Gareth Morgan's new political party

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Gareth Morgan's new political party

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

richms

29105 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10222

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1668192 11-Nov-2016 17:36

Houses will always be worth what the land is worth plus what it costs to build on it.

Both are absurdly high in NZ, and the land is really bad in Auckland.

The govt can fix the building costs issues and the land can be sorted by more zoning for apartments and actual high density stuff. No need to cap prices on existing stock, they will correct to be in line with the new stuff. Value is only high because demand exceeds supply.

Richard rich.ms

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1668216 11-Nov-2016 18:33

MikeB4:

Fred99:

MikeB4:

Our population is not fixed and it should not be as we are under populated.

That's an opinion only.

What is "adequately populated" then?

An appropriate maximum population in my opinion would surely be one that doesn't stress resources to the point that life is only sustainable long-term with compromise to quality of life. That moreso than an equation based on a "scale of economies" argument for population level to be set based economic competitiveness against "bigger". There's much more to life and quality of life than money. Average quality of life "livability" is actually is extremely good in NZ. One of the reasons for that is our relatively low population.

Our birth rate is too low so we need to build our population by immigration. I read numerous studies at work regarding our population projections. To try and balance and correct age skew as a result of the baby boom era we need a good growth to (from memory) at least 7 million. If this does not happen we are going to have a lot of problems. Our lifestyle will plunge due to reducing incomes, tax take and greater burden on social services.

Also if we grow our population we can afford better infrastructure due to increase economic activity.

Again - you're expressing opinion as if it were fact. I'll be interested to hear what Morgan has to say on this.

Catering for the "retirement bulge" from the baby boom is usually overstated.

Even if some growth is desired, it doesn't excuse the awful management of numbers, jumping from negative to 70,000 PA, and hapless planning/investment in infrastructure to cope with the overload.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1668251 11-Nov-2016 18:55

Fred99:

MikeB4:

Fred99:

MikeB4:

Our population is not fixed and it should not be as we are under populated.

That's an opinion only.

What is "adequately populated" then?

An appropriate maximum population in my opinion would surely be one that doesn't stress resources to the point that life is only sustainable long-term with compromise to quality of life. That moreso than an equation based on a "scale of economies" argument for population level to be set based economic competitiveness against "bigger". There's much more to life and quality of life than money. Average quality of life "livability" is actually is extremely good in NZ. One of the reasons for that is our relatively low population.

Our birth rate is too low so we need to build our population by immigration. I read numerous studies at work regarding our population projections. To try and balance and correct age skew as a result of the baby boom era we need a good growth to (from memory) at least 7 million. If this does not happen we are going to have a lot of problems. Our lifestyle will plunge due to reducing incomes, tax take and greater burden on social services.

Also if we grow our population we can afford better infrastructure due to increase economic activity.

Again - you're expressing opinion as if it were fact. I'll be interested to hear what Morgan has to say on this.

Catering for the "retirement bulge" from the baby boom is usually overstated.

Even if some growth is desired, it doesn't excuse the awful management of numbers, jumping from negative to 70,000 PA, and hapless planning/investment in infrastructure to cope with the overload.

Yes an opinion based on professional experience, but I am not going to get a headache over it. You see things as you wish.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

dafman

4056 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2652

Trusted

#1668266 11-Nov-2016 19:56

MikeB4:

Fred99:

MikeB4:

Fred99:

MikeB4:

Our population is not fixed and it should not be as we are under populated.

That's an opinion only.

What is "adequately populated" then?

An appropriate maximum population in my opinion would surely be one that doesn't stress resources to the point that life is only sustainable long-term with compromise to quality of life. That moreso than an equation based on a "scale of economies" argument for population level to be set based economic competitiveness against "bigger". There's much more to life and quality of life than money. Average quality of life "livability" is actually is extremely good in NZ. One of the reasons for that is our relatively low population.

Our birth rate is too low so we need to build our population by immigration. I read numerous studies at work regarding our population projections. To try and balance and correct age skew as a result of the baby boom era we need a good growth to (from memory) at least 7 million. If this does not happen we are going to have a lot of problems. Our lifestyle will plunge due to reducing incomes, tax take and greater burden on social services.

Also if we grow our population we can afford better infrastructure due to increase economic activity.

Again - you're expressing opinion as if it were fact. I'll be interested to hear what Morgan has to say on this.

Catering for the "retirement bulge" from the baby boom is usually overstated.

Even if some growth is desired, it doesn't excuse the awful management of numbers, jumping from negative to 70,000 PA, and hapless planning/investment in infrastructure to cope with the overload.

Yes an opinion based on professional experience, but I am not going to get a headache over it. You see things as you wish.

I'm pretty sure you don't have a monopoly on professional experience. You see things as you wish (-;

cynnicallemon

370 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 85

#1668272 11-Nov-2016 20:14

richms:

Rikkitic:

My grasp of economics is basic, but would it be possible, and what would happen, if legislation put a cap on house prices, not forcing them down, but not allowing them to rise? With no prospect for capital gains, there would be little motive to buy for speculative purposes and with low inflation, existing home owners who wanted to sell would not lose out. I realise that legislating your way out of economic problems almost never works, but I'm curious to know what might happen in a case like this.

Price controls? Really?

That would be political suicide.

Take your pick,

Political Suicide

Economic Suicide

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1668340 11-Nov-2016 23:22

MikeB4:

Fred99:

MikeB4:

Fred99:

MikeB4:

Our population is not fixed and it should not be as we are under populated.

That's an opinion only.

What is "adequately populated" then?

An appropriate maximum population in my opinion would surely be one that doesn't stress resources to the point that life is only sustainable long-term with compromise to quality of life. That moreso than an equation based on a "scale of economies" argument for population level to be set based economic competitiveness against "bigger". There's much more to life and quality of life than money. Average quality of life "livability" is actually is extremely good in NZ. One of the reasons for that is our relatively low population.

Our birth rate is too low so we need to build our population by immigration. I read numerous studies at work regarding our population projections. To try and balance and correct age skew as a result of the baby boom era we need a good growth to (from memory) at least 7 million. If this does not happen we are going to have a lot of problems. Our lifestyle will plunge due to reducing incomes, tax take and greater burden on social services.

Also if we grow our population we can afford better infrastructure due to increase economic activity.

Again - you're expressing opinion as if it were fact. I'll be interested to hear what Morgan has to say on this.

Catering for the "retirement bulge" from the baby boom is usually overstated.

Even if some growth is desired, it doesn't excuse the awful management of numbers, jumping from negative to 70,000 PA, and hapless planning/investment in infrastructure to cope with the overload.

Yes an opinion based on professional experience, but I am not going to get a headache over it. You see things as you wish.

Which country were you running?

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1668363 12-Nov-2016 06:57

Exit stage left, ........thredxit

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1668368 12-Nov-2016 07:38

That's too bad. Morgan hasn't announced any policy - but there's been a lot of shadow boxing going on here, and defending the status quo.
Expectation from him should be (IMO) that policy - when it's announced - won't be orthodox minor tweaks to "the establishment".

Key will not be PM in NZ forever. He might go out with a very high approval rating - like Obama has (55%) - but look what just happened.

dafman

4056 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2652

Trusted

#1674418 20-Nov-2016 10:50

Memo to Gareth - here's one potential policy you could add to your list. Tidy up the charities tax exemption rort. The corporate giant Sanitarium should have to pay tax.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1674544 20-Nov-2016 15:29

dafman:
Memo to Gareth - here's one potential policy you could add to your list. Tidy up the charities tax exemption rort. The corporate giant Sanitarium should have to pay tax.

There may be another way. Get rid of company tax entirely - replace it some other way. How I don't know, but between rorts like the exemption being discussed and the situation where many large and/or offshore companies can legally minimise tax, the whole system doesn't work very fairly. It wouldn't surprise me if Morgan comes up with a suggestion to revamp the whole system.

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11