Kia-ora
An alternative Budget, From Matt McCarten.
Matt has posed this as a "left wing" budget.
However many of the ideas would have been considered centrist economic thinking not long ago.
Just shows how much right wing extremists have dominated economic thinking.
"1. Abolish 15 per cent GST. Replace with 1 per cent
financial transaction tax as recommended by the New Zealand Bankers
Association. Same money."
An idea which is being looked at seriously all around the world. It does need adoption by many countries at once to prevent banks dodging it.
"2. Abolish PAYE on wages and salaries. Replace it with a
wealth tax and a capital gains tax when shares, businesses, land and
property are sold. People are taxed when they're cashing up, not when
they are making it."
Actually an idea of that noted arch socialist, economic thinker, Adam Smith. "Tax the owners of capital and land, not labour and entrepreneurs, because they produce the wealth".
"3. 90 per cent Death Tax. You can't take it with you. Grown-up kids should earn their own money anyway."
True, but I think their should be a threshold, say, a million dollars. No reason why one family should be allowed to accumulate ever increasing wealth over generations., and many sound economic and social justice reasons why they shouldn't. However parents should be able to pass on some to their kids.
"4. Rent-to-buy homes underwritten by the state.
Limiting homes to two a family and having a capital gains tax will keep
prices affordable."
Exemptions for family homes or restrictions on the number of homes a family has may not work. How do you define family? Better to again have a threshold. Maybe set at the current median price.
"5. State-created work schemes for all long-term jobless."
Not bad, but I think a Guaranteed income is better, bearing in mind that in a steady state sustainable economy we do not need all those working hours.
"6. A living wage set at $20 an hour minimum. It would be a stimulus package."
Contrary to often expressed opinions from the rabid right, minimum wages increase demand and increase jobs and business profits. A better form of stimulus than gifting money to the banks, who lost it in the first place.
"7. No tax on profits kept in a business."
An incentive to invest in business growth, entrepreneurship and employment, not speculation.
"8. Free public transport in major cities. That would get people out of their cars."
Likely to save on roading, energy, and other costs long term.
"9. Victims get 100 per cent state compensation for loss or injury. Offenders work it off if necessary.
I hope that is extended to those who knowingly sell harmful products and politicians who work against their constituents best interests.
"10. Make KiwiSaver a state-owned fund and buy all the Government's non-core commercial assets."
Still doesn't give the investment in sustainable productivity we need for the future, but better than putting it in the financial lottery that is overseas financial markets. The same ones that lost all the US pension funds.
All in all a much more progressive and sound budget than National's recent mean spirited and dysfunctional, joke.
Showing posts with label small business. Show all posts
Showing posts with label small business. Show all posts
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Saturday, May 18, 2013
The magical world of New Zealand's, Neo-Liberal, right wing.
Kia-ora
The magical world of New Zealand's, Neo-Liberal right wing.
It has been obvious that some people live in a different world than the rest of us.
One where Chicago school economics, work!
One where you save the village by blowing it up!
One where global warming can be stopped, Canute like, by legislation.
One where dropping wages and giving everything to bloated financiers, makes us better off!
One where removing money from an economy makes it work better.
One where every country is going to get rich by out exporting every other country.
One where enabling greater inequality than the dark ages, works!
The one with the trickle down fairy. "Give us the money and we will p-- on you".
The market fairy. "Leave it to the market and we will cut your wages,impoverish your children, and tell you it is a brighter future".
The Austerity fairy. "We will become better off by becoming poorer".
The catching up with Australia fairy. "We will catch up with Australia by doing almost the opposite of everything they have done".
The Democracy fairy. "We will let you vote, to change the names in Government, or on a few social issues which do not affect our making money off you, but not to make any meaningful changes to the way the country is run".
The privatisation fairy. "We will ensure that the NZ current account is forever in deficit, by selling all the income earning assets"
The debt fairy. "We will cut debt by borrowing $300mill a week, to pay for unaffordable tax cuts, to pay for our Hawaii holidays".
The Job fairy. " We will increase the number of jobs by putting thousands out of work, and cutting the unemployment benefit".
The "We support business" fairy. While ensuring New Zealanders have no money to buy from local businesses, and increasing small businesses costs.
The better future fairy. "We will give you a better future by paying you less, charging you more and cutting services".
It is pretty obvious which side of the political spectrum is on another planet. Planet Key!
(New Zealand's, financial industry shill, Prime Minister).
The magical world of New Zealand's, Neo-Liberal right wing.
It has been obvious that some people live in a different world than the rest of us.
One where Chicago school economics, work!
One where you save the village by blowing it up!
One where global warming can be stopped, Canute like, by legislation.
One where dropping wages and giving everything to bloated financiers, makes us better off!
One where removing money from an economy makes it work better.
One where every country is going to get rich by out exporting every other country.
One where enabling greater inequality than the dark ages, works!
The one with the trickle down fairy. "Give us the money and we will p-- on you".
The market fairy. "Leave it to the market and we will cut your wages,impoverish your children, and tell you it is a brighter future".
The Austerity fairy. "We will become better off by becoming poorer".
The catching up with Australia fairy. "We will catch up with Australia by doing almost the opposite of everything they have done".
The Democracy fairy. "We will let you vote, to change the names in Government, or on a few social issues which do not affect our making money off you, but not to make any meaningful changes to the way the country is run".
The privatisation fairy. "We will ensure that the NZ current account is forever in deficit, by selling all the income earning assets"
The debt fairy. "We will cut debt by borrowing $300mill a week, to pay for unaffordable tax cuts, to pay for our Hawaii holidays".
The Job fairy. " We will increase the number of jobs by putting thousands out of work, and cutting the unemployment benefit".
The "We support business" fairy. While ensuring New Zealanders have no money to buy from local businesses, and increasing small businesses costs.
The better future fairy. "We will give you a better future by paying you less, charging you more and cutting services".
It is pretty obvious which side of the political spectrum is on another planet. Planet Key!
(New Zealand's, financial industry shill, Prime Minister).
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Saturday, August 13, 2011
The wealthy deserve their wealth??
Kia-ora
One of the recurring memes is that the rich earned their wealth because of some innate superiority, extra effort or extra talent, and it is churlish to take some back off them..
One of the recurring memes is that the rich earned their wealth because of some innate superiority, extra effort or extra talent, and it is churlish to take some back off them..
Friday, August 12, 2011
In search of a justification.
Kia-ora
Many laughable statements come from the Neo-Liberal right, but the ones that seek a moral or economic justification for greed and meanness are the most comical. (If the effects were not so serious).
Like the one from a bailed out US bank manager. "God thinks I should have a bonus". :-)
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
– John Kenneth Galbraith
The Standard.
Debunks the idea that taxing the rich more cuts total tax take. In fact the opposite has happened. As taxes to the rich have been cut in Western countries, Government revenues have decreased in most cases.
As I have said before. In the time of its greatest prosperity the US top tax rate was 90%.
Recent top rate tax cuts in New Zealand have resulted in decreased revenue each time.
Decreasing taxes on business and high incomes means more capital is free for more investment.
Did not work. Capital investment by private investors in NZ, the UK and the USA has decreased while they hid the money offshore, to dodge even more of the tax they should pay, or spend it on holidays in Hawaii. AND financial gambling. (Where we will have to bail them out next time they lose).
What's worse.
Cutting tax rates, and therefore revenues, cuts Government investment in the local economy in favour of those who take the money offshore. Never to be seen again.
In New Zealand the Government is borrowing offshore to pay for tax cuts to the rich. A double blow to the national deficit.
Similarly. Cutting wages is supposed to be an incentive for business to invest.
Trouble is cutting the wages of the businesses customers is even more of a disincentive. Low wage workers do not buy much.
Since the 1984 attacks on Unions and steadily dropping wages in New Zealand, direct investment in New Zealand production has dropped to 1/3 of what it was in the 70's.
Make the rich richer and they will give people jobs.
Jobs are not something the rich gives. Jobs are workers supplying their labour.
The rich are awash in money at present. 20% increase in the wealth of the richest in New Zealand. In the USA the rich are sitting on trillions. Where are the jobs??
In recent history job growth has come from State initiatives. It was not the private sector that pulled the USA out of the 30's depression, it was massive State spending, on the new deal, then WW2.
Lastly. The idea that the rich earn their money and we have no right to take it from them.
Who earns millions?
Most have millions because their family had millions. They contribute nothing and consume much more than poorer people.
Some entrepreneurs have started new business, produced services and ideas of great benefit to many people. It can be said that they earned their money.
It is notable that most of these people are philanthropists.
The rich benefit so much from our society it is only fair that they give back.
Better to take some if this money back and reinvest in infrastructure and the necessary green technology to ensure humanities future survival.
Many laughable statements come from the Neo-Liberal right, but the ones that seek a moral or economic justification for greed and meanness are the most comical. (If the effects were not so serious).
Like the one from a bailed out US bank manager. "God thinks I should have a bonus". :-)
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
– John Kenneth Galbraith
The Standard.
Debunks the idea that taxing the rich more cuts total tax take. In fact the opposite has happened. As taxes to the rich have been cut in Western countries, Government revenues have decreased in most cases.
As I have said before. In the time of its greatest prosperity the US top tax rate was 90%.
Recent top rate tax cuts in New Zealand have resulted in decreased revenue each time.
Decreasing taxes on business and high incomes means more capital is free for more investment.
Did not work. Capital investment by private investors in NZ, the UK and the USA has decreased while they hid the money offshore, to dodge even more of the tax they should pay, or spend it on holidays in Hawaii. AND financial gambling. (Where we will have to bail them out next time they lose).
What's worse.
Cutting tax rates, and therefore revenues, cuts Government investment in the local economy in favour of those who take the money offshore. Never to be seen again.
In New Zealand the Government is borrowing offshore to pay for tax cuts to the rich. A double blow to the national deficit.
Similarly. Cutting wages is supposed to be an incentive for business to invest.
Trouble is cutting the wages of the businesses customers is even more of a disincentive. Low wage workers do not buy much.
Since the 1984 attacks on Unions and steadily dropping wages in New Zealand, direct investment in New Zealand production has dropped to 1/3 of what it was in the 70's.
Make the rich richer and they will give people jobs.
Jobs are not something the rich gives. Jobs are workers supplying their labour.
The rich are awash in money at present. 20% increase in the wealth of the richest in New Zealand. In the USA the rich are sitting on trillions. Where are the jobs??
In recent history job growth has come from State initiatives. It was not the private sector that pulled the USA out of the 30's depression, it was massive State spending, on the new deal, then WW2.
Lastly. The idea that the rich earn their money and we have no right to take it from them.
Who earns millions?
Most have millions because their family had millions. They contribute nothing and consume much more than poorer people.
Some entrepreneurs have started new business, produced services and ideas of great benefit to many people. It can be said that they earned their money.
It is notable that most of these people are philanthropists.
The rich benefit so much from our society it is only fair that they give back.
Better to take some if this money back and reinvest in infrastructure and the necessary green technology to ensure humanities future survival.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
And this is one of the reasons why.
Kia-ora
Thanks to Robert Winter for this comparison.
16 Million lost to benefit fraud. Noted that most benefit fraud was due to staff in WINZ, not beneficiaries.
" Here, we are told that (mainly legal) tax avoidance in 2010/11 will cost us $5.4 BILLION. Who knows what evasion costing us?"
Note, that the Aussie banks have been caught out with 3 billion in tax evasion. 300 million by the bank which holds the NZ Government banking contract.
Also that when Labour raised the top tax rate many more wealthy people magically had less taxable income.
Thanks to Robert Winter for this comparison.
16 Million lost to benefit fraud. Noted that most benefit fraud was due to staff in WINZ, not beneficiaries.
" Here, we are told that (mainly legal) tax avoidance in 2010/11 will cost us $5.4 BILLION. Who knows what evasion costing us?"
Note, that the Aussie banks have been caught out with 3 billion in tax evasion. 300 million by the bank which holds the NZ Government banking contract.
Also that when Labour raised the top tax rate many more wealthy people magically had less taxable income.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Tax and Welfare reforms. Towards Solutions.
Kia-ora
Discussion in the Standard.
Discussion in the Standard.
70k is the median family income. I agree it is hardly rich. Progressive taxation should start about 140k. Equivalent to 30k, about the level of the top rate in 1980. Cuts to the top rate plus leaving the tax on middle incomes to go up by bracket creep and user pays has resulted in a decreasing disposable income for 80% of New Zealanders.
“The so called reforms in the 80′s and 90′s resulted in a drop in income for the majority, 80%, over the period”
“Since there was little income growth, the net effect of the fiscal changes was to switch income from the poor and those on middle incomes to the rich”.
http://www.eastonbh.ac.nz/?p=333
.
http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=120821&fm=psp,nwl
“Weekly incomes have stagnated since 2008.”
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/0135595.html
“Incomes for most people, have dropped since the 70′s”.
“Almost constantly apart from a brief slow down of the drop from 2000/2008″.
“For the middle class in skilled jobs it has dropped 40%.”
People are borrowing to live because NZ incomes have dropped below costs..
A better option may be to simplify all welfare, tax and tax rebates into a minimum individual income administered through IRD. With a flat rate up to 200k after that. Those earning over 200K are benefiting the most from our society, so should pay the most towards it.
The difference can be made up with FTT’s, a CGT on all but the family home (up to twice the mean house price) and pigonian capital control taxes.
“The so called reforms in the 80′s and 90′s resulted in a drop in income for the majority, 80%, over the period”
“Since there was little income growth, the net effect of the fiscal changes was to switch income from the poor and those on middle incomes to the rich”.
http://www.eastonbh.ac.nz/?p=333
.
http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=120821&fm=psp,nwl
“Weekly incomes have stagnated since 2008.”
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/0135595.html
“Incomes for most people, have dropped since the 70′s”.
“Almost constantly apart from a brief slow down of the drop from 2000/2008″.
“For the middle class in skilled jobs it has dropped 40%.”
People are borrowing to live because NZ incomes have dropped below costs..
A better option may be to simplify all welfare, tax and tax rebates into a minimum individual income administered through IRD. With a flat rate up to 200k after that. Those earning over 200K are benefiting the most from our society, so should pay the most towards it.
The difference can be made up with FTT’s, a CGT on all but the family home (up to twice the mean house price) and pigonian capital control taxes.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
On youth rates.
Kia-ora
After the huge success of youth rates in reducing youth unemployment an ACT mp now proposes special lower rates of pay for Polynesian and female workers. He said "it is well known that reduced rates increased access to jobs for disadvantaged youth" and expects them to work the same magic for women and Maori.
"Once we get people used to the idea that reducing pay increases job opportunities, we will have 100% unemployment by reducing all wages to zero".
"Employers will become prosperous with zero wages and tax to pay",
WFF will be extended to all workers to complete the privatisation of profit and socialisation of losses'.
"At the same time police powers will be increased to prevent the poor from invading our gated communities and stealing our property".
After the huge success of youth rates in reducing youth unemployment an ACT mp now proposes special lower rates of pay for Polynesian and female workers. He said "it is well known that reduced rates increased access to jobs for disadvantaged youth" and expects them to work the same magic for women and Maori.
"Once we get people used to the idea that reducing pay increases job opportunities, we will have 100% unemployment by reducing all wages to zero".
"Employers will become prosperous with zero wages and tax to pay",
WFF will be extended to all workers to complete the privatisation of profit and socialisation of losses'.
"At the same time police powers will be increased to prevent the poor from invading our gated communities and stealing our property".
Friday, December 31, 2010
Kia-ora
Paul Krugman analyzes the strange persistence of Neo-Liberal thought despite the total failure of Neo-liberal economics to deliver.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/opinion/20krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
"How, after the experiences of the Clinton and Bush administrations — the first raised taxes and presided over spectacular job growth; the second cut taxes and presided over anemic growth even before the crisis"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/opinion/20krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
"How, after the experiences of the Clinton and Bush administrations — the first raised taxes and presided over spectacular job growth; the second cut taxes and presided over anemic growth even before the crisis"
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Privatisation.
Kia-ora
The private sector has forgotten how to make business work.
The present business leaders and bankrollers are so bereft of ideas for new business they are trying to grab the natural monopolies and infrastructure owned by us.
Generations of Managers who are incapable of anything but cost cutting, asset stripping, firing money around and social destruction are turning their sights again to the public sector to make money.
The wealth they have already stolen off us is obviously not enough!
The people behind privatisation.
The usual suspects.
The private sector has forgotten how to make business work.
The present business leaders and bankrollers are so bereft of ideas for new business they are trying to grab the natural monopolies and infrastructure owned by us.
Generations of Managers who are incapable of anything but cost cutting, asset stripping, firing money around and social destruction are turning their sights again to the public sector to make money.
The wealth they have already stolen off us is obviously not enough!
The people behind privatisation.
The usual suspects.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Energy and the Economy.
Kia-ora
Copy of my comment on Frogblog on energy.
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2010/09/23/dams-sustainable-and-permanent/#comment-159237
“We have so many good options in NZ or renewable power that compared to most countries we are spoiled for choice.
Unless we are invaded for energy, food and living space which would be a strong possibility. I do not see the people who happily murder just to become richer sitting put and starving while countries like NZ and Australia are available.
I agree with Kevin. Apart from bigger schemes that work on already degraded areas like Stockton. Reducing demand with green buildings, energy efficient transport and lower energy technology is one strand.
Renewable energy. Distributive generation, bio-mass solar water heating, wind, geothermal, solar tidal and run of the river hydro are the other.
I gave an example above of how the timber industry. (To build Green houses) can produce all its own renewable energy from the waste stream.
These are only very approximate numbers to get the idea. I have some, but do not have the time to wade through all my papers at the moment. Orders of magnitude are close enough to show the theory. Changes in technology may mean more or less contribution. Bio fuels from sewerage are now looking more promising than first thought. Especially for farming which produces lots of it.
. Those tractors will be run on bio-methane produced on site.
Electric urban transport. (Trains and cars). Reduce transport fossil fuel demand by 50%. 100 PJ saved. Green buildings in California reduce demand by 15% 20 PJ saved.
All houses with solar heating. 40 PJ saved.
Ships and trains for long distance transport another 50 PJ saved.
Distributed generation by households on a smart grid. 50 PJ.
Council woody waste 4PJ. Bio-mass (Sewage plants) 10 PJ.
Forestry waste stream. 9 PJ short term. Up to 20 medium term.
It will require a lot of work and commitment, but I do not see why we cannot be 100% renewable in electricity and 50% in transport fuels by 2020 if we started now. Good for employment too.
Get the idea. New Zealanders are well placed to have a good life style with our current resources and technology.
There will likely even be some surplus for exports to pay for things which it is not sensible to produce locally. The French and Russians will sell us all the weapons we may need.
The caveats are. We need to start NOW.
WE NEED TO CHANGE TO AN ECONOMY WHICH SUPPORTS A DECREASING USE OF RESOURCES”.
We cannot afford to wait until politicians, who have too much invested in the current system, do something.
Carrying on as we are is not an option. Niether is a reversal to some agrarian horse drawn utopia.
This requires a change from the bottom up. Real democracy.
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2010/09/23/dams-sustainable-and-permanent/#comment-159237
“We have so many good options in NZ or renewable power that compared to most countries we are spoiled for choice.
Unless we are invaded for energy, food and living space which would be a strong possibility. I do not see the people who happily murder just to become richer sitting put and starving while countries like NZ and Australia are available.
I agree with Kevin. Apart from bigger schemes that work on already degraded areas like Stockton. Reducing demand with green buildings, energy efficient transport and lower energy technology is one strand.
Renewable energy. Distributive generation, bio-mass solar water heating, wind, geothermal, solar tidal and run of the river hydro are the other.
I gave an example above of how the timber industry. (To build Green houses) can produce all its own renewable energy from the waste stream.
These are only very approximate numbers to get the idea. I have some, but do not have the time to wade through all my papers at the moment. Orders of magnitude are close enough to show the theory. Changes in technology may mean more or less contribution. Bio fuels from sewerage are now looking more promising than first thought. Especially for farming which produces lots of it.
. Those tractors will be run on bio-methane produced on site.Electric urban transport. (Trains and cars). Reduce transport fossil fuel demand by 50%. 100 PJ saved. Green buildings in California reduce demand by 15% 20 PJ saved.
All houses with solar heating. 40 PJ saved.
Ships and trains for long distance transport another 50 PJ saved.
Distributed generation by households on a smart grid. 50 PJ.
Council woody waste 4PJ. Bio-mass (Sewage plants) 10 PJ.
Forestry waste stream. 9 PJ short term. Up to 20 medium term.
It will require a lot of work and commitment, but I do not see why we cannot be 100% renewable in electricity and 50% in transport fuels by 2020 if we started now. Good for employment too.
Get the idea. New Zealanders are well placed to have a good life style with our current resources and technology.
There will likely even be some surplus for exports to pay for things which it is not sensible to produce locally. The French and Russians will sell us all the weapons we may need.
The caveats are. We need to start NOW.
WE NEED TO CHANGE TO AN ECONOMY WHICH SUPPORTS A DECREASING USE OF RESOURCES”.
We cannot afford to wait until politicians, who have too much invested in the current system, do something.
Carrying on as we are is not an option. Niether is a reversal to some agrarian horse drawn utopia.
This requires a change from the bottom up. Real democracy.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Prescription for New Zealand
Kia-ora
A few ideas.
My answer would be to use Government finance within NZ to build up Kiwi bank until we have a banking system controlled by and for New Zealand. It is a good opportunity at the moment. The private finance sector has cocked it up so badly that there is a huge worldwide demand for Government bonds. They are perceived as one of the few safe-ish investments left.
See the Green new deal for some ideas on sustainable development. http://www.greens.org.nz/gnd
Follow Singapore’s example and do not be afraid to pick winners. Invest public and private money in innovative sustainable technology.
Follow the example of successful countries, like the Scandinavian ones, instead of slavishly following States like the US and UK which are essentially failed States.
Accept that businesses that cannot pay the true costs of externalities. Like the real cost of labour, their use of the environment and their true costs to society are not sustainable and should be allowed to fail.
Adam Smith.
Regulate capital outflows and shift taxation to things like capital gains to encourage people who do useful things. Allow land prices to drop to where land use incomes cover the cost of capital. Making sustainable and ongoing income from land use more profitable than farming it for short term capital gain.
Follow Switzerland and make New Zealand’s Government arrangements
a democracy instead of a pretend one.
We should control our country, not, 122 self appointed incompetents, the OECD or IMF, or a bunch of failed idealisations from a few true believers in neo-liberalism.
Every country believes they are going to pay back debt by out exporting the others. Not possible.
Accept that taxes are the price of having an educated, housed and healthy labour force, adequate infrastructure, a local market, social cohesion and protection, protection from unprincipled competition and from crime and invasion.
Those who object to taxes are really just saying they want to free load off the rest of us as I doubt they would like having to provide all of the above privately.
People (usually claiming to be right wing) keep saying they want ideas from us on how we would do things differently. I suggest there has been plenty of ideas from the Greens and others. Many on these blogs. Some people just have not been listening.
A few ideas.
My answer would be to use Government finance within NZ to build up Kiwi bank until we have a banking system controlled by and for New Zealand. It is a good opportunity at the moment. The private finance sector has cocked it up so badly that there is a huge worldwide demand for Government bonds. They are perceived as one of the few safe-ish investments left.
See the Green new deal for some ideas on sustainable development. http://www.greens.org.nz/gnd
Follow Singapore’s example and do not be afraid to pick winners. Invest public and private money in innovative sustainable technology.
Follow the example of successful countries, like the Scandinavian ones, instead of slavishly following States like the US and UK which are essentially failed States.
Accept that businesses that cannot pay the true costs of externalities. Like the real cost of labour, their use of the environment and their true costs to society are not sustainable and should be allowed to fail.
Adam Smith.
Regulate capital outflows and shift taxation to things like capital gains to encourage people who do useful things. Allow land prices to drop to where land use incomes cover the cost of capital. Making sustainable and ongoing income from land use more profitable than farming it for short term capital gain.
Follow Switzerland and make New Zealand’s Government arrangements
a democracy instead of a pretend one.
We should control our country, not, 122 self appointed incompetents, the OECD or IMF, or a bunch of failed idealisations from a few true believers in neo-liberalism.
Every country believes they are going to pay back debt by out exporting the others. Not possible.
Accept that taxes are the price of having an educated, housed and healthy labour force, adequate infrastructure, a local market, social cohesion and protection, protection from unprincipled competition and from crime and invasion.
Those who object to taxes are really just saying they want to free load off the rest of us as I doubt they would like having to provide all of the above privately.
People (usually claiming to be right wing) keep saying they want ideas from us on how we would do things differently. I suggest there has been plenty of ideas from the Greens and others. Many on these blogs. Some people just have not been listening.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Industries we could lead in.
Kia-ora
Anyway I said I would be positive.
Admit this is one of my pet projects.
I have not managed to find the website again. But a UK firm was looking at designing and manufacturing electric city commuter cars for lease.
Something NZ could be a leader in.
The sort of investment it is worth borrowing for.
Composite construction with the renewable composites Waikato is researching.
Intellectual property for export.
Power from renewable s on the grid is more energy efficient than petrol.
Petrol cars can be kept for long distance travel.
Carbon offsets.
Foreign exchange savings from offsetting hydrocarbon imports.
May help develop renewable energy industry also.
Manufacturer leases so incentive to make the cars long lasting. No planned obsolescence.
Simple design as restricted to 50k/hr.
Leased so drivers do not have to buy another car.
This sort of thing will not happen however without Government leadership.
As NACT have shown with biofuels they would rather we stayed followers.
Anyway I said I would be positive.
Admit this is one of my pet projects.
I have not managed to find the website again. But a UK firm was looking at designing and manufacturing electric city commuter cars for lease.
Something NZ could be a leader in.
The sort of investment it is worth borrowing for.
Composite construction with the renewable composites Waikato is researching.
Intellectual property for export.
Power from renewable s on the grid is more energy efficient than petrol.
Petrol cars can be kept for long distance travel.
Carbon offsets.
Foreign exchange savings from offsetting hydrocarbon imports.
May help develop renewable energy industry also.
Manufacturer leases so incentive to make the cars long lasting. No planned obsolescence.
Simple design as restricted to 50k/hr.
Leased so drivers do not have to buy another car.
This sort of thing will not happen however without Government leadership.
As NACT have shown with biofuels they would rather we stayed followers.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Income levels. Copy of comment on Greens website
Kia-ora
Kia-ora
www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/work_income_and_spending/Income/NZIncomeSurvey_HOTPJun09qtr.aspx
The median individual income from all sources is $27000 odd.
Average wage and salary income is about $44000.
Average income is $34000.
These are individual not family incomes.
Individual incomes 0ver $60 000 are approximately 20%, $70 000 are 12% of the population and over 100 000 3%.
The rich are the less than 1% who have a family income greatly over $300 000.
This shows how unequal wealth distribution is in NZ when less than 1% have 94% of the wealth.
Almost all working families have an income of $60 000 plus.
The real losers are beneficiary families which are mostly on or below the $27 000 individual median as family income.
Note the sums vary a bit from different sources and from month to month.
The point is at one time a family could live comfortably on the median individual income. You could feed and house your kids on a benefit. Those who had done higher education, reached the top of their profession or trade could do very well, as they should. Most families now need two income earners to be simply OK.
Now only those who were in the higher bracket are merely comfortable without two income earners in the family. There has been a drop in real incomes for all of us relative to GDP except for those in the very high bracket who have increased their income out of all proportion. Benefits are now way below the family cost of living.
Wages and salaries share have now shrunk to 44% of GDP and will go lower with more years of monetarist meanness.
I would like to see some of the tax burdon shifted from the median 80% of wage and salary earners to those who speculate in currency and those who make large capital gains, in the principal all sources of income should be equally treated for tax.
A guaranteed minimum income for children on the same basis as super, $10 000 exempt family income, financial transaction taxes and capital gains tax, a higher bracket over $200 000 and adjusting for bracket creep would make for more equity and allow some more spending on the lowest benefit earners. The abatement rate when you work part time on a benefit also needs to be addressed.
www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/work_income_and_spending/Income/NZIncomeSurvey_HOTPJun09qtr.aspx
The median individual income from all sources is $27000 odd.
Average wage and salary income is about $44000.
Average income is $34000.
These are individual not family incomes.
Individual incomes 0ver $60 000 are approximately 20%, $70 000 are 12% of the population and over 100 000 3%.
The rich are the less than 1% who have a family income greatly over $300 000.
This shows how unequal wealth distribution is in NZ when less than 1% have 94% of the wealth.
Almost all working families have an income of $60 000 plus.
The real losers are beneficiary families which are mostly on or below the $27 000 individual median as family income.
Note the sums vary a bit from different sources and from month to month.
The point is at one time a family could live comfortably on the median individual income. You could feed and house your kids on a benefit. Those who had done higher education, reached the top of their profession or trade could do very well, as they should. Most families now need two income earners to be simply OK.
Now only those who were in the higher bracket are merely comfortable without two income earners in the family. There has been a drop in real incomes for all of us relative to GDP except for those in the very high bracket who have increased their income out of all proportion. Benefits are now way below the family cost of living.
Wages and salaries share have now shrunk to 44% of GDP and will go lower with more years of monetarist meanness.
I would like to see some of the tax burdon shifted from the median 80% of wage and salary earners to those who speculate in currency and those who make large capital gains, in the principal all sources of income should be equally treated for tax.
A guaranteed minimum income for children on the same basis as super, $10 000 exempt family income, financial transaction taxes and capital gains tax, a higher bracket over $200 000 and adjusting for bracket creep would make for more equity and allow some more spending on the lowest benefit earners. The abatement rate when you work part time on a benefit also needs to be addressed.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Kia-ora
I wonder if the Green party is shooting itself in the foot by constantly referring to the rich as those in the 70k plus bracket.
Many Green party members must fit my profile.
We the earners in the 70 to 150k bracket are working class/middle class. We have had a drop in incomes and availability of jobs with Government policies also. Immigration is deliberately used to keep our earnings down while we are told an executive earning 100 times our salaries is necessary to attract "talent" (It takes a lot of talent, it seems, to cut costs by cutting wages and shifting jobs to lower paid workers offshore).
We are Teachers, small business people, General Practitioners, successful trades people, mechanics, electricians, hairdressers, shopkeepers, farmers (the family ones who pay taxes), engineers, architects, draftsmen, supervisors. The people who have spent time getting an education or learning a trade. We are the people who along with Labourers, cleaners, rubbish men and road menders keep everything working.
A lot of us have been on minimum wages, student allowances, sickness benefits or unemployment during our lives and know how miserable they are.
Most of us are happy to pay our share taxes for a fair society, but we are not happy to see the truly wealthy avoid their share. Much of our taxes are wasted through corporate welfare, bureaucratic and Government mis management rather than going to the people who need it. Not to say that private sector management is any better, but managing our state services should be to best practice, not a refuge for time servers. Most of the tax burden does fall on higher wage and salary earners who work for their money. Those who get it through capital gains and money earning money are largely untaxed.
We want to see poorer people have the educational opportunities we had, the jobs and aspirations to become constructive and contributing members of society. So they can afford to pay our super :-) .We get annoyed when our young people have no jobs, apprenticeships or higher education to go to because of mean spirited and failed neo-liberal policies.
We are mostly boomers, but do not think there will be enough money to pay pensions soon. We would like to invest in something to offset the burden on, or pass on, to our kids, but housing is the only one not subject to fraud by unregulated financial traders.
We voted against Muldoons election bribery, Douglas's destruction, Richardsons meanness and Keys smiling deconstruction of welfare by stealth.
We support acknowledgment of disadvantages to Maori, but wonder why it also seems to be enriching a few rather than helping the kids we see in our schools and surgeries. The foreshore and seabed row seems more about making money from aquaculture than guardianship.
We join the Greens, not because we agree with everything they do, but because they are the only party remaining in NZ that does not see the pursuit of ever greater wealth as the overriding goal of society. The test of a society is how they treat their most disadvantaged and what they pass on to their children. as someone said the " Greens have their heart in the right place".
I wonder if the Green party is shooting itself in the foot by constantly referring to the rich as those in the 70k plus bracket.
Many Green party members must fit my profile.
We the earners in the 70 to 150k bracket are working class/middle class. We have had a drop in incomes and availability of jobs with Government policies also. Immigration is deliberately used to keep our earnings down while we are told an executive earning 100 times our salaries is necessary to attract "talent" (It takes a lot of talent, it seems, to cut costs by cutting wages and shifting jobs to lower paid workers offshore).
We are Teachers, small business people, General Practitioners, successful trades people, mechanics, electricians, hairdressers, shopkeepers, farmers (the family ones who pay taxes), engineers, architects, draftsmen, supervisors. The people who have spent time getting an education or learning a trade. We are the people who along with Labourers, cleaners, rubbish men and road menders keep everything working.
A lot of us have been on minimum wages, student allowances, sickness benefits or unemployment during our lives and know how miserable they are.
Most of us are happy to pay our share taxes for a fair society, but we are not happy to see the truly wealthy avoid their share. Much of our taxes are wasted through corporate welfare, bureaucratic and Government mis management rather than going to the people who need it. Not to say that private sector management is any better, but managing our state services should be to best practice, not a refuge for time servers. Most of the tax burden does fall on higher wage and salary earners who work for their money. Those who get it through capital gains and money earning money are largely untaxed.
We want to see poorer people have the educational opportunities we had, the jobs and aspirations to become constructive and contributing members of society. So they can afford to pay our super :-) .We get annoyed when our young people have no jobs, apprenticeships or higher education to go to because of mean spirited and failed neo-liberal policies.
We are mostly boomers, but do not think there will be enough money to pay pensions soon. We would like to invest in something to offset the burden on, or pass on, to our kids, but housing is the only one not subject to fraud by unregulated financial traders.
We voted against Muldoons election bribery, Douglas's destruction, Richardsons meanness and Keys smiling deconstruction of welfare by stealth.
We support acknowledgment of disadvantages to Maori, but wonder why it also seems to be enriching a few rather than helping the kids we see in our schools and surgeries. The foreshore and seabed row seems more about making money from aquaculture than guardianship.
We join the Greens, not because we agree with everything they do, but because they are the only party remaining in NZ that does not see the pursuit of ever greater wealth as the overriding goal of society. The test of a society is how they treat their most disadvantaged and what they pass on to their children. as someone said the " Greens have their heart in the right place".
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Bill Payne and Andrew Hamilton: Why NZ needs to be on the side of the angels - Opinion - NZ Herald News
Bill Payne and Andrew Hamilton: Why NZ needs to be on the side of the angels - Opinion - NZ Herald News
Kia-ora
Funding for start up companies is an ongoing problem. Venture Capital works on a 1 in 10 basis. Out of every 10 startups roughly 1 in 10 will return capital many times. 3 will make a reasonable return and 6 will fail to return on the capital invested.
Banks will only lend to startups on the owners mortgage or other solid assets.
The cost of capital for businesses from banks and finance companies is often prohibitive, especially as New Zealand interest and exchange rates are usually artificially high compared with overseas competitors. (Due to externalities of the reserve bank act).
Many new businesses founder from lack of capital at the first stage of expansion, after the owners mortgage equity is exhausted, despite being basically viable.
Shareholder funding is only available after a certain stage is reached. Also shareholders do not normally contribute anything to funding, in the way a private owner does, after their initial share purchase. Shareholders then become a cost to the business. Often demanding excessive borrowing to maintain dividends.
The demand for increasing share value is a social cost because a shareholder owned business requires constant growth. Continual growth is not sustainable.
Shareholders often close down and asset strip businesses even though they are making fair incomes because they see an opportunity to make more elsewhere. Lately elsewhere has been funny financial products.
We need a new funding model which allows for steady state sustainable businesses.
The New Zealand business man with the bach,beamer and boat is not a bad aspiration. Small/medium steady state businesses are the mainstay of our economy.
Kia-ora
Funding for start up companies is an ongoing problem. Venture Capital works on a 1 in 10 basis. Out of every 10 startups roughly 1 in 10 will return capital many times. 3 will make a reasonable return and 6 will fail to return on the capital invested.
Banks will only lend to startups on the owners mortgage or other solid assets.
The cost of capital for businesses from banks and finance companies is often prohibitive, especially as New Zealand interest and exchange rates are usually artificially high compared with overseas competitors. (Due to externalities of the reserve bank act).
Many new businesses founder from lack of capital at the first stage of expansion, after the owners mortgage equity is exhausted, despite being basically viable.
Shareholder funding is only available after a certain stage is reached. Also shareholders do not normally contribute anything to funding, in the way a private owner does, after their initial share purchase. Shareholders then become a cost to the business. Often demanding excessive borrowing to maintain dividends.
The demand for increasing share value is a social cost because a shareholder owned business requires constant growth. Continual growth is not sustainable.
Shareholders often close down and asset strip businesses even though they are making fair incomes because they see an opportunity to make more elsewhere. Lately elsewhere has been funny financial products.
We need a new funding model which allows for steady state sustainable businesses.
The New Zealand business man with the bach,beamer and boat is not a bad aspiration. Small/medium steady state businesses are the mainstay of our economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
They would have us believe that they have some special talent or superiority that justifies their wealth.
Anyone who watches the Kardashians can see that inheriting wealth is no guarantee of superiority.
Ridding them of some of their money makes for a more efficient economy and a fairer and more decent society.
Why do they have more right to the wealth produced by the workers in society than anyone else whether they work or not.
Jobs and livelihoods exist because there is a demand and need for them. Not because of money capital.
Also! Not because of the owners of capital. Recent events have shown, that, given free rein, the owners of capital hoard it and gamble it. AND expect taxpayers to bail them out when they lose.
The owners of capital are sitting on trillions at the moment. Extra 20% more wealth went to them in NZ this year. Where are the jobs??
Do you really think that if the owners of, say, supermarkets, in NZ withdrew their capital some entrepreneurs would not arise to fill the gap.
Democratic Socialists do not say we take all the money back off them.
Though as it is undeserved and unearned the communists may be right.
Taking capital of these people who tend to mispend, and gamble it, to enable more to those who spend and use it wisely, is economically and socially effective.
A very few get to the top because of effort, learning skills, entrepreneurship, producing something that a great many people value or by talent.
This is so rare however that these individuals are celebrated in the news.
Those deserve their money.
It is interesting though, that most of these people recognise that the social benefits from society, such as State education, helped them on their way and they are happy to give back in some way.
Don’t usually see them demanding less taxes.
Many more who could or would be entrepreneurs are constrained because A,B and C above take the wealth earned by us and waste it. Or use wealth to limit competition from below. Opposing all attempts at upward mobility. E.g. Dumbing down public education to the 3 r’s only to avoid the children of the “lower classes” from competing with their pampered darlings.
Don’t forget those who really produce the wealth. The wealthy would not survive without all of the workers. Even entrepreneurs need staff.