As we know, today Phil Goff announced a tax free threshold policy. Trevor outlined the bones of this revenue policy in a previous post. Phil also announced other measures to improve the fairness of the tax system. These mainly centred on closing down tax loopholes that are currently used by some to avoid paying their fair share and that inhibit investment in the productive economy. I would like to briefly explain the philosophy and three guiding principles behind today’s announcement.
Philosophy: Labour is a social democratic party that (by and large) adheres to the principles of Keynesian economic theory (as do most Western democracies). Keynes believed that in times of recession the government should provide tax relief to the lower and middle socio-economic classes, as this group will spend any increase in disposable income, thereby stimulating demand in the economy. He stated that giving tax relief to the wealthy is counterproductive, as they either save or retire debt; which is exactly what has happened in NZ. Alan Bollard, Bill English and the Treasury have admitted that the latest tax cuts have had no stimulatory effect on the economy at all. So in a time of the greatest recession since the 1930s depression, why spend $14billion on tax cuts that aren’t going to help economic recovery? You don’t – or shouldn’t. National’s tax switch was fiscally irresponsible, based on out-dated economic theory and poorly targeted.
Integrity: for any tax system to work efficiently it must have integrity; i.e. minimise the ability of taxpayers to engage in avoidance. When the government-instigated Tax Working Group discovered that half of New Zealand’s wealthiest 100 citizens don’t pay the top tax rate, there were gasps of disbelief. How could this be? It could be because there are too many loopholes that allow a high level of legal tax avoidance. The Tax Working Group noted that the $200billion invested in rental properties brings in no tax revenue; in fact it generates tax losses. Hardly the type of investment that will drive sustainable economic growth or create export-driven industry, and yet the law currently allows it. Labour will change this. It is important for the integrity of the tax system that these loopholes are closed down and people pay their fair share.
Equity: basically this deals with tax equity across investment classes. Phil talked about using the tax system to drive investment towards the productive economy by closing down the tax advantages afforded to those who invest in property. Under current law, investors have the ability to write off tax losses associated with investment property against personal income. Often people negatively gear investment properties simply to maximise tax losses, and therefore avoid paying their fair share of income tax. Labour will change the law around this and ensure that losses associated with investment properties are ring-fenced (as currently happens under company law).
Equality: is it really fair that in last year’s October tax cuts, someone earning $1,000,000 pa received an extra $1,000 per week, whereas someone on the median income received pretty much nothing? No it’s not. I totally agree with rewarding those who do well, who are successful, take on responsibility and who put in the hours, the study and the time – but not at the expense of the great many. The level of inequality in NZ is alarming and it needs to be addressed. We pride ourselves on living in a country where all have the opportunity to achieve to our potential. However, this ideal is sadly no longer reality. The tax system is but one tool we can use to create a fairer, more equitable society.
I made exactly the same points about english’s tax folley in Trevor’s topic, though admittedly not nearly as eloquently and succint.
10/10
There are of course other policy announcements that can be made in accord with this philosophic direction.
The cost of this is only $1.3B – $10 a week to the many and from the few a reduction of their top rate tax cut, that will afford half of it.
As for the balance, well closing loopholes to a greater degree than National will implement in this years budget. No one really thinks they will do that thorough job do they? There will be plenty of ideas about how to this properly that National will ignore.
There’s ring fencing rental property losses, and requiring those not paying tax as businesses to stop claiming interest as a cost – only get this right if paying tax on the profit of buying and selling housing. We need to flat lid property values down in real terms across a decade and reduce related foreign debt relative to the GDP of the economty and this is how to do it.
And I can think of a painless couple of ways to raise $2Bpa extra offhand.
Of course even National will spot one – cut the $1B KiwiSaver tax incentives and transfer the saving into cuts in tax on interest income.
But that still leaves another $B from a move English explicitly called too courageous a few years ago. And it’s not difficult to enact, is supported by the institution concerned, and it helps transform monetary policy in a way that is consistent with Labour intent – it holds down the currency value and helps the exporting productive sector.
This money can afford R and D tax credits, Fast Forward and venture capital and hopefully some small business loan insurance – so business is not dependent on rising property values (turning the rest of us into tenants) to access finance for growth (or venture capital for new equity).
Dumping Monetarism, which is basically what Labour and National have been following for the last three decades, is a good idea as it’s a complete failure as far as any sort of theory goes (it failed to predict the present GFC (and a whole lot of other stuff) and any theory is only as good as it’s predictions) but going back to Keynesianism isn’t going to do us any good either as it’s still based around growth and, with Peak Oil here, growth is no longer possible. Trying to maintain any sort of capitalist socio-economic system will fail as it inherently channels the communities wealth to the few which, in a system where growth is no longer possible to channel some of the wealth back into the economy, will trigger degenerative collapse. This will happen in a faster and faster time frame with the majority of people becoming worse off as the wealthy try to hold on to the wealth that they have accumulated.
We need to move to a stable-state paradigm. One that is based around the Renewable Resource Base and which fairly and equitably distributes the limited resources that the community has available. Capitalism cannot do this as it’s sole purpose is to transfer the communities wealth to the few.
What Phil Goff outlined in his speech today was a step towards rebalancing the economy but it’s certainly not a long term solution and it is doomed to failure. What you outline here fails to take us away from the failed capitalist paradigm.
There are of course other policy announcements that can be made in accord with this philosophic direction.
Draco, Labour has signalled a broader monetary policy direction. That sort of obliges an effort to reduce reliance on the OCR as a tool for containing inflation. The RB itself has asked for other tools to be made available to it. For example a 1% surcharge on mortgages would raise $B pa and allow the OCR to stay at 3% rather than be increased to 4% in 2011-2012.
It’s also of course important that we reduce foreign debt related to local home mortgages as a proportion of GDP. I am sure Labour’s looking at tax related to the rental housing sector will help in this. We need property values to fall in real terms for a decade or so.
Hopefully National and Labour can be bi-partisan on ending Kiwi Saver tax incentives – the 2% employer contribution should be enough incentive (possibly allowing new start-ups a $1000 input). The $B could be used to halve tax on interest income by setting with-holding at 3 rates – 10% under the minimum wage, 15% for the middle group and 20% for those on the top rate.
I don’t think that a lot of people understand what a ‘social democracy’ actually is.
It is crucial to talk about the philosophy and principles behind Goff’s speech as it gives people meaning to the detail, but I think it might be useful to go even one step broader to the big picture.
Why a social democracy is a society which is just and fair, and how National rule undermines social democratic principles.
You fail to cover the main question – how are you going to pay for it?
Even Labour stalwart Idiot Savant at No Right Turn points out that the figures quoted do not stack up and previous Finance Minister Michael Cullen has said the same.
Oh of course – lets increase the weekly borrowing to $400m but don’t admit it. Ludicrous.
That’s just detail mate and it is coming.
After all, Bill and John thought that they could afford giving the wealthy $9.1B in tax cuts over 4 years. A bit of claw back there will be welcome, right?
Of course Bill and John’s tax cuts for the rich generated an additional unfunded deficit: National is actively putting NZ’s finances into a hole to help out the wealthy.
You forget Labour still has Michael Cullen to advise it. Cullen’s record is 9 straight budget surpluses while simultaneously paying down our foreign debt.
Bill and John – on course for 3 deficit strikes out on the Budget.
`You forget Labour still has Cullen to advise it’.
That is what worries us mate. Cullen is the man who squandered – no killed – the growth in the country and had been steadily built up through the 90′s. His politics of envy took us into recession a year ahead of the rest of the world and then he stupidly bought a train set.
Give me a break!!!
“You fail to cover the main question – how are you going to pay for it?”
“That’s just detail mate”
So many cheerleaders here – happy to follow the horse – without the intelligence to ask the questions.
Its not just detail – Its the core of the matter. We cannot afford to borrow to buy votes – so where is the detail????
If you had the costings done – you could tell us. Im guessing this shows you simply dont know and we will end up borrowing.
And – at least have the courage to tell us the forecast tax rates for the envy tax. You must know it – as its in your “detail” How about making that public.
And while we are at it. With all the people earning ‘rich p###’ money (what was it 60k according to labour?) – who are paying mortages etc who cannot afford to have a large increase in taxes without loosing their homes – what do you say to them?
Tax and spend is all we even seem to hear from Labour over the past years. Increasing the tax on the ‘rich’ will increase tax avoidance. The only reason it wouldn’t is because it will send the most wealthy and smarter people offshore and only increasing the brain drain. Of course with less wealthy Labour will have less easy targets in their election lolly scramble. Its small minded policies that will drive our country into the ground and send us toward communism.
And by the way is $120,000 really ‘rich’? Certainly not.
So, Chris, you were happy to swallow raising gst to part fund the top earners $1000 pw tax cut?
You’re happy to pay $9bn over 4 years to pay for tax cuts for those that by admission, won’t stimulate the economy in any way?
Yet you baulk at all kiwis getting the first $5000 they earn tax free.
Says it all, mate. Says it all.
And then Matthew.
So what was that about Cheerleaders, Chris?
In terms of system integrity, would labour consider increasing the tax-free bracket to, say $10,000, while respectively decreasing entitlements such as WFF, or the ridiculous Independent Earner Tax Credit?
For greater simplicity, efficiency etc?
@ pdm, your comments would have some credibility had you raised the same quations when Key gave away billions to his rich mates, including himself, and put it on the national credit card.
Tax and spend is all we even seem to hear from Labour over the past years.
Actually, it is all we ever hear from Labour’s critics, if you look at the track record of the Fifth Labour Government what stands out is the sound economic management, the regular announcement of budget surplus, and the paying down of debt.
What I have heard from National, and then seen in practice is spend, and then the failure to tax to cover their spending. When Trevor asks this question, I have to wonder why aren’t right-wing commentators asking it as well.
So in a time of the greatest recession since the 1930s depression, why spend $14billion on tax cuts that aren’t going to help economic recovery?
I personally think the answer is Bill English isn’t up to the job, and National doesn’t actually have a credible plan.
chris and pdm – I absolutely agree with the questions you ask and asked them myself when national was saying the same thing
“Its not just detail – Its the core of the matter. We cannot afford to borrow to buy votes – so where is the detail????”
I have made my point to Labour about this on another thread, and so can claim consistency. I didnt like National buying votes and borrowing for tax cuts, and I dont like labour doing it if it wont stimulate the economy and/or boost growth. BUT you guys seem outraged with the very same MO of the party you support?
English claimed the tax cuts were never intended to stimulate the economy, and they have borrowed to be able to sustain them. of course I believe he did think it would stimulate the economy and he banked (no pun intended) on people spending not saving, they didnt. Now he backtracks by saying it’s great people are saving, but fo rhis tax changes to be neutral that doesnt make sense, he needed spending. Now, it does seem that money going to lower incomes will lead to increased spending.
Again that concerns me because that is what causes boom and bust cycles, spend, then crash, then spend to get out of crach then crash and so on.
But please, I think the PM makes a big mistake with his reasons for opposing these suggestions because it assumes NZers are stupid and dont realise he has done exactly what he now accuses Labour of doing. No one likes someone who treats them like they are stupid.
Theo, I too would like to know why that is not an option.
“increasing the tax on the ‘rich’ will increase tax avoidance”
I doubt it, those of a mind to avoid will already be avoiding or investigating avoidance. Tax avoidance is not criminal but it does reflect a certain state of mind/ethics. I read a few years ago when the PM was making changes to the charitable rebate that until the top income rate is down to 22% the top earners (whoever that refers to) dont give away to charity in any bigger numbers.
Morally tax avoidance is a method of stealing from those who do pay their full share. By still using all the services others taxes pay for while avoiding your own does point to a mindset. of course people rationalise and justify but in my opinion if people werent avoiding tax, and the tax take were therefore bigger one could just as easily argue that tax rates would drop.
Questions asked by pdm and chris prior to last election before voting national but never answered and still not answered today
“We cannot afford to borrow to buy votes – so where is the detail????If you had the costings done – you could tell us. Im guessing this shows you simply dont know and we will end up borrowing.
And – at least have the courage to tell us the forecast tax rates for the poverty tax (GST increase) You must know it – as its in your “detail” How about making that public.”
Of course the gST increase wasnt campaigned on… so you couldn’t have asked that.
Al1ens “So, Chris, you were happy to swallow raising gst to part fund the top earners $1000 pw tax cut?
Yet you baulk at all kiwis getting the first $5000 they earn tax free.
Says it all, mate. Says it all.
1 – the $100 per week you guys like to throw around is for people earning 1Million per annum – I think you will find that there are very few people earning that kind of income.
Also – they are paying a HUGE share of tax – So they are doing more than their fair share – so I have no issue with that at all – and laugh at your stupid figures – making out that there are many 000′s of people getting 1k back per week. Its a very poor argument.
re the 5k ‘tax free’ – (or a block of cheese) – I actually have no issue with that either EXCEPT when they are going to increase taxes for people who are already paying the most (by a long way) already.
Even people on 150k live to their income. If they are struggling with a home loan (cannot get a home for less than 850k around here) – a increase in tax could cause them huge issues. Like no longer being able to afford their home. Sell it you say – that cost money (iro 40k real estate fees) – not to mention loss of equity in their home of lots in the same area go on market because people cannot afford them any longer.
Now I know many of you will laugh ‘poor them’ – fact is there are many 000′s of people that live to their income.
So its not the ‘letting people keep more of what they earn’ its the ‘we are going to take more off you’.
Still – I guess its moot – you guys are looking at a long long second. And I see the media (the thing that people watch as opposed to the few on red alert) is more interested in goffs hair colour than what he is saying. Im guessing this wont even get you a dead cat bounce in the polls.
I think that it is ironic, that not so long ago “tax cuts” for anyone was anathema to Labour. but now it is election year and “pop” there they are. I strongly believe we are over-taxed across the board, and applaud Labour for adopting ACT policy, but it is disingenuous to claim some moral high ground when the costings are such that we will inevitably borrow to cover it, which is ironic as lefties have been criticising the Government for doing that. So Labour had not only adopting ACT tax policy, but follows Nationals lead in how to pay for it. A spoonful of irony anyone? A clampdown on tax avoidance will raise precisely nothing, but it will costs a fortune in yet another State funding department chasing $1 while costing $2 to do it. I realise that those with the greatest tax burden got a break from the last tax cuts, as did everyone, but to promote this as the some kind of innovation is hardly robust.
SURPRISE!!!
Prime Minister John Key has announced plans to sell-off state assets and cut back Government spending in a state-of-the-nation address this morning.
Mr Key said National was looking to sell off parts of major power companies Mighty River Power, Meridian Energy, Genesis and Solid Energy.
It would also look at reducing Government shareholding in national carrier Air New Zealand, he said.
“The way for New Zealand to get ahead is to sell more to the rest of the world.”
No detail yet. Selling at the bottom of a price cycle but to be honest I dont know what these would attract and Mr. Key mustnt know because he didnt say, right chris and pdm?
Dave, a spoonful of irony all round, including the PM and MOF who are accusing Labour of what they did. In my opinion both are wrong UNLESS they can prove it will stimulate the economy and in a specified period reduce borrowings. Not all of us are inconsistent Dave.
Isn’t the practical effects of the policy more important than the “visons and values” or are they airy fairy items that pay for it?
I can’t believe that CV would actually call the cost “just details”
If we get downgraded by S&P as we are already on watch by them, then everyone is worse off. period.
Cullen’s policies are the reason that the Government needs to borrow $300m per week. National has introduced so little new spending. Cullen also drove the economy into recession in the tradeable sector in 2004 – while the rest of the world was booming. Time is proving the fiscal policies of the left to be an absolute failure. Goff’s speech yesterday re-enforces that Labour have still learnt nothing.
Sean says “What I have heard from National, and then seen in practice is spend, and then the failure to tax to cover their spending. When Trevor asks this question, I have to wonder why aren’t right-wing commentators asking it as well.”
You’re right — but some RW commentators do. Whale has been unrelenting in his disappointment in the Nats to balance spending.
On another note, I think there’s a really clever part of Labour’s plan here which no one so far has commented on. A high top tax rate, but set at a very high income threshold, while not raising the most revenue in itself has important psychological implications. Many people, rightly or wrongly, see the level of the top tax rate as indicating “a really great income that anyone and their family should easily be able to live the good life on”. That wasn’t true at the old 60k threshold, but Labour’s proposed new threshold sounds like a more realistic level.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that having the very top level much higher allows for more mid-range flexibility. “I’m not on the top rate, so I’m not too rich” kind of thinking. Perhaps that sounds too cynical but I’m trying to convey the positive side of this. For example, raising the tax free threshold much more than $5k will almost certainly require that the mid-range tax rates are raised. That’s isn’t to say that middle-incoming earners would pay more tax in total, but that the rates in the middle would have to be raised to compensate for broadening their tax-free band at the bottom (good luck explaining the maths to people, though…). I suspect that people will be more accepting of such changes, should they occur, with a new top rate in place. But I could be wrong.
Wow, interesting philosophy at work here. Borrow to give tax cuts then say we have to sell assets because we cant keep borrowing as though someone else was magically doing the borrowing. What this appears to point to is short term planning, if any by the Government. We’ll borrow til we cant anymore, then we’ll sell stuff which is what we wanted to do anyway, but no one would have elected us, so we borrowed money, and created a NEED for the sales. I have no idea if selling them is good or bad but this is circular thinking at best.
My biggest concern is this has all been suggested or done before by Labour and Douglas in the 80′s, Ms Richardson and National and so on… and we keep having to sell more next time. What happens when there is nothing left to sell?
“Mr Key said the Government was still having to borrow an average of $300 million a week “to pay the bills”.
That has raised the national debt level to 85 percent of GDP, putting New Zealand on par with Ireland, Portugal, Greece and Spain, he said.
“That is very uneasy company indeed.
“We recognise that New Zealand’s level of foreign debt is our biggest vulnerability,” he said.
“In the worst of the recession, running a budget deficit was the right thing to do, as it gave much-needed support to the economy.
“Now, as the economy recovers, borrowing $300 million a week is unaffordable and is holding the economy back.”
The PM knows it was the right thing to do because he decided to do it, so it must be right. There is arrogance and circular reasoning in there. Actually $300m a week which started at $250m a week WAS NEVER AFFORDABLE, perhaps Labour’s pixies only took a days break from national yesterday but returned to Mr Key overnight?
SURPRISE!!! Prime Minister John Key has announced plans to sell-off state assets and cut back Government spending in a state-of-the-nation address this morning.
Of course he has Tracey, out with the family silver. The proposed selling out the Electricity sector is so staggeringly short-sighted I simply boggle.
What New Zealand based organisation will be able to afford to buy 49 per cent of Mighty River Power, Meridian Energy, Genesis and Solid Energy? Based on the selling of Telecom, if a National government does this, by 2014 everytime a New Zealander turns on a lightbulb, they will be sending money overseas.
A ridiculous move. It called infrastructure, why are the government planning to sell New Zealand’s infrastructure? This is John Key’s idea of ambition.
So Tracey- please provide a breakdown of the $300m per week. Please advise us how much is related to the promises of the Previous Labour Government and how much is as a result of the Current National Government new expenditure – feel free to add in the impacts of the tax cut – but also factor in the credit income from the GST increases.
I doubt you will do this – but reality is the vast majority is the result of Cullen’s rash spend up to buy votes. Cullen wrecked the economy and now we all pay the price.
Monty, as a National supporter it behooves YOU to provide the break down, not me. You seem to think I have an obligation to prove Labour and National’s points on this.
I have an easier question for you Monty
Who said the following and when?
“Tax cuts are part of our plan to get through this downturn and onto a path of economic growth and opportunity. We believe a credible programme of tax cuts can help lift our economic performance and raise incomes.”
Who said the following and when
“”The tax cuts we have delivered will stimulate the economy in the short term by putting cash in people’s pockets, and in the longer term by encouraging people to invest in their own skills to earn and keep more money.”
Have you seen the White House paper on the Framework Agreement on Middle Class Tax Cuts and Unemployment Insurance, showing that low income families are most likely to spend additional money that they receive in creating jobs and helping growth?
John Key should know that the term national debt is taken as a term for public debt – New Zealand’s public debt is way below that of the USA, UK, Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal.
Whereas it is our “foreign debt” which is about 85% of GDP, but most of that is home mortgage debt financed offshore, then farm and other business debt, some SOE debt, little of it public debt … None of the other debt is paid off by selling public assets.
In fact our public debt is so low we can choose when to sell our assets and at what price – a business selling valuable assets in a weak market would have a shareholder revolt.
As I said last year when the top rate was cut – it was done to give away ownership of publicly owned assets – they give them money with one hand and then hand over assets on the cheap so they can make an untaxed capital gain whern the market recovers. This is a get the rich even richer operation. Shame.
Labour should
1. say it would only itself part-sell shares to the Fund and
or Kiwi Saver vehicles for savers. And not allow on-sale onto the market until the time came to pay out of the funds to savers (when the point of net outflow was reached).
2. warn the “market” that it will re-buy all shares not sold on those terms at issue value only.
Monty you are a complete Moron!
I will place a link but i doubt if you can read anything that shows the truth. But here goes anyway.
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/0/9/9/49HansQ_20101021_00000002-2-Economy-Minister-s-Statement.htm
And this is Annette King asking questions in Parliament of Bill English. And I will pull out just a wee snippet.
Hon Annette King: What did he mean when he also said on 18 December 2008, after the election and after the global financial crisis had hit, that “In New Zealand we have room to respond. This is the rainy day the Government has been saving up for.”; and did it relate to the previous Government paying off debt, even when criticised by him for doing so.
Well there you go and then there was the wriggling as the hook was set.
And what has he spent the 300 mil a week on??? Well lets see
roads? Nope
health? Nope
road saftey? nope
schools and early education? nope
Hmm what could he have spent it all on ? I know tax breaks for his rich Farkin Mates.
And now they want to sell the silver. OUR power companies etc, to overseas interests, and his rich mates, and what will NZ get out of this????? NOTHING. Well When the govt sells the power stations it gets NO yearly revenue back. just another cash hole that we will have to struggle to fill. And as the assets are stripped out of our power companies, and other things that get sold off. and the prices skyrocket, because Shonky jonkey wants to keep his mates happy. Then finally you may be able to see the damage this bunch of Airheaded incompetents have caused. When even you cant afford to turn on the lights.
Deadly said “And what has he spent the 300 mil a week on??? Well lets see
roads? Nope
health? Nope
road saftey? nope
schools and early education? nope
Hmm what could he have spent it all on ? I know tax breaks for his rich Farkin Mates.”
Don’t want to get distracted here, but this is untrue. The borrowing does fund all of these things, and only a very small proportion of the total funds tax cuts. Phil even points this out it his speech. Doesn’t means the tax cuts were a great idea, but saying the 300 mil a week is to fund tax cuts is just dishonest.
And JK’s insistence that selling these assets is in the Country’s best interest?. Thats not Dishonest. Thats criminal farkin negligence!
““And what has he spent the 300 mil a week on???” Labours unfunded spending, pretty obvious really. No increase in spending have ben undertaken. Just to maintain the status quo NZ has to borrow. What is the alternative ? cut spending and raise taxes? Who pays ? The “rich”? that, according to most lefties includes teachers, Police, nurses at their current salary levels. Is that really advisable? If the target is those above say $120,000 then we will raise somewhere in the region of bugger-all, as there are few in percentage terms that earn these levels. The same goes for tracking down and closing loopholes on the 100 or so millionaires. The nett effect is nothing, but it makes for good politics on the left, whilst simultaneously hurting the working man, well, what would be left of them. Tax increases on the middle income earners hurt. They hurt spending and saving, they hurt business most of all and that is where the jobs are created and retained. The end result of increases in taxes is to reduce economic strength and economic activity. Jobs do not come from Government schemes, or increasing government spending. The only result that will bring is more debt than the we already have.
Dave I recall our PM suggesting jobs come from things like a job summit, which was to be a do-fest not a talk-fest, sadly it was the later, just that National thinks if you call it a silk purse it is no longer a sow’s ear.
no, thats your take on it. The jobs summit was a think tank and a number of strategy sessions to fight the impacts of the world recession and its flow on impact of unemployment. But I’m always interested in alternatives, what would Labour have done, what plans do they have other than wealth redistribution, to create ‘real’ jobs, not subsidised pretend jobs in Government? the only way this will happen is if they actually, just for once, stop criticising the biggest employes, Businesses, and start helping them. Reduce compliance costs, reduce company tax rates, reduce personal tax rates.
I don’t care what economic theory is applied all I know is that I worked damn hard to be in a position to earn a good salary (yes I’m one of those people)and now someone is telling me that I don’t have the right to enjoy the fruits of MY labour?? I don’t own a rental property and yes finally I have disposable income that I am using to pay down debt what is so bad about that!! Just who are these so-called “ordinary New Zealanders” that Labour keeps harping on about? Why can’t they get off their butts and do what I did? People forget that Labour ushered in the age of Rogernomics and began the process of “selling the family silver”, Labour also did away with the Trade Training Schemes they are now seeking to re-introduce. And really what has Labour truly done for Maori except continue to tell us that we need looking after!! Labour has done very little except perpetuate a sense of entitlement and encourage people to sit there with their hands out!!