(March 2, 2011 at 9:41 am)BlackUnicorn Wrote: Actually my concern is more on the fact that government has been trying to get out of it, I am one of those people who believed ending free education in NZ was a terrible idea, perhaps John Key and Sir Roger Douglas and all their government cronies should pay back their free education to NZ, they didn't mind it when they held out their hands and got their share of NZ's bank (which they later sold through insider trading schemes to their close friends and put NZ further into debt - ironic that NZ is now owned by an Australian Bank aka Westpac).
Free education at a tertiary level costs way too much money, not to mention the number of people who get into tertiary education and drop out is much higher, that's ultimately a waste of resources. If you want to go on to further study you should see it as an investment in your own future, investment is a risk and risks aren't free and they don't always pay off.
Key and Douglas aren't exactly similar economically... Key has more in common with Helen Clarke.
How exactly does westpac own us? They own a big chunk of our national debt, is that what you mean? Shame on them, lending us money when we asked for it!
I know fuck all about the NZ banking history, maybe you'd like to elaborate a bit more?
Quote:But in all seriousness, if you believe National will rebuild Christchurch you must be joking,
I don't think they will (or should) rebuild Christchurch (in an absolute sense) any more than I think a labour government will (or should) do it. They're going to help by giving people capital to rebuild their homes, they're going to pay for roads and other infrastructure and they're going to give temporary financial relief to people, it's ultimately going to be individuals and businesses who rebuild the city, government's role will be significant but not the major player.
Quote: if he raises taxes he will hurt economic recovery and hurt the poor even further than he already has with his lovely GST hike, as for actual rebuilding it will be a few heritage buildings that are saved and flash new apartments for the rich, the lower middle class will have to sell up and leave the city.
National won't raise taxes, so what are the other options available to pay off the bill? Borrowing money and cutting spending. Unless you have another idea?
I agree that raising GST proportionate to tax raises was a bad idea, I'd sooner see zero GST and income tax raised proportionately, it's better for the people who spend a larger portion of their income.
They're going to spend taxpayer money on apartments for the rich now are they? Bullshit. Firstly, the high income earners will get the least amount of government support, they're insured privately and just like companies they will be required to exhaust their insurance before receiving a cent (just like large corporations and multi-nationals aren't going to get any help with paying wages). Secondly, it's political suicide, not even ACT would do it.
Quote:Personally I hope National looses the election and gets turfed out,
No chance.
Quote: we are in heavy debt and all along Labour didn't want to cut and 'hope' for miracles like catching up with Australia, but knowing popularism people will believe John Key, expect higher crime, more poor, and 10,000+ more educated people leaving to Australia.
Cut and hope is better than borrow and spend and hope.
And "popularism" means what exactly? Unless you mean populism? If that's what you mean the use of the word contradicts the sentences you've used it in.
Labour got us into debt in the first place precisely because they didn't want to cut, you can't have all the social services that they created without raising taxes or having revenue increase via trade and productivity, and with productivity barely growing there was no way it was ever going to work.
Closing the wage gap hasn't worked, it's increased by $40 a week, 5.6% rise in NZ wages vs 6.7% increase in Aus wages, a great deal of that has to do with how the countries did during the recession, namely the fact that Australia didn't have one, considering unemployment rose 3% here it's reasonable to say that if we didn't have a recession the gap would have closed, though with all the data we need to account for it's difficult to say.
Quote: I shouldn't laugh but if you believe the Nats will do anything positive economically here..you should read up where John Key gets his ideas from...the failed Meril Lynch that had to beg for a bailout and screwed its fellow Americans.
Hate to burst your bubble here but Key was with Merill Lynch back when they were doing solid business back in the Clinton days, long before the financial sector became reckless and negligent spurred on by guaranteed loans and cheap money - Besides, there is a huge difference between political economics and financial trading, very little of his financial trading skills and ideas are applicable to the former.
And NONE of those banks and investment firms should have been bailed out. Corporate welfare is something that does far more harm than good.
And what exactly do you think Labour is going to do to help economic growth that DOESN'T involve getting into more debt? Is there really any point borrowing money so we can live better now when future generations are left with the bill? It's like a mother saying "I need to keep borrowing to fund my lifestyle but don't worry my children will pay you back".
.
