I guess it’s all in a day’s work, but MartyG on The Standard misintrepeted my position on PPPs in this recent post.
1. His opposition to PPPs appears to be as blindly ideologically based as National’s blind ideological support for them. Labour’s policy before and since the last election has been based on providing the best value for New Zealand taxpayers, regardless of ideology.
2. The vital point of difference between National and Labour on this issue is that National is committed to the private sector first and foremost, while Labour is committed to providing infrastructure in the way that works best for New Zealanders.
3. That is why Annette King, when she was Transport Minister, set up a working group to look at the effectiveness of PPPs, particularly in relation to large projects like Waterview.
4. Labour has yet to be convinced of the value of PPPs for any particular project, but we are willing to weigh up the evidence. When considering the (de)merits of a potential PPP project we would take a range of critical factors into account. I mentioned two in my recent speech:
“The project scale must be right and the PPP benefits must outweigh any increase in cost of capital”
5 Marty G and I should agree that this sets a high hurdle, because the Crown can always borrow at lower (sovereign) interest rates. The offsetting benefits would have to be very clear, large enough in net terms (after deducting overheads like the cost of tolling), and not available by other means (e.g. non-PPP contracting) to clearly outweigh this cost of capital disadvantage.
6. It is also obviously necessary that whoever is evaluating a potential PPP for the state has to have the expertise and resources to really test the proposal and establish rigorous accountability. I have not changed my view that setting a $25 million threshold for compulsory consideration of PPPs by all government departments, as Bill English has done, is ridiculous and bound to lead to bad decisions.
7. Labour also has a longstanding policy that there needs to be a non-toll alternative before any toll-based transport projects could be approved. That was reinforced recently in our tighter rules around foreign direct investment in monopoly strategic infrastructure.
8. Labour is not soft on privatisation. Our opposition to private prisons and SOE sales underlines that. My recent speech explicitly ruled out any dilution of any Crown equity in any state asset or existing subsidiary. That bright line test restates our strong “no sale’” policy that provides ongoing strong differentiation form National.
Labour is committed to an active and strong state sector. It takes seriously its responsibility to adopt policies and projects that deliver sustainable value to Kiws. Clear thinking and evidence-based policy are even more important when funds are tight, if we are going to get this economy going again.
“I don’t particularly care about unemployment”
Odd, because you bought it up.
“regarding the right wing governments decreasing unemployment ”
Also
“Under Thatcher the poor were making more than they were under Labour”
Not when I emmigrated here they weren’t.
“what would you rather have? Poor people poorer and a smaller gap? Or everyone richer and a bigger gap?”
Spin doctor tomfoolery, and a bit of a trick question.
It’s not an either/or situation.
I’d rather have poorer people payed alot more than they currently are with the income cap narrowing.
@ CV
2008. Labour’s still in government, but thankfully, the dark ages are nearly at an end. Crash hits, all of a sudden we’re running deficits.
Coinkidink? I think not.
Regardless, we cannot sustain current levels of spending, we need to make cuts. Raising taxes wouldn’t be enough, which is more or less the only solution lefties have.
Don’t know why you love the Reagan years dude, for most people wages were held static even as wealth of the top 1% in US society greatly increased.
To the extent now that 1% of Americans own more financial wealth than the bottom 95% of Americans put together.
Winner takes all mate, let your people rot while a few drink Bollinger.
“Raising taxes wouldn’t be enough, which is more or less the only solution lefties have.”
Who just raised gst? Wasn’t a leftie in sight, bruv.
yes it would.
(Actually I have no idea, but I bet I can find new taxes to sort it).
lols Al1ens, is this Friday Night Football?
You are banned Trevor
After how we just dealt to the Aussies in the ashes test today, I’d prefer Friday night Cricket Lol
“Don’t know why you love the Reagan years dude, for most people wages were held static even as wealth of the top 1% in US society greatly increased.
To the extent now that 1% of Americans own more financial wealth than the bottom 95% of Americans put together.
Winner takes all mate, let your people rot while a few drink Bollinger.”
Boohoo, what does it matter? 1% of billionares who more or less give you everything you need and want (food, steel, media, cars, internet access, etc, etc) are always going to have more its a mathematical fact. I don’t begrudge them their money. Just because X own more than Y doesn’t mean that Z doesn’t have enough. You still have no argument to the fact that people in the US earn ten grand more than us.
Billionaires create all the jobs in the ‘States, there is no pathetic public sector (at least not to our even more pathetic standards).
Also, I’m sick of citing facts for my arguments, you cite some.
Yeah Al1ens U’m with you there
“You still have no argument to the fact that people in the US earn ten grand more than us.”
Those that are working might well do, but more americans live in poverty without homes and/or proper medical care compare to little old NZ.
Workers are crapped on with impunity, like it was jon key’s utopian vision of employment relations.
Remember in the 80s when the right used to scare people with comunism? LOL
How’s this for a turn around?
If you love america so much, why don’t you go and live there?
@all: interesting as the conversations might be, back to the topic would be a bonus!
@Spud, if you can’t take the heat you need to exit. So you response to ‘argue the points’ is to show that you’re unable to do so. Ok, but agin, it reflects you rather than me. Stop being such a victim and debate the damn issues.
@Al1ens, just because you don’t like Ed’s figures doesn’t make them any less true. Also the fact you have no actual data to refute it, other than your own baseless opinion, speaks volumes.
@Viper – “blame the victim” really, thats the problem with lefties, always either playing the victim card, being a victim or blaming others for the trials in their lives. If Spud wishes to run away from the battle so be it. But running away from something never solves anything and reflects an individuals character. It all proves my point that when the going gets tough lefties look around to blame someone else. Look in the mirror. As far as Labour’s surpluses go, what did they do with them – spend them. Set up middle class welfare instead of reducing the tax burden on individuals and business (which directly effects employment). For all the pains individuals have experienced over the years, when the best economic worldwide conditions seen for decades appear, Labour didn’t trust the people of this Country to make their own decisions about what is their money. It would almost appear to a cynic, that Labours preference is to keep wages and salaries down, after all it increases the potential Labour demographic (excluding chardonnay socialists who have never experienced financial hardships at any point in their lives).
@Ali1ens – “Who increased GST?” well firstly who introduced it- Labour, who increased it first ? -Labour. Getting forgetful are we ? I look forward seeing whether Labour, after fighting against the current increase, should they become Government, to immediately decrease it back to 12.5%. I assume this is a Labour Policy having witnessed the hysteria exhibited by the Party over the increase. But the issue is of course how to pay for it. I suppose you can increase the tax on the middle class to pay for it, you know people with families and mortgages. Will it happen ? Probably not, but words are easy when in opposition aren’t they? Strange how Labour are silent on this matter.
Dave the issue is who promised not to increase GST during the campaign!
Do you ask yourself who campaigned against the Electoral Finance Act and then introduced a similar law.
Your high horse has become a childs wooden one
Making up numbers?
You mean like dodgy Prospectus, topping up boo-boos to make investors think the advisors are actually good at their jobs, Enron, Anderson consulting, Lehman Brothers and on and on and on.
To suggest that Russia was the only country cooking the books as a justification for capitalism as we currently have it is laughable.
It is possible to take some notions from one plce, others from another, create a hybrid.
Those of you who think we are tied to only doing things the way they used to be done, are not people of the future but stuck in a time warp which doesnt lead to prosperity but dooms us to keep repeating the same mistakes.
David Cunliffe, can you confirm if my thoughts, back on page 1, about your stance on PPP are on or off the mark. Thanks
Apologies for feeding the trolls, DC. It won’t happen again.
Now I can’t reply to Dave.
I think you are right Tracey, there is no recipe for NZ’s future prosperity that we can simply copy. We can learn from the successes and failures of others, but at the end of the day we have to use our smarts and do something unique and customised for ourselves, our situation, and our goals.
And its not going to be a smooth ride, there will be plenty of set backs too (esp since the international economic situation is so shaky), we will just have to get on with it because we need a resilient economy able to look after our people and able to withstand external shocks.
CV
This is kind of what I was taking from DC’s speech, that he can see a place for PPP’s but not in all areas, and not on a grant style basis, but an equity basis. If we put 1.5bn into telecom’s infrastructure, how many shares does that buy us?
@ghost – not sure where you get the “high horse” thing from. Sure GST has been increased, and i don’t agree with it, but if Labour were campaigning so hard against it, why don’t we see a press release from Goff stating categorically it will be reduced? All we got was “um we’ll take it off veges and fruit”. Surely a reduction in GST would help low income families the greatest. While I’m at it, so would a zero tax threshold for the first $15,000. Also a good idea IMO. Unless you disagree? I’m glad to see you think the Electoral Finance Act was an abomination and designed to impinge free speech (only for those who don’t vote Labour of course) – but AGAIN who implemented it? Is it your contention that those who implement perceived unfair laws are not answerable, or is it only those that have the arduous task of dismantling them? Please explain this to me would you, I’d be very interested in your explanation?
because it would escalate the NAT’s current borrowing of $250M per week to almost $300M per week.
Good enough reason for ya?
Borrowing to pay for the welfare, ETS, America’s Cup, NZSO and go knows what else, the socialists blew out. Oh, no but we can’t cut it, can’t privatise things the people don’t need to pay for (TVNZ for one), that’d be mean, waaaaaaa.
Audrey quite right we shouldn’t be borrowing to pay for those things we should be ***TAXING***. Cheaper because the Govt would not have to pay foreigners interest on the debt.
No. We should just cut them. People who do things > People who don’t.
Not to mention, if you read any of the figures Ed provided, cutting taxes usually leads to a more robust economy, richer people (yes even the ultra-wealthy, but they pay the majority of the tax, while bleeding hearts like you don’t really contribute anything, comparatively) and a higher government revenue. Hense, seeing as the economy is growing, whether you like it or not, the tax take is likely to increase, however it won’t stop the need to stop helping those who refuse to help themselves.
@Tracey – please clarify whichof your comments you wnt my specific feedback on
Fastest way to increase the tax take is increase taxes, not lower taxes = give the wealthy more money tommorow for doing exactly what they do today.
Wow I like the way you run the classic neolib line, everyone has seen it fail in dramatic fashion around the world in the last 2 years, but i admire persistance
I like the way you follow the classic socialist line. Everyone knows it failed, far more astronomically in the 1970s, but I admire your persistence.
Lolz, nice one.
Actually I prefer a mix of social democracy and democratic socialism. China provides a few interesting references too.
Leninism is not my cup of tea.
“No. We should just cut them. People who do things > People who don’t”
Which is why act only poll 1.5%
@Viper, “good enough reason for (you)? Are you saying this is now Labour Policy? So Labour would reduce borrowing – if so by what means? Which services would they cut to pay for it? They would not decrease GST? So what was all the fuss Goff was making about it on the “roadshow”?
Sorry Dave, I don’t subscribe to a small minded economists view of Government. Politicians cannot think that their primary role is simply one of micro-managing managerialism.
Therefore, the purpose of Government is not to balance the damn books. The purpose of Government is to lead the country in building a better, more equal, and more sustainable society – economically as well as in all other ways – for all of us to enjoy living in.
And no, GST is not going to be reduced in the foreseeable future by a Labour Govt because the NATS have already given all of that money away to the wealthy in their tax cuts, $9.1B over the next 4 years in fact.
@Viper – “And no, GST is not going to be reduced in the foreseeable future by a Labour Govt”. So what was all the fuss about – going around the country trying to foment some sort of outrage? If Labour were against it why wouldn’t it be a policy to remove it? As far as the “rich” go, you and i have a very different definition of rich. I am, by Labour definition, rich. I make around $80,000 a year, BUT I have three teenage children, and all the bills that go with that, i have one car which is less than ‘flash’, I also have $35,000 in student loans and a large mortgage. The tax cuts that came in were hardly noticeable for me. You seem to think there are tens of thousands of New Zealanders that earn over $100,000 a year (still not rich) making out like bandits because of the tiny cuts to tax. I earn that pretty standard salary for a professional, because I made an effort with my life. Why are Labour intent on punishing me for it?
“The tax cuts that came in were hardly noticeable for me”
But sadly for the low income households that proportionately pay more of their weekly incomes on the necessities of life like food and accomodation costs, the rise in gst has been extremely noticeable.
So much pain for such little gain, and you’re on an average $80k a year.
And yet still you feel no need to question where the money has really gone, then?
1) Taxes are not a punishment. They are crucial and allow the running of civil society. Under NACT they also provide funds to bail out the rich list when their finance companies go wrong.
2) The tiny tax cuts = $9.1B to the wealthy over 4 years. Not so tiny, really. Your problem is that you weren’t rich enough to really benefit from them so i accept your comment.
3) As i said above,$80K income p.a. is not rich by any means. Neither is $100K p.a. In fact we need far more ordinary NZ’ers in decent paying jobs where they can earn $80K-$100K p.a.
You will notice that in Darien’s post here
http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2010/12/04/happy-xmas-to-the-bosses/comment-page-1/#comment-126014
the pay levels are well well above what you earn.
Re: the tax cuts, they weren’t even designed to benefit you. They were designed to benefit the people on Bill English’s and John Key’s salary the most.
As I mentioned above you lost out because you don’t fit their defintion of being rich enough.
Dave I have a reply in moderation but my essential point is that $80K p.a. is a decent middle class income but its not rich by any means.
National’s tax cuts were designed to help people on Bill English/John Key’s income level and higher the most.
So yes I agree with you, you missed out and that’s because they determined that only the wealthiest should benefit fromn their tax cuts the most not you.
NACT are not your friends.
David, it was this one I was referring to, sorry fo rnot being clearer
“tracey says:
December 2, 2010 at 1:42 pm
I’m struggling with how people can be struggling with david’s speech and thi spost.
Mind you after I write this he may say I have it wrong.
My understanding is he is not against PPP’s per se. He considers that some things are better suited to a PPP than others, and some he wont consider.
I also got the sense that PPP’s he will consider include an equity relationship. So, in my mind, this would mean he would consider 1.5B to telecom for infrastructure but the NZ Govt would become a shareholder in return.”
“Nact are not your friends” and Labour are? I’v enver benefitted form Labours policies in the last 9 years. Not even the middle class welfare (Working for Families) were we allowed. Will they (did they) give me cheaper than $50 per visit Doctors visits, no, did they fund my post grad degree so it didn’t cost me $35,000? no, will they allow my oldest a student allowance (denied because his parents are so wealthy) no we a re forced to borrow to put him through university just so he can eat. I get the feeling that Labour sees different groups in New Zealand society as belonging to either the desperately poor or “other”. What incentive is there for me to continue to earn higher salaries if all Labour want to do is tax the hell out of it, then give it others. I feel (and felt under Labour) utterly undervalued and taken for granted. Society is not equal, no matter how much social engineering is undertaken. Were it all equal we would be churning out Doctors, Professional Engineers, Teachers, Lawyers at a huge rate, but we’d have a shortage of tradesman, clerical workers, shop assistants and other valued , skilled but intellectually less rigorous jobs. As society is not equal in human terms, we don’t and never will, and never can make it so through forceful measures that reduce incentive. No amount of “redistribution” makes anyone more equal, it just reduces us all to the median or mediocre.
“No amount of “redistribution” makes anyone more equal, it just reduces us all to the median or mediocre.”
Great stuff!! And to legislate social engineering or equality simply makes people poorer and less free.
Dave is an example of why Labour never worked. Y’see under Clarke and Goff, he’s rich, he’s in the top tax bracket. And the fact is no matter how much you see “waaaaa nats tax cuts were for the rich!!!!” most New Zealanders, and New Zealanders like Dave, have more money. They had less money under Labour.
As for the poor, I’m sorry but how does giving them other people’s money help them get off their feet? There are poor under National, just as there were poor under National. The best we can do is give them an economic situation where they’re able to get themselves out of the bottom. I don’t see how taking GST off fruit and vegetables will do that, it might make poor people lose some weight, but that’s about it.
Also, what’s with this politically correct: “low income families” stuff? What’s wrong with: poor, middle class, and rich?
*poor under Labour
Winner takes all mentality in capitalism is corrosive and should always be called out.
Yes, people who work harder, have high skills and have more responsibility should be paid more.
But not 100x or 150x more than a care worker on minimum wage. Right wing social and economic engineering has allowed the situation where this now happens.
No one should be able to earn in two days what another full time worker earns in an entire year. Yes this is a value judgement and a judgement on how people should be valued more equitably.
Pay limited to 40x or 50x the median income provides reasonable rewards and incentives to excel. This level of income = a couple of new Porsches, a brand new house (properly kitted) and first class tickets around the world every single year.
It would also provide an incentive for our leaders to lift the median income of New Zealanders.
Pay limited? Good luck cv, how about you word the legislation for that one. Envy is just a corrosive.
Oh softstarter, interesting how you play on the politics of envy and greed.
So many brand new Porsche 911′s do you want to be able to buy in a year? Three not enough for you? How about five? Is ten enough? Or maybe fifteen?
If someone can afford it, they can buy as many as they want.
CV what would happen if we had a Bill Gates or Jobs or even a google co in NZ with the success that would bring. Should a setup whereby the CEO recieves min salary but huge share options(That in NZ reduce the tax payable bythe CEO- as it can be Cap Gain)?
Rewarding staff regarding share option can lead to make hay today but undermine the coys long term future. e.g put off preventitive maintenance and the P&L benefits 3-5 years later new CEO has to fire fight the problems left behind. Some could say that Telecom has had that issue regarding the previous and current CEO’s (But not me)
Also we have becasue of political interfearance earners we have within the top 5% of earners getting govt handouts e.g. WFF applies even to MP’s (If they have enough children)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt
But CV as you have commented how much is enough. Well I would ask the Mp’s on this site how much does a family/pensioner etc required to live off and to be an active participant in society? Until we get this basic question answered all other aspects are just political spin, designed only for playing the politics game, and not both that this and other issues impact on REAL people.
Well this is a good question and brings the discussion to the so-called ‘living wage’.
For an individual is it $400pw? $500pw? $600pw?
And to be honest I actually have no idea because I am not really familiar with any NZ context discussions around a living wage. My feeling is that the figure lies between $500 and $600 pw, but I could be wrong.
To answer your Gates/Jobs scenario for NZ I do not think that a pay limit-share options interaction would be an issue in practice.
Why?
Because such a firm would rarely stay in NZ ownership (or in NZ full stop) long enough for an issue to come up.
Put another way, when you look at the proportion of NZ owned tech startups which reach IPO stage its very close to, as I understand it, nil.
I’d be very interested to know if the original TradeMe employees ever received share options, despite the company never having been floated.
Many students live quite comfortably on less than 300 a week, myself for instance, 300 easily covers my rent, food, smokes and incidentals – and that’s without a student allowance. The problem with the living wage argument is that it in no way takes into account the differences between certain socioeconomic groups and how they live.
A family of 8, probably couldn’t get by on 300 a week, but as I said, a student could.
I don’t think I’d feel comfortable making life harder for small business who employ people at minimum wage, by ramping it up to a “living wage” level.
@Callum – “I don’t think I’d feel comfortable making life harder for small business who employ people at minimum wage, by ramping it up to a “living wage” level.” Too true, the policies of hitting businesses with compliance costs and excessive minimums, not only reduces the ability of the business to make a profit, but it puts real jobs at real risk. I’m baffled that anyone can’t see that, perhaps its because the vast majority of union delegates have never run a business so have absolutely no perspective of putting themselves and their own capital at risk. But of course that takes initiative and innovative thinking. I’m all for a living wage of course, as is everyone , but the vast majority of businesses in New Zealand employ less than ten people. They are not faceless corporations that are out to grind the worker down, they are family businesses generally. The only result that putting unreasonable costs on a business is that it costs jobs, it certainly doesn’t create them, and neither do Governments, well, not genuine ones.
Hey guys sorry, but if you can’t pay your people adequately then the business has to change its business model and raise the value of its output to improve margins, not try and eek out its margins by pushing worker wages downwards.
Furthermore Government is a crucial player in the economy.
It is more reliable than the private sector and can co-ordinate more spending than the private sector. In addition, without Govt intervention to regulate markets, market players will always gravitate to the most profitable postures – monopolistic ones.
The RWNJ meme imported from the US that Govt must have a shrinking role to play must be opposed because, ahem, look at the good its done them.
A living wage is probably between $500 and $600 pw IMO.