ELECTION 2014

[The Demon Lord]

for God's sake, vote - you're a fucking idiot if you don't.

If I look passed the Ad Hominem - what have you got to back up the same tired Rhetorhic about Voting?

Convince me that active voter participation increases a countries prosperity or adds other benefits.



Sure, there are some countries (like Australia) that are ahead of us, but are we more developed than say Switzerland or Norway?

but there are also countries like Turkey and Chile who vote more than us, but I would say lag behind NZ in terms of development.

I would put forward that national psyche and allocation of natural resources has far more to do with the prosperity of a country than voter turn out.

In the mean time however, I would just like to point out that 'dole bludgers' are typically conceived as being those on unemployment benefits (and sometimes the DPB).

In reality, the overwhelming majority of spending on social welfare goes to Superannuatants. Without picking through the Crown Accounts, I recall that Superannuation expenditure was approximately fourteen times that expended on the Unemployment benefit (although its probably worth noting that Accomodation Supplements may also be received by those on the unemployment benefit - and that expenditure is about 13% of that of Superannuation).

There's also about 640,000 people receiving Super versus 295,000 receiving some form of Unemployment or job-seeker benefit.

What's pertinent here is that we know the Government has repeatedly made comments that it was not willing, in spite of overwhelming evidence about the increasing strain on the Crown's finances, change Super eligibility. Currently, it's not means-tested and the age of eligibility is, arguably, becoming further and further out of touch with the new reality of working lives which can go far beyond 65 (with the assistance of better medical care). That policy position has rested on the tenuous argument that the Prime Minister made an electoral commitment to not raise the age of eligibility. Given that this same Prime Minister has proven himself willing to break similar promises in the name of fiscal responsibility (remember the promise of no increase to GST?), it seems a matter of politics alone that prevents us reducing the pressures of Super on the Crown Accounts (and by logic, our tax system).

Remember this is all occurring in the context of a seven-fold increase in public debt under this Government. Of course, that's not a comprehensive indicator of the quality of fiscal policy, but it's also something that we should bear in mind when we start crediting this government with being sound managers of the economy.

if 1/14th (as you claim) is being spent on those unemployed - then that is still about the same as what we spend on our Armed Forces (for example) - imagine if that was put into say upgrading NZs 3rd world infrastructure.

Although further reading indicates that Superannuation is responsible for just half of the Social Security and Welfare spending, with unemployment and domestic purposes making up 16% each.

http://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-nz/00PLSocRP00141/977146ac6bc6d8ebcbcc264628090ec9c2f73fe6

Both Categories contain a significant proportion of people who could be considered dole bludging - and considering that makes up nearly a 3rd of the spend (which equates to $7 Bn or so) then I think my stance is more than justified

[Tandoori]

Well I certainly wouldn't advocate doubling the Defence Force budget at the expense of Unemployment support - given that the Defence Force seemingly is just a very expensive form of Unemployment relief!

Also you need to do your further reading bearing in mind that it's now 2014 - that document you linked is outdated. We've had significant welfare reform and population changes since then.


This provides some infographics without breaking down sections into too much detail. They key point i would make here is that the 4.5bn figure on p.5 is made up about 5 benefits - and the Unemployment benefit is the smallest of those.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/financialstatements/yearend/jun14


'idiot' in the truest sense of the word - An Athenian too ignorant to contribute to or participate in public affairs (the opposite of the ideal Aristotelian citizen).

There's also the correlation between intelligence and voting, but let's park that can of worms.

I'm advocate voting because it's the simplest means of exercising political agency (and the impact is marginally greater when turnout is low - your lack of voting makes my vote stronger). Also Democracy goddamnit! Democracy and Capitalism. These two things are super important for prosperity. And the thing about capitalism is that needs good governance, sound enforcement of property rights and competition. Democracy is a great foil for market failure.

Systems are only as good as their inputs. Democracy needs public participation (voting and more). There is no viable alternative to democracy that I can see would provide the same level of prosperity in the long term.

I would put forward that national psyche and allocation of natural resources has far more to do with the prosperity of a country than voter turn out.

These things are determined to some extent by voters.

[The Demon Lord]

There is no viable alternative to democracy that I can see would provide the same level of prosperity in the long term.

Benevolent Demon-tatorship

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

I do like Winston, he does seam to be more honest then other politicians.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11368253

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Denmark gone dun pushed us off as least corrupt country.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/63799601/NZ-no-longer-least-corrupt

[Tiwaking!]

Can someone please confirm for me if the unemployment rate has increased in New Zealand?

Also, has the deficit increased or decreased? I know that we are definitely not getting a surplus next year, but finding information about Nationals economic progression seems to be a battle of bias.
edit:

Denmark gone dun pushed us off as least corrupt country.

I wonder if I can bet money somewhere that we will never be number 1 again?
Also: Source:
http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results

[Tandoori]

Over what period, tiwa?

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/income-and-work/employment_and_unemployment/HouseholdLabourForceSurvey_HOTPSep14qtr.aspx

Deficit has decreased for last three years, but not in surplus yet.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/prefu2014/016.htm

The next forecast will be the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) 2014 which will be published on Tuesday 16 December 2014, at 1pm.

[Tiwaking!]

Spoiler :

Over what period, tiwa?

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/income-and-work/employment_and_unemployment/HouseholdLabourForceSurvey_HOTPSep14qtr.aspx

Deficit has decreased for last three years, but not in surplus yet.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/prefu2014/016.htm

The next forecast will be the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) 2014 which will be published on Tuesday 16 December 2014, at 1pm.

Thanks Tandoori! Those were the charts I was looking for. There were lots of articles with similar combined charts, but none of them quoted their source.

News just in: New Zealand Economy is bad

Why? Inequality
http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequality-hurts-economic-growth.htm

Rising inequality is estimated to have knocked more than 10 percentage points off growth in Mexico and New Zealand over the past two decades up to the Great Recession. In Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States, the cumulative growth rate would have been six to nine percentage points higher had income disparities not widened, but also in Sweden, Finland and Norway, although from low levels. On the other hand, greater equality helped increase GDP per capita in Spain, France and Ireland prior to the crisis.
 
The paper finds new evidence that the main mechanism through which inequality affects growth is by undermining education opportunities for children from poor socio-economic backgrounds, lowering social mobility and hampering skills development.
 
People whose parents have low levels of education see their educational outcomes deteriorate as income inequality rises. By contrast, there is little or no effect on people with middle or high levels of parental educational background.
 
The impact of inequality on growth stems from the gap between the bottom 40 percent with the rest of society, not just the poorest 10 percent. Anti-poverty programmes will not be enough, says the OECD. Cash transfers and increasing access to public services, such as high-quality education, training and healthcare, are an essential social investment to create greater equality of opportunities in the long run.

National will do nothing to solve inequality

GG guys. Next election I am voting for China

[Tandoori]

I wouldn't be so quick to throw hyperboles around.

Eric Crampton (of the New Zealand Initiative - formerly the Business Roundtable) comes to the defence of the economic consensus:

http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.co.nz/2014/12/oecd-on-inequality.html

And some twitter talk:
https://twitter.com/bernardchickey/status/542206588182745088

[Tiwaking!]

I wouldn't be so quick to throw hyperboles around.

Eric Crampton (of the New Zealand Initiative - formerly the Business Roundtable) comes to the defence of the economic consensus:

http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.co.nz/2014/12/oecd-on-inequality.html

And some twitter talk:
https://twitter.com/bernardchickey/status/542206588182745088

Yeah, I had a look at the statistics page on New Zealand inequality and it seems that it is not as bad as the oecd is saying either.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-social-indicators/Home/Standard%20of%20living/income-inequality.aspx

Not sure if the oecd guys are seeing something different, but I'd bet money on their prediction rather than our one. Predictions might be have been different if we still had a competent Business Roundtable
edit: Still voting for China though. Chinese language is a requirement for the CraFarms down south. Filipino is acceptable too

[Tandoori]

Chinese language is a requirement for the CraFarms down south. Filipino is acceptable too

Source?

[Tiwaking!]

Chinese language is a requirement for the CraFarms down south. Filipino is acceptable too

Source?

I'll take a picture of the adverts at the Southern Institute of Technology, but they are entirely in Mandarin.

They're up everywhere because they are recruiting the International Students who cant go home for the holidays

[Tiwaking!]

Chinese language is a requirement for the CraFarms down south. Filipino is acceptable too

Source?

The Southern Institute of Technology is currently closed. I forgot it was school holidays already.

If the posters are still up next year then I'll get a picture of them. I am curious to know if they were employment requests for workers or if they were management level

[Tiwaking!]

So.

Now we have a government that doesn't fulfill any of its promises, doesn't appear to be able to ever fulfill any of its promises, and to top it all of has ruined New Zealands international reputation for all time.

Thanks for playing "Everyones A Loser" guys

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Yeah, na.

Our reputation is hardly ruined.

[Craigor]

Reputation?

What is New Zealand again? is that a Suburb in a city in Australia?

[Tiwaking!]

Reputation?

What is New Zealand again? is that a Suburb in a city in Australia?

New Zealand!!

Its full of sheep, hobbits, Bollywood stars, and people willing to spy on small south pacific sovereignties and give that information to western imperialistic powers.

[Tiwaking!]

I see the National Government have finally announced their first ever surplus
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/73009393/nz-government-records-414-million-surplus

A higher than expected tax take has boosted the Government's books on the way to a $414 million surplus - the first since it came to power in 2008 and a significant political victory for Finance Minister Bill English.

However, English has refused to commit the Government to achieving surpluses in the coming years, while he also said there would be a high hurdle in place for bringing forward planned tax cuts.

News of the surplus is no surprise, with the Labour Party conceding it was coming in a press release on Tuesday.

Of course you're going to get a higher than expected tax take you complete bastards. In 2010 National increased GST from 12.5% to 15% so you would expect to get more tax after squeezing everything dry you skiving mingebag.

But the official confirmation comes months after English had played down the Government's goal that it would come into surplus by 2014/15, instead predicting a small deficit.

Instead, it has recorded a $414m surplus for the last financial year, 0.2 per cent of GDP, and an operating balance surplus of $5.8 billion.

The Treasury's financial statements said the Government's books had been boosted by a $5.1b increase in core Crown tax revenue, higher than an expected and an $8.2 per cent increase compared to the previous year.

"Robust growth" in the construction, household consumption and tourism sectors had largely underpinned the increase in tax revenue, while core Crown expenses had remained relatively flat, increasing only $1.2b.

Core Crown debt had increased by $700m, but fallen as an overall percentage of GDP.

The core Crown revenue for 2014/15 was $72.2b, with core expenses of $72.4b.

I would expect this to be the last ever surplus due to Chinese investors abandoning the overpriced and now heavily regulated real estate market in Auckland.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

There's no winning with some people I guess.

They announce a deficit, they get criticised.
They announce a surplus, they get criticised.
They raise benefits, they get criticised.

[Tiwaking!]

There's no winning with some people I guess.

They announce a deficit, they get criticised.

CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING!

They announce a surplus, they get criticised.

DECREASE TAXES

They raise benefits, they get criticised.

FUCK THE POOR!

[Clin]

lol and holy shit that's an amazing concept