Proposed tax cuts

[MisterD]

Watch what happens in 2008. Their Finance arm is already up for sale. More to come.

Well there's a reason why I'm no longer the Key Account Manager for one of their suppliers....

[Jantar]

Relative to most OECD countries, the level of labour productivity in New Zealand is low and, when measured as GDP per worker, the historic growth performance has also been relatively poor. The apparently poor performance is a key concern for policymakers and has attracted much research attention. ....

...Ah dontcha just love this country run by some of the world's greatest thinkers....

So how is it that New Zealanders working abroad are seen to have higher productivity than local workers?

It surely couldn't be that our best workers and more intelligent kiwis are the ones emigrating, uh could it?

[Ocean1]

Thank goodness. The old "two party - FPP" alternating dictatorship, was a complete joke.

As opposed to the current "2 party MMP" alternating dictatorship hilarity?

[Coyote]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4328965a10.html

I was in a sad hysterical laughter when I read:

The custom-made BMW 730Ld costs at least $100,000 more than three models bought and trialled by Internal Affairs this year - the $70,000 Chrysler 300 CRD, the $76,000 Peugeot 607 and the $60,000 Skoda Superb. They failed the VIP test, which included exiting in an "elegant way".

My god, and that's not party specific, that's all the MP's. Were doomed no matter who we vote for.

That's it, I'm off to Italy.

[ManDownUnder]

Got a name for your party then?

No - politics doesn't pay enough - another reason why egos are doing it rather than anyone with actual talent

Why less money for prisons, but more for cops? I wouldn't imagine the police would be too keen on prisons getting less, it's more work for them when those prisoners they can't fit into a cell are released instead.

More money for cops = better equipped, more attractive job and better able to catch the little bastards

Less money for prisons = make it less comfy for them when they arrive in their cell. Poor babys might have to spend a year or three sleeping on the floor and give up their ham and roasts for Christmas and Sundays etc... I'd like prison to be a place they don't want to go back to (and with boosted cop numbers getting caught is easier so... DON'T DO THE FUCKEN CRIME)

I'm not too sure about the dole. My family went through rough times, my Dad was made redundant, the government cut out giving money to struggling families when I was born and my mum was paying the government back 120% of her wages since of some flaw in the system. Money for the dole shouldn't be cut, instead they should run the system better and make sure they use the money right which will end up in them spending less anyway. And they should search the houses of long term dole users for hydrophonic equipment.

Those in need get helped for sure. Those that are just milking the system can also get fucked. Put 'em all in the army for an extended boot camp. Make it hard work, give them discipline and send them out looking for work.

They do menial work till they find a job they want... and they get boot camp refreshers every 6 months to keep discipline and discomfort levels up

[Swoop]

As opposed to the current "2 party MMP" alternating dictatorship hilarity?

Two party??

"labour" = <-- those nutters + Maori party + Lunatic fringe (greens) + Winston's mob.
Does that make "one party"?

At least there is some semblance of having to work as a group. With FPP there would just be the loonies of one party (labour) currently in power... with even MORE power to do whatever they felt like...

[Ocean1]

Two party??

"labour" = <-- those nutters + Maori party + Lunatic fringe (greens) + Winston's mob.
Does that make "one party"?

Effectively, yes. One we didn't vote for.

At least there is some semblance of having to work as a group. With FPP there would just be the loonies of one party (labour) currently in power... with even MORE power to do whatever they felt like...

This is a bad thing?

The major parties never surrender control of key policies, they trade minor concessions in unimportant areas for support on the issues they were always going to dominate anyway.

I get sick of people bitching about how FPP sometimes meant we got an administration that less than half of the population voted for. The fact is such a government got a simple majority of votes. I can't see that as inherently undemocratic or even unfair let alone see how including those entities who got the least votes into government fixes it.

What it does do is accentuate a trend towards focusing every portfolio budget towards buying the next election, rather than any investment in infrastructure or long-term policies which might support growth.

[Swoop]

This is a bad thing?

Absolutely not! Politicians co-operating, rather than dictating, is a fine thing indeed!

The major parties never surrender control of key policies, they trade minor concessions in unimportant areas for support on the issues they were always going to dominate anyway.

Do concessions include "baubles"?

[Jantar]

... The fact is such a government got a simple majority of votes. I can't see that as inherently undemocratic or even unfair let alone see how including those entities who got the least votes into government fixes it.....

Not quite. There are at least two elections under FPP where the party with the simple majority of votes did not become the government. I believe that in at least one of these cases the unsuccessful party actually polled over 50% of the popular vote. That is one of the main arguments in favour of proportional representation. MMP is possibly the worst option of all proportional models, and that is possibly that the reason it was put forward. The major parties hoped that everyone would see how bad it was and want to go back to FPP.

MMP wasn't the only option though, remember a complicated two-part poll, voters were asked whether they wanted to change the existing voting system and then to indicate support for one of four reform options: mixed member proportional representation (MMP), the single transferable vote (STV), supplementary member (SM) or preferential vote (PV)? My choice at the time would have been in the order of PV, STV, SM, MMP and FPP last.

[ManDownUnder]

Absolutely not! Politicians co-operating, rather than dictating, is a fine thing indeed!

It would be assuming co-operation is what's going on.

Horse trading is closer

[Ocean1]

Absolutely not! Politicians co-operating, rather than dictating, is a fine thing indeed!

I was refering to the effect MMP has of hamstringing any non-outright majority government wrt long term initiatives.

Do concessions include "baubles"?

Like new BMW730s?

[Coldrider]

So how is it that New Zealanders working abroad are seen to have higher productivity than local workers?

It surely couldn't be that our best workers and more intelligent kiwis are the ones emigrating, uh could it?

Probably it is not the productivity per individual, but the outputs per person is low, our manufacturing & service base is manual & not highly automated, and not high speed, (these are also barriers to entry, financially).

[Ocean1]

Not quite. There are at least two elections under FPP where the party with the simple majority of votes did not become the government. I believe that in at least one of these cases the unsuccessful party actually polled over 50% of the popular vote. That is one of the main arguments in favour of proportional representation. MMP is possibly the worst option of all proportional models, and that is possibly that the reason it was put forward. The major parties hoped that everyone would see how bad it was and want to go back to FPP.

MMP wasn't the only option though, remember a complicated two-part poll, voters were asked whether they wanted to change the existing voting system and then to indicate support for one of four reform options: mixed member proportional representation (MMP), the single transferable vote (STV), supplementary member (SM) or preferential vote (PV)? My choice at the time would have been in the order of PV, STV, SM, MMP and FPP last.

You're right, happened twice iirc.

And I also was suspicious of alterior motives wrt the poll.

Your preferences aren't substantially different from mine, except for the last two. My discomfort comes from the fact that inevitably MMP means narrow-focus interest groups end up well over-represented.

Given me druthers the one thing I'd like is a method of declaring actual resource assignments. A simple common description showing how a party would budget different sectors and a method of enforcing compliance to that, should they be successful. I know, I know, pipe dream.

I just get sick of the simplistic manipulation, the downright lies and the blatant bribes.

[Hitcher]

It's an obsession with "fairness" that has led to the demise of a perfectly good electoral system in the form of FPP. A country is divided into a number of electorates of approximately the same population number, candidates stand, the one with the most votes wins. The party with the most seats gets to form a government (or a coalition, depending on how many seats other parties won). If more people vote for an unsuccessful party than the one that won, then that is their tough shit. It happens. Get over it.

Under MMP the electorate gets held to ransom by single issue, uninformed, loonies, and run by a government that nobody voted for (given that a coalition is inevitable and key manifesto issues are traded in order to form a workable arrangement). Is that "democratic" or even "representative"? I think not.

[homer]

I still want to know a very simple question .....


Where di dthe whole tax cut idea actually come from ....

did anyone out there actually start voicing for a tax cut or was it actually just the politicians that spoke about a tax cut in the first place

So when we heard about it then we all are expecting it ,When im guessing no one actually wanted one in the first place .