This is a Guest Post from occasional blog commenter Peter
Like many others I found myself rather depressed as a result of reading through the Government Policy Statement (GPS), which has been out for consultation over the past couple of weeks. As admin’s excellent submission pointed out, there’s a giant credibility gap between the overall desire for transport investment to boost productivity and economic growth – and the actual funding priorities. It’s surely just common sense to spend your money on areas where demand is growing, not falling, if you are keen on ensuring that money is well spent. Empty motorways and overflowing buses & trains seems in nobody’s best interests. Except for truckies, perhaps.
With the government having such a contradictory and illogical transport policy, wasting billions of dollars over the next decade, I must say how surprised I have been to see how little reaction this has got. Gareth Hughes from the Green Party has done a couple of clever posts – but sometimes I think having the Green Party being on the same side as you can be more trouble than it’s worth: as their ‘wacky’ image inevitably taints their more sensible policies. Meanwhile, Labour have generally been pretty quiet – aside from transport spokesman Shane Jones bizarrely calling for more support of ‘public sector transport’ in his Radio NZ interview. Aside from that, Labour seem more keen on sleepwalking to a massive electoral defeat by refusing to look at ways of reducing the budget deficit.
It is all rather depressing when one considers there’s an election later this year: on November 26 in fact. Unless something massive happens it seems inevitable that we’re going to be stuck with contradictory and illogical transport policy for another three years. The very voters that supported Len Brown and his rail-based vision for Auckland seem likely to, in November, vote in a National-led government that will do its best to undermine that very same vision. It’s truly bizarre.
It’s a hard pick judging who to vote for, if one is coming at it from a transport perspective. Traditionally the Green Party has had the more balanced and sustainable transport policies: they’ve done some good hard work over the past few months collecting signatures for the CBD Rail Loop – but they really need to ditch many of their “we’re more Labour than Labour” policies, along with their downright wacky image if they’re ever going to get more than 8% of the vote. One also feels that, aside from ensuring the Green Party gets to 5% and remains in parliament, there’s little real difference in which way you vote between the Greens and Labour – as it’s not going to make the slightest difference to who forms the next government.
Turning to Labour, it would appear as though their transport policies have significantly improved over the past few years. It wasn’t so long ago that Michael Cullen was rolling out the good old “but buses need roads too” sop, now heartily adopted by Steven Joyce and Bill English. But I think Labour learned from the 2008 petrol price spike, the boom in public transport patronage in the last few years, and the massive support Len Brown got for his rail plans. They now seem to strongly oppose the holiday highway and strongly support the CBD Loop. It’s just a shame that they seem so damn useless at getting that message out, and so damn useless at being a decent opposition providing an alternative vision for the country.
All of which plays into National’s hands quite nicely. If one is concerned about having a competent (at least on the surface) government that does seem to be worried about our mounting debt, actually has an economic plan (or at least seems like it does) then the idea of taking the ‘sensible’ option and voting for them seems logical. This is why their completely illogical and contradictory transport policy really sticks in the throat. Why would a government so seemingly obsessed about getting ‘value for money’ in all other parts of public spending be proceeding so recklessly with massive spend-ups on uneconomic motorway projects?
I was going to express some hope that ACT would at least adopt a ‘market led’ approach to transport: which would probably include tolling, road pricing, the removal of parking regulation (which is a giant subsidy to car drivers) and much greater care with transport spending in general. But then I read a Don Brash speech about transport a few years ago: where he does nothing but argue for more spending on motorways. So they’re out the window too.
Perhaps in the end it is necessary for a centrist, who wants smarter and more logical transport policy, to abstain from voting altogether – on the grounds of general uselessness from all parties concerned. On the bright side there’s six months for someone to change my mind.
Processing...
Personally, I’ll probably be voting for the Greens. They seem to have the best transport policies.
I would hope a big part of the campaigning for the Greens and Labour in Auckland would be around transport, and how they are pro public transport, whilst National are all motorways. A lot of potential votes there I would think…
The big problem I think a lot of voters have is that transport is just one issue, they might agree with National in many areas and disagree with them on transport but at the end of the day transport is only one part of the equation (I know it is hard for some of us to remember)
Personally I don’t like the Greens social policies and I know a lot of other people who feel the same way, if they just stood on issues like having a better environment, better transport etc then I know a lot would probably consider them. They may be helped by the Mana party as that would help them look less leftish. About the only thing I know is I am going to struggle to decide on who to vote for as so far all parties have things about them that really turn me off.
You keep saying “wacky” as if it meant something, rather than just a buzzword for “stuff I don’t like”.
That’s a bit harsh Doloras. I agree with a lot of what the Green Party says – the problem is that the vast majority of the country doesn’t. That’s what I mean by wacky, in the same way that ACT is wacky. Both parties find themselves on political extremes and, frankly, I don’t think the Green Party really has an excuse or reason for it.
Their voters tend to be well educated urban liberals, not hippy unionists. So why such a strong hippy unionist focus to their policies and personnel? Thankfully the personnel is changing – let’s hope the policies do too.
she is not being the least bit harsh. you are doing plenty of name calling but you fail to say what it is about Green policy that is “wacky”. unfortunately, the standard of this particular guest post is disappointingly low. Matt’s comments below are much more informative.
I also agree that Greens would be more attractive if they just stuck to “Green” issues (environment, food, climate sort of stuff) and avoided voicing an opinion on anything else (legal marijuana, maori issues, sexual orientation, industrial relations, etc). Just look at the clutter on their own website
http://www.greens.org.nz/policy2
ACT certainly supports tolling
http://www.act.org.nz/infrastructure-policy
National are the wacky party to me. ACT is just there to make National look slightly less wacky, but I’m not fooled. (But it seems the average NZer is fooled and will vote National against their own interests)
Labour is just absent from this or anything. Labour’s only asset is that they aren’t National.
The Greens have policies (rather than the National’s favours it owes its friends). The Greens have progressive transport policies. They may have a bit too much of the social scientists about them sometimes, but I’d rather hold my nose when the incense smelling hippie parts of the organisation, pat them on the head and still vote for them. They have progressive transport policies.
So National to me is :
giving us the biggest deficits ever seen in NZ – which means they are economic mismanagers
seeing record numbers of NZers heading to Australia
condemning NZers to early deaths through postponing compliance with air quality standards – ignoring scientific evidence and not giving a shit about health costs and social justice around pollution issues
building unnecessary and costly roads – due to their ideological bent
not supporting the Auckland CBD loop – again due to their ideological bent
interfering in the school curriculum with national standard testing- thinking they know better than teachers when it comes to teaching kids – again due to their ideology
not funding active transport in any meaningful way
they raised the GST – ask small businesses what that did for their bottom line?
putting more cow shit in the rivers
So why would anyone, trucking magnates excepted, vote for them at all?
The argument that voting Green makes no difference over voting Labour is, frankly, ridiculous. Without the Greens to call out the government about their rubbish, Labour wouldn’t even have the rubber spine they have at the moment. Smaller parties aren’t just “failed big parties”. They serve important other functions. Strange that after quite a bit of MMP, too many, including the writer of this guest post, don’t seem to get.
As for proposing to NOT vote. Yeah, right. Sit and watch TV while Rome burns, anyone? I have more respect for the most hardlined Winston Peters or ACT voter compared to someone who can’t be bothered to make up their mind.
Bit of a rant, but I feel strongly about voting. The “there’s no real choices” quip was always false, and will always remain false.
I happen to live in Rodney, one of the constituencies most affected by the RoNS. Regrettably this is an area where National could put up a gum boot and it would be elected, so many people, not of that persuasion, just don’t bother. I am disgusted that the Labour party are not providing any kind of opposition here at all. There are so many local issues (not all to do with transport matters) that need attention and will never get any attention. Nevertheless I will be voting Labour. Party vote of course for the Greens because you are right, they need to be there to stiffen up the incredibly weak opposition.
One vote doesn’t make a difference in the whole scheme of things. I just can’t understand why voters vote against their better interests. On the flipside, I find it doubtful that Labour would produce results any different if they were still in power now.
You really should abstain in an election. While to you it may seem an active choice, in the end result it will be the same as those who thought about voting on the day but it was raining/the car needed washing/there was something good on TV.
MMP gives you the option of voting for a different person/party from your party vote. On balance I’m likely to vote for national, but locally will certainly be voting for Jacinda Ardern after the most wishy washy response to the direct question ‘do you support government funding for the CBD rail tunnel’. Lots of ‘we are doing all these things already (cue list of Labour Government rail projects)’ and ‘the jury is out, once various reports come back in I’ll find a bit that support’s the government’s view on this’.
At this stage it does look like National will be returned to Government (though a lot can happen between now and then), but if they were returned without many seats in Auckland they would need to take note of the reasons why. So transport issues need to be a strong local issue during the election campaign.
Why Arnie would you vote for National? I listed lots of reasons why I wouldn’t above, but I can’t think of one to say why I actually would vote for them. But people do vote National, so what reasons do those people have to do so?
This isn’t just me being cynical. I genuinely can’t think of a reason why anyone would vote National. And I am genuinely interested in why someone might.
I don’t really want to turn this into a political forum. Each party offers a ranges of policies, none of which I’m happy with 100%. National comes closest for me, though it’s not exactly because I believe they are brilliant…far from it. It’s just that to me the alternatives don’t offer what I’m looking for.
What I’m trying to say is that even if you vote for a party that isn’t exactly public transport friendly you can still make your voice in this area felt. And many people will do exactly that.
And to turn public transport into a left versus right argument is counter productive. I think part of the problem with public transport (at least in the past) is that it has been characterized as being something only sandal wearing communists and those who can’t afford cars consider taking, rather than as a rational and viable transport choice. Certainly a rational right wing government would choose to spend its limited funds on projects that made economical sense which in my book is a big black mark against the current government. Projects like Transmission Gully and the Puhoi-Wellsford motorway make no sense when compared to alternatives.
Sorry, meant to say ‘shouldn’t’ abstain
I know that sometimes it can seem like a waste of time to vote. But if you do you are just giving tacit permission to the government to do whatever they vote.
It’s also important to remember that political parties ability to campaign on issues directly relates to how many MPs they get elected. First, the more MPs a Party has the more focus they can give to a particular portfolio. To give an example, because the Green Party only has 9 MPs each MP covers about 8 portfolios. In Labour, they have MPs who can put their whole focus into just one or two portfolios. Even when a senior MP covers 3 or 4 portfolios they have massively more resources to back them up than the Green, ACT, or Maori MPs.
That’s because each MP comes with a certain amount of funding for staff. The more MPs you have the more staff you get to help you with research, media, questions and generally holding the government to account.
If you vote Green, you will make a huge difference to the ability of the Greens to campaign for sustainable transport. The same with Labour. I guess the question is which Party you think will work harder on the issues?
I mean sorry “If you don’t vote, you are just giving tacit permission to the government to do whatever they want.”
An interesting question to ponder, in my opinion, is that if the Green Party’s transport policy is so good, how come around 92% of people don’t vote for them?
Is it:
1) They don’t really care about transport policy compared to other matters.
2) They like the Greens transport policy but are put off by other policies/personnel.
3) They don’t like the Greens transport policy.
4) They have a historic dislike of the Greens due to their ‘hippy/unionist’ image.
Or something else…. probably a combination.
Personally I would love the Greens to massively increase their vote because it’s our best chance (along with getting Labour’s transport policy to be more balanced) to get the kind of transport outcomes I want.
My concern is looking at the barriers to that and seeing what can be done to remove those barriers.
or is it 5) people keep repeating the meme that the Greens are “wacky unionist hippies” without any evidence whatsoever, including on this blog.
Most average voters go for the 2 big parties because they don’t back themselves enough to evaluate policy themselves. They assume because the Greens are under 10% that they must not be serious enough for a majority of people to vote for them. If people like the contributors to this blog don’t provide a good assessment of policy, the Greens won’t ever been seen as credible, no matter how much work we do on it.
Check out the http://www.greens.org.nz website and you will see that the Greens have been working very hard (much harder than Labour with fewer resources) to have sound, evidence-based and costed policy on just about everything. Especially economics.
As a transportation specialist, Green Party transport advisor, and Green Party candidate for Mt Roskill I strongly urge everyone to Party Vote Green.
We need 10%+ to have the ability to campaign effectively for better transport solutions, and I can tell you I got involved with the Greens because they are the only party with a credible vision of how we can transition to a post fossil fuel economy, and have more thriving and healthy communities (based on transport and urban planning policies).
Anyone who wants sane transport policy should Party Vote Green and tell all your friends and family that is why. That’s the way the Greens will get over the 10% threshold.
Don’t stress too much Julie: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2008/11/07/why-im-voting-green-tomorrow-and-why-you-should-too/
Not that I am completely settled on who I’ll vote for this time around – though I would very much like to see you in parliament, which might tip the balance 🙂
🙂 cheers Josh!
They are trained like Pavlov’s dogs by the MSM to immediately growl “Wacky” whenever the words “Green Party” are mentioned.
I can’t imagine that anyone who follows this blog and shares any of the concerns here could possibly vote National…. if you think Joyce has been bad to date just wait till after the next election where they will really abandon the promises of restraint made before the last one. As well as their careful creation and colouring of a crisis so they can come out with the old ‘there is no alternative’ argument. Add to that the possibility of cadaver Brash and his fellow corpses having an influence from the uber right being carefully jerrymandered into place through the expedience of the fine folks of Epsom getting twice the votes of the rest of us [such a flaw in the current process that a party with one electorate MP get’s to ‘coattail’ their party vote in too], what a nightmare for anyone who cares about the success of Auckland. I don’t buy their PR about being safe hands of the economy- all their arguments about cutting Kiwisaver etc can be employed to argue for reversing their tax cuts instead, we’re borrowing for that too, at least Kiwisaver isn’t actually a net spend, it lowers a future govt. liability, isn’t that the whole point of the thing?
No vote is wasted under MMP, because it’s not just who gets to occupy the government benches that matter but also the final proportional of each party in there. And a huge win for national will make there arrogance and bias about things like PT in AK all the stronger. And a vote for the Greens seems to me to be not at all problematic especially if you are resigned to a National win…. good to have some voice for reason in there. And should, miraculously, or as will happen eventually Labour do get over the line, won’t it be good to have a Green influence to give them some backbone against their own timidity and the forces of reaction so powerfully entrenched in the country?
Mind you I’m not so scarred by their policies…. what is more insane and unreal, 17.5 billion on new highways or the Green’s programme of recognising that the world is changing rapidly and we need to be preparing our economy and our priorities to be able to continue to live well.
Yes and I’m still waiting for Labour to start….
Sorry I should have said the perceived image of the Greens as wacky hippy unionists. I agree it’s largely an unfair tag, but the Greens do need to work extra hard to lose that tag, the Mana Party may prove useful as the Greens will need to distinguish themselves from that party.
Internationally not all Green parties are hard left.
I don’t think we should be harsh on Peter’s post. He’s stayed as politically neutral as possible, which is probably helpful.
please elaborate
If any one is in doubt about the Greens being credible, please do watch Russel Norman on TV3 this morning talking about their alternative budget:
http://www.3news.co.nz/Govt-shows-lack-of-vision—Greens/tabid/309/articleID/211631/Default.aspx
Or read the paper here: http://blog.greens.org.nz/2011/05/17/our-alternative-green-budget/
Note that it saves $7b by cancelling RoNS and prioritises the CBD Rail Loop, bus priority in cities, and walking and cycling.
That is indeed a credible set of policies. A capital gains tax would be the single most sensible thing this country could do. It seems to be doomed as most people seem to thing for some reason it will take money from them despite most proposals of such a tax excluding the family home.
Arnie it seems you should contemplate voting Green then.
Julie some interesting and good ideas there. I’m curious about the details of how the changes to transport policy will save $7 billion. Any chance you could send through background work on what that entails and what the background numbers are?
I presume, for example, that that means we don’t proceed with the Waterview Connection. I guess it means we finish off the Vic Park Tunnel though. Does it mean a bypass for Warkworth instead of the holiday highway, or nothing?
I’ll send the numbers through:
We support project lifesaver on SH1.
Basically, wouldn’t proceed with any part of the Wellington Northern Corridor, Waikato Expressway, and Puhoi to Wellsford, which is where you get approx $7b.
We don’t support Waterview at this time, but it’s unclear if we could get out of it. Obviously it would be preferable to have Waterview or some western ring road, as opposed to the CMJ.
But given the immanent impacts of peak conventional oil, I think we’ve gotta spend no money on new state highways until we’ve addressed the structural imbalances in the transport system. That means parking reform, land use planning reform, and robust investment in PT, walking and cycling.
fab!
1. which policies would you like to see ditched?
2. whose image is more wacky? the National RoNS Party who cut taxes for high income earners but raise taxes for everyone else and have infinite growth as the basis of their philosophy, or the Greens who advocate a switch to sustainable policies and social justice (addressing the widening gap between haves and have-nots)?
3. i suppose you believe prohibition is working too, and just needs to be applied more hashly, right???
Woah calm down a bit mate. I’m not passing judgement on the Green Party’s policies. I’m just saying that they tend to be perceived as “fringe” by most of the population (hence their relatively low support levels). If the Green Party is the only party with decent transport policies then it’s a bit sad that the Greens seem to also have policies that put off such a big portion of the population.
But Peter the question remains what policies? Can you list them? Perhaps it’s largely habit rather any actual analysis of policy that keeps people voting for the larger parties, so shouldn’t we try to be factual?
it’s ok, i’m calm. i just asked which policies you’d like to see ditched, that’s all.
I’m not arguing that any policies should be ditched. I’m just saying that the Greens tend to be quite fringe on a number of issues. A few examples:
1) GM Foods
2) Trade policy
3) Industrial relations (probably where the more Labour than Labour argument is most applicable)
4) Alternative medicines
Now I must stress that I’m not passing judgement on these issues myself (nor is this necessarily a full list, just giving some examples), just pointing out that the Greens tend to be perceived as quite extreme.
It’s not my task to reinvent the Greens’ image – that’s their task. If people think they’re extreme and that’s an unreasonable position then the Greens surely need to work hard to overcome that perception? Because you do want the Greens vote to increase, right?
thanks for replying. I’m just intrigued by what people see as “fringe” or “extreme”. I think the Greens do a reasonably good job of communicating what their policies are and why they have adopted them. IMHO, the image they have among many people is probably largely due to the way the MSM portray them and their policies. of course that’s not all of it but is is a large chunk of the reason.
I have yet to see anyone rationally explain why someone who works hard to get a better job and earn more money should pay a higher tax rate than others. People who suggest it seem to want to be in a Robin Hood fairytale where anyone who is rich is evil and undeserving of money they have rightfully earned.
if you want a flat tax (or only GST?), vote for ACT. is anyone else proposing to do away with progressive taxation?
Matt, I suppose to put it fairly simply at a lower income every dollar is more precious because there’s less to spare – less “buffer” shall we say. At a higher income a somewhat higher tax rate doesn’t have as big an impact, so therefore there’s more of an ‘ability to pay’.
If I think back to when I was at university working part time at McDonald’s on $9 an hour, the tax I had to pay took that down to not much over $7 an hour – which made a massive difference to the ability of me to pay rent, power, food etc. These days now I have a full time job I can live fairly comfortably and the tax doesn’t make as big a difference.
So having low tax rates at low income levels makes a really big difference to those people. Having higher tax rates at higher levels doesn’t have such an impact, because whether someone’s paying say 33% of 38% on income above $150,000 probably isn’t going to make much difference: they’re pretty well off either way.
There’s a good saying about an effective tax system. “The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing”. A progressive tax system helps achieve that, while also minimising inequality that our economic system tends to inevitably create.
I don’t think any current party proposes to not have a progressive tax system (even ACT want a tax free threshold from memory). The real debate comes about how progressive it is.
Rationally? It’s about the marginal value of each dollar to the recipient. If I have an income of $10,000 per year, every single dollar of that is vital to my well-being. That’s a poverty-level income, and if that’s what I’m expected to live on then I’m going to be cutting corners on housing quality, food quality, transport options, engagement with my peers, etc. All those things are bad for quality of life, quality of contribution to society, just generally bad. That’s not a contentious statement, it’s acknowledged fact by everyone that being poor makes for a low-quality life.
On the flip side, if my income is $100,000 per year, I have much more flexibility about where I live, what I eat, what social activities I undertake. My quality of life is likely to be very much better, and the impact on that quality for every dollar in taxation is considerably less.
There’s nothing about money being evil, or greed, or anything else. It’s purely about how much your life will be impacted by a given level of taxation. If I take $1,000 in tax from the guy on $10,000, that’s enormous. Sure it’s only 10%, but wow what a difference 10% would make at that level of income.
However, if I take 20% from the guy on $100,000, or $20,000, he’s probably going to gripe, and bitch, and complain, but he’ll still be able to afford much better food, and accommodation, and higher levels of social engagement than if I took nothing whatsoever from the poor sod who’s getting $10,000.
And once you get to the really high levels of income (in NZ I’m thinking of people like the Minister for Double-Dipton, on a salary of nearly $280k, plus perks, plus allowances) the impact on life quality of higher taxes is even less noticeable. If you’re only getting to keep half of every dollar over $500k, say, are you really going to suffer? Are you going to be faced with paying for food or paying for housing but not being able to pay for both? No, you’re not, and if you are then you’re even more guilty of making Shon Key’s infamous “poor choices” than the family that’s struggling to live on $20k a year and which notices every single cent that they get taxed.
The statement “From each according to their ability; to each according to their need” isn’t about being Robin Hood, it’s about recognising that the wealthier you are the easier it is for you to support others without jeopardising your own health and well-being. No envy, no greed, no hatred, just a simple observation.
A flat tax is about the only thing that ACT has that I support, however you’d have to be very careful on how you implement it.
For instance what I think should happen is the following:
A flat tax of say 30%, however with x% of income being tax free.
So for instance, say the first $10k of your income was tax free for everyone, its only a drop in the bucket to someone on $200k, whereas someone on $10k it makes a massive difference to what they can afford. Also, any tax cuts would be applied to raising the “start of taxation” point instead of reducing the actual tax % so that there would be fair distribution across all levels.
Anyway, I’m rather tired today so I hope that made sense!
Taking 50% of anyones income in taxes – whether they be on 100k or 500k – is archaic, lazy and a brilliant way to stop high -end discretionary spending (value-add goods/services which create jobs) and drive the best and the brightest overseas.
Example about labour and transport: Here is Clare Curran communicating about Joyce’s Broadband climb down: http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/author/clare-curran
When is there ever anything from Labour about transport…. I know they’ve just changed the portfolio but please, all noise will soon be budget then RWC, time to get cracking….
Those that may have the ‘ability to pay’ definitely have the ability to leave. How many doctors have gone? Is this good for the country?
Who is hissing when somebody dies after getting 10x their dose of medicine?
The greens alternative budget talks about increasing taxes, lots of them. I can’t see this being good for the economy. Scrapping the RONS is good but I expect that these will at least be largely deferred by Bill English tomorrow anyway. Raising the minimum wage will make it harder for some people to get jobs & make other existing jobs uneconomic. This is hardly protecting vulnerable workers. When Labour increased it, IHC jobs were gone.
As someone with kids at school, national standards are a welcome move.
As someone with kids at school national standards are an unwelcome distraction.
And the RoNS are ring fenced.
And insufficient tax equal crazy deficits
I’m still very skeptical of National Standards. It would probably work fine in high decile schools with motivated parents and decent teachers, but I bet the results in places where the teachers aren’t so good is they will remain ok, mainly because the teachers will ‘teach to the test’.
As an example of that, see The Wire Season 4.
Also, I don’t trust Tolley at all – she continually seems out of her depth.
Anthony you are right that there’s the risk we will lose our best and brightest. This is often trotted out to defend lower taxation rates on high incomes though I do wonder whether there’s much research behind it.
Didn’t the UK bring in a 50% top tax rate a year or two ago? And there were howls that the whole finance sector would up and leave…. but did they? Nope.
Also, Australia’s top tax rate is well above ours. So don’t know where all these people fleeing from tax would actually go.
And if they leave, do you know what they’ll find? They’ll find that in 28 out of the other 29 member countries of the OECD they end up paying more tax. NZ’s tax burden is the second-lowest (behind Poland, I believe) in the OECD. No, that’s not a mistake, it’s the OECD’s official determination. People here pay less tax than people in pretty much all the rest of the “developed” world.
The tax rate allegation is nonsense. The top tax rate in most of the rest of the world is a lot higher than our 33%. In the US, the top tax rate is 48%. In Australia I believe it’s 42%.
People leave because we’re a small fish in a big global sea, not because they’re “over-taxed”. They leave because our doctors get paid significantly less than in many other countries and they’ve got to find some way to clear the six-figure student loan they accumulated while getting qualified. It’s not taxes that drive our best minds overseas, it’s pay and experience that NZ cannot offer. If we were to match Aussie pay rates for public hospital staff, we’d have to raise our taxes. We’d probably keep more of our doctors, but the complaints from people who buy the BRT’s line that we’re overtaxed mean that’s not going to happen under National.
It’s like the nonsense about how we’re over-bureaucratised in relation to doing business. We’re the third-easiest country in the world in which to do business, according to the World Bank. We’ve been in the top 5 for years. For a while we were number 2. But if you listen to the BRT we’re still strangling our businesses with red tape. I’d love to know to whom we’re being compared, because the traditional comparison countries – UK, US, Australia – all rank below us. In Australia’s case, they’re seven below us!
i haven’t actually heard of a country that has higher tax rates for business and high income earners than NZ that is ALSO a nicer place to live.
Most countries with low tax rates for the very wealthy (e.g., the USA) seem to have a lot of other problems which is probably because they’re massively inequal societies.
oops, sorry, i meant a country with “lower” tax rates
I don’t care about high taxes as I like the NZ lifestyle compared to overseas. As long as the Greens support cannabis proliferation I won’t vote for them. I have two cousins who were normal, well adjusted people but now can barely function mentally because of their use of the stuff. I don’t understand how people can support it’s use (unless your dying, then I suppose it doesn’t matter). Decriminalisation is more or less saying it is safe to use, which it is not.
Ari, the Greens’ position is based on the logical inconsistency of the relative levels of harm of cannabis, alcohol, and tobacco against their status in society. Cannabis is, generally, much less harmful than either of the other two.
Also, criminalisation has just worked so well in limiting its availability. About two-thirds of the population has consumed cannabis at least once. That does not speak of a policy that is working. If people could produce for their own consumption, which is what decriminalisation is about, it would reduce enforcement costs dramatically, get gangs out of the picture (cutting their incomes, and reducing consumers’ exposure to tinny houses where P and other hard drugs are sold), and be a more accurate reflection of cannabis’ dangers relative to alcohol and tobacco.
I understand your opposition, but the Greens’ position is grounded in more than just implying that “It’s safe”. Tobacco’s dangerous as hell, and thousands of arrests, injuries and deaths every year are directly attributable to alcohol. Most of the harm from cannabis comes about because of its status as an illegal drug.
My two cousins would probably disagree on the suggestion cannabis is less harmful. That is, if they were still of sound mind. Frankly I don’t care if they banned tobacco and alcohol as well because I indulge in neither and don’t see the point. Last time I checked alcohol and tobacco don’t make you permanently crazy. Alcohol is fine in moderation and with tobacco it’s your problem if you want to die of lung cancer. If anything, there is more argument to ban all three because people clearly are unable to control themselves and make stupid decisions. Lets just add a mind-altering drug to the mix, I’m sure with the removal of the deterrent of it being an illegal drug, people will be responsible with it… Granted, many people may have no adverse reaction to cannabis use, but others do get addicted and some are very adversely affected and go insane. Apologies for derailing this thread. I have no idea who I am voting for. There really aren’t that many options.
One can take any number of extremes. Plenty of pot users are high-functioning, high-income, contributing members of society. So I’ll take your anecdata and add my reported anecdata and we’ll both go nowhere.
At least the Greens’ policy on cannabis is based on consistent, evidence-based approaches. Unlike, say, Dunne or Anderton who just reflexively hate all drugs. Dunne’s on record as wishing that evidence-based policy-making could just FOAD when it comes to drug control so that he could make whatever rules he wanted for no better reason than that he feels like it.
The basic premise to the Misuse of Drugs Act is harm-minimisation. On that basis, alcohol and tobacco should be classified as at least Class B drugs, given their potential for fatal misuse. I don’t want people making policy decisions based on emotion, I want them made on facts. The facts around cannabis as a criminal substance are that it costs shedloads in enforcement, isn’t actually in any way unavailable to anyone who wants it, and is demonstrably less harmful in a majority of users than alcohol or tobacco.
This argument’s getting waaaaaaay OT, but at least try and acknowledge that the Greens’ position on cannabis is based on much more research and consideration than is your opposition to their policy. You don’t have to agree with it, but you do them a disservice to dismiss it so blithely.
Fair enough. Though I suspect high functioning drug users contribute to society INSPITE of their use of drugs, not because of them. The same is not so true for the people most adversely affected by cannabis use where they become a drain on society BECAUSE of their use. That is the key difference and the reason why cannot support that policy. To be perfectly honest I don’t know enough about the Green’s position to dismiss it, but I would rather trust personal experience over research that hasn’t been able to convince most major nations.
Australias top tax rate doesn’t kick in until the equivalent of NZ$242,086. http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.aspx?doc=/content/12333.htm
We’re also paying 5% more in GST (15% more on various items like food). http://www.gstaustralia.com.au/what-are-gst-free-supplies/
It’s been said that you have to be earning more than $250,000 before you start paying more tax in australia.
Spending on state highways is down from $717M to $671M
“loans” to the New Zealand Railways Corporation to fund capital projects and provide working capital is up from $55M to $331M. http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2011/estimates/est11trans.pdf
I think that’s the KiwiRail turnaround plan money: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2011/05/19/transport-in-the-budget/
Anthony. When it comes to increasing taxes you actually need to have a very close look at what is suggested. One is a Capital Gains Tax which excludes the family home. That will bring in several bilion per year which will help close the tax income gap. Remember that the 2010 tax cut package Bill English introduced is costing us billions in borrowing. A GCT balances out Englishes grosse miscalculations with that policy. Also, a CGT helps to direct investment away from speculative investment toward investment in the real economy. The crisis of 2008 was set up for a crash by speculation which was not rooted in the real economy. A CGT would be good, for example, at helping to moderate a housing price bubble. As well as raising revenue it can act as a useful fulcrum to facilitate rational economic activity.
Another tax suggsted by them is a levy on high income earners that goes toward the ChCh rebuild. The governments deficit problem is two fold. It has the cost of rebuilding Chch and it has an income problem. The rebuild is a cost is would face whatever the economic times and could be absorbed if the govts books were in good order. The income problem is a result of the economic crisis exacerbated by the poorly thought through (hit and hope) tax cut package of 2010. A rebuilding levy would go a long way toward dealing with the one issue allowing the govt to focus on the structural income deficit it has created. A rebuilding levy could be time bound or could be renewable, say every 3 years. The one matter raised about putting on a levy now is the dampening effect it would have on economic activity in a very fragile economy. fair point. The way around that is borrow now for the rebuild but start the levy as the economy picks up. English is forecasting robust economic growth in the next few years. Therefore, he should’ve announced in the budget that the levy would start at, say, the beginning of 2013.
One other tax not mentioned by the Greens but which has some sense is a financial transaction tax. It could be set at a fraction of 1% and still rake in several billion $$. One of the problems NZ has is a volatile exchange rate. Money trading to facilitate the flow of goods and services is orthodox economic activity. The Kiwi dollars is however heavily traded for speculative reasons. A small financial tax would curb that activity and help to bring about some stability for the dollar. My understanding is that the trading of the dollar can result in profit that are of fractions of 1%. A financial transaction tax would crimp that profit. This would not only yield income for NZ but also discourage an activity which adds no real value to the real economy. Again, as well as raising revenue it can act as a useful fulcrum to facilitate rational economic activity.