subject to fairly stringent terms and conditions, including conservative restrictions on the loan-to-value ratio (the ratio of mortgage loan to property value) and the mortgage-repayment-to-income ratio (the ratio of the mortgage repayment obligation to gross income). After the sector was deregulated during the 1980s, new types of mortgages such as revolving credit mortgages with more flexible terms were introduced. In the 1990s commercial banks further relaxed the terms of their mortgages in an effort to increase their exposure to the residential mortgage market, enabling some classes of borrowers to substantially increase the amount they could borrow. The decline in the inflation rate that has occurred since 1990 has also allowed previously constrained borrowers to borrow more."

"When credit constraints are tight, many young households have to delay their purchase of a first house, or of a larger second house, as they cannot borrow enough � or, more precisely, given the limited amount they can borrow, the sacrifice in terms of current consumption is too great. The homes they don�t purchase are not empty, of course, but owned by investors or older households who are less affected by borrowing constraints. Consequently, the effect of credit constraints on property prices depends on the willingness of older generations to buy large houses or rental properties.

http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research_and...07/dp07_11.pdf


The point? The data clearly shows that younger people are less and less likely to be able to afford their own houses and need to spend more and more on buying a house. This means a significant loss from potential consumption in goods from them.

The point of interest on loans? ACT want to bring back the interest on student loans and have been highlighting it as one of their key election policies this year.

http://www.act.org.nz/?q=policies




National have disdain for keeping such loans interest free and previously said they would scrap them. If they get a third term government they will have no qualms about bringing it back.


John Key

"If we add interest back on the student loans, it doubles repayment time of the loan. If your loan is $50,000, and it's estimated it will take you eight years to pay it off, we effectively turn it into a loan that is about $90,000 with interest that takes you about 15 years to repay."

http://www.3news.co.nz/Key-slams-int...#ixzz3689I6fkq

How nice of the hypocritical motherfucker considering he got a free fully paid for tertiary education on the taxpayers titty and then turned around making millions off devaluing our currency. I'm sure he would be willing to pay 6% interest per annum on the cost of his own degree from the 80s?



The point: Do we want a repeat of the fucking brain drain, where we lost many of our young graduates and skilled workers due to high costs of student loans, but specifically the interest on them??? Do we want to significantly lower those rates of home ownership even more??? Do we want to have even more GDP lost to debt-servicing?

[oldrider]

You have just listened to a party political broadcast by the left wing coalition party representative on KB.

[bogan]

The point? The data clearly shows that younger people are less and less likely to be able to afford their own houses and need to spend more and more on buying a house. This means a significant loss from potential consumption in goods from them.

The point of interest on loans? ACT want to bring back the interest on student loans and have been highlighting it as one of their key election policies this year.

http://www.act.org.nz/?q=policies




National have disdain for keeping such loans interest free and previously said they would scrap them. If they get a third term government they will have no qualms about bringing it back.


John Key

http://www.3news.co.nz/Key-slams-int...#ixzz3689I6fkq

How nice of the hypocritical motherfucker considering he got a free fully paid for tertiary education on the taxpayers titty and then turned around making millions off devaluing our currency. I'm sure he would be willing to pay 6% interest per annum on the cost of his own degree from the 80s?



The point: Do we want a repeat of the fucking brain drain, where we lost many of our young graduates and skilled workers due to high costs of student loans, but specifically the interest on them??? Do we want to significantly lower those rates of home ownership even more??? Do we want to have even more GDP lost to debt-servicing?

Firstly, ownership numbers do not necessarily reflect affordability; so I'm still waiting on how much of a median income it took way back when. But in more recent times it seems the main cause is that its now easier to get a mortgage? Not really sure that you can put that one all on the banks there bud, anyone is still perfectly capable of waiting until they had a larger deposit like you had to in the old days and not having as long to pay of the mortgage; and of course there is still the elephant in the room, which is property prices, more people = less land to go around = dearer land/mortgages (unless that has been separated in the above?).

Yeh, well act can fuck right off with that idea then.

Might be the wrong link there, as it says JK will not be scrapping interest free student loans; and it is from 2012...

The answer: is still not to just give those people money to service their debt, to own more homes, for the simple obvious fact, that money does not grow on trees; and anywhere I can think of taking it from will hurt the GDP much much more. Unless you are another overpriced hammer salesman?