Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | ... | 268

21561 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1973083 12-Mar-2018 11:33

The latest donations basically provide every single man woman and child $9K. If you provided that 9K to the poorest in NZ, other than a massive increase in inflation, what do we think the outcome would be.

I am quite torn, we get a lot from the Islands etc, but I wonder if there is a better way to structure it. This is the crux at pretty much all the criticism of Labour right now, not necessarily what they spend, but HOW.

Fred99

8915 posts

Uber Geek

# 1973099 12-Mar-2018 11:50

MikeAqua:

bmt:

As for the Pacific spending, chump change compared to the $10b National wanted to waste on unneeded and underutilized roading projects including the $1.8b East-West Link (the most expensive per-km road in the world).

The best possible investment we could make in the Pacific is some trusty fishing boats for Kiribati so they stop wasting the RNZAF's time doing constant search and rescues.

We are small a country with significant domestic issues that are underfunded.

Providing aid to our Pacific neighbours made sense when they were allies. We are well past that now.

If you spend money on a road you get a road. If you spend money on relief in the Pacific, you get nothing back.

Regarding new boats for Kiribati - an alternate would be simply to stop searching that area. Let it become someone else's problem (for example Kiribati's).

NZ's foreign aid expenditure as a % of GNP (0.2%) or as a US$ equivalent per capita is at the low end compared to OECD average.

"Underfunded domestic issues" aren't because of lack of resources - it's because of how we choose to distribute the resources we have.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

# 1973130 12-Mar-2018 12:33

We have had major major domestic issues over the last 10 years. We have had two major earthquakes for a start that cost billions and billions. On top of that the GFC and several major storms. Massive amounts of resources went to these. We will be paying for these for many decades to come, and much longer the way the current Government is spending.

MikeAqua

5390 posts

Uber Geek

# 1973139 12-Mar-2018 12:43

Fred99:

NZ's foreign aid expenditure as a % of GNP (0.2%) or as a US$ equivalent per capita is at the low end compared to OECD average.

I'm not sure those measures are all that meaningful for small country with low wealth.

On many outcome measures we rank poorly within the OECD. From a number of perspectives we rank like a developing nation.

The NZ govt lacks the financial strength to address many important domestic problems. Health education, housing, infrastructure, environmental management. If there is a way to raise revenue other than increasing individuals' PAYE contributions or company tax - I'm all ears. It's a problem facing many OECD nations.

Our govt thinks we can buy influence in the South Pacific and is (rightly) concerned about China's rising influence in the region. In reality we can't compete with China, who will buy influence in the South Pacific with infrastructure projects. It's a mug's game and we will lose.

Govt should spend its scarce resources looking after NZ's citizens and permanent residents, while trying to grow the economy.

Mike

MikeAqua

5390 posts

Uber Geek

# 1973141 12-Mar-2018 12:44

Pumpedd:

We have had major major domestic issues over the last 10 years. We have had two major earthquakes for a start that cost billions and billions. On top of that the GFC and several major storms. Massive amounts of resources went to these. We will be paying for these for many decades to come, and much longer the way the current Government is spending.

I'm curious - did any of our Pacific neighbours provide real and tangible assistance during either of those earthquakes?

Mike

networkn

21561 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1973143 12-Mar-2018 12:46

One person supports this post

MikeAqua:

Pumpedd:

We have had major major domestic issues over the last 10 years. We have had two major earthquakes for a start that cost billions and billions. On top of that the GFC and several major storms. Massive amounts of resources went to these. We will be paying for these for many decades to come, and much longer the way the current Government is spending.

I'm curious - did any of our Pacific neighbours provide real and tangible assistance during either of those earthquakes?

I'd expect not, but then they are much smaller than us, with less people, less infrastructure and less financial resources.

It's a tricky one, trying to be a good world citizen without tapping resources for things we need ourselves.

Geektastic

13562 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1973158 12-Mar-2018 13:00

networkn:
The latest donations basically provide every single man woman and child $9K. If you provided that 9K to the poorest in NZ, other than a massive increase in inflation, what do we think the outcome would be.

I am quite torn, we get a lot from the Islands etc, but I wonder if there is a better way to structure it. This is the crux at pretty much all the criticism of Labour right now, not necessarily what they spend, but HOW.

Exactly what do we get?

Fred99

8915 posts

Uber Geek

# 1973162 12-Mar-2018 13:03

2 people support this post

Pumpedd:

We have had major major domestic issues over the last 10 years. We have had two major earthquakes for a start that cost billions and billions. On top of that the GFC and several major storms. Massive amounts of resources went to these. We will be paying for these for many decades to come, and much longer the way the current Government is spending.

The first quakes (Chch) were a short-term net economic benefit to NZ, as the cost of damage to buildings and infrastructure was remitted by offshore reinsurers, the additional (over normal background) collection of GST and income taxes exceeded any direct input (top up) from the government account.

The EQC Natural Disaster Fund wasn't part of the government accounts, and was used for the exact purpose for which it was put aside in the first place, and it's not being replenished out of govt account, but by an insurance levy.

The fallacy about the cost to the rest of NZ of the Chch quakes needs to be put to rest.

Storms and other natural disasters are normal. Everywhere - not just in NZ. The GFC isn't an excuse for NZ foreign aid contribution to drop relative to other nations. A clue to that is the "G" in GFC.

Fred99

8915 posts

Uber Geek

# 1973164 12-Mar-2018 13:07

MikeAqua:

Pumpedd:

We have had major major domestic issues over the last 10 years. We have had two major earthquakes for a start that cost billions and billions. On top of that the GFC and several major storms. Massive amounts of resources went to these. We will be paying for these for many decades to come, and much longer the way the current Government is spending.

I'm curious - did any of our Pacific neighbours provide real and tangible assistance during either of those earthquakes?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10677416

MikeAqua

5390 posts

Uber Geek

# 1973167 12-Mar-2018 13:12

networkn:

The latest donations basically provide every single man woman and child $9K. If you provided that 9K to the poorest in NZ, other than a massive increase in inflation, what do we think the outcome would be.

I am quite torn, we get a lot from the Islands etc, but I wonder if there is a better way to structure it. This is the crux at pretty much all the criticism of Labour right now, not necessarily what they spend, but HOW.

In a poor household with two parents and three kids that's $45k. Life changing.

I don't think NZ has had a net economic benefit from it's relationship with the Pacific Islands.

Mike

networkn

21561 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1973172 12-Mar-2018 13:20

Geektastic:
networkn:

The latest donations basically provide every single man woman and child $9K. If you provided that 9K to the poorest in NZ, other than a massive increase in inflation, what do we think the outcome would be.

I am quite torn, we get a lot from the Islands etc, but I wonder if there is a better way to structure it. This is the crux at pretty much all the criticism of Labour right now, not necessarily what they spend, but HOW.

Exactly what do we get?

If you were a sports fan you'd know :)

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

# 1973192 12-Mar-2018 13:37

Fred99:

Pumpedd:

We have had major major domestic issues over the last 10 years. We have had two major earthquakes for a start that cost billions and billions. On top of that the GFC and several major storms. Massive amounts of resources went to these. We will be paying for these for many decades to come, and much longer the way the current Government is spending.

The first quakes (Chch) were a short-term net economic benefit to NZ, as the cost of damage to buildings and infrastructure was remitted by offshore reinsurers, the additional (over normal background) collection of GST and income taxes exceeded any direct input (top up) from the government account.

The EQC Natural Disaster Fund wasn't part of the government accounts, and was used for the exact purpose for which it was put aside in the first place, and it's not being replenished out of govt account, but by an insurance levy.

The fallacy about the cost to the rest of NZ of the Chch quakes needs to be put to rest.

Storms and other natural disasters are normal. Everywhere - not just in NZ. The GFC isn't an excuse for NZ foreign aid contribution to drop relative to other nations. A clue to that is the "G" in GFC.

You are looking at it one sided as usual.

the Government during this time borrowed billions outside the EQC fund which was also topped up. In fact the Government is still spending billions on infrastructure in Chrischurch as a result of the quakes. Also the national Govt spent billions settling Maori claims during this time.

Whilst huge Govt expenditure is generally good for the economy in one way as it is internal spending creating jobs and growth, it eventually needs to be paid for.

Fred99

8915 posts

Uber Geek

# 1973243 12-Mar-2018 14:19

Pumpedd:

You are looking at it one sided as usual.

the Government during this time borrowed billions outside the EQC fund which was also topped up. In fact the Government is still spending billions on infrastructure in Chrischurch as a result of the quakes. Also the national Govt spent billions settling Maori claims during this time.

Whilst huge Govt expenditure is generally good for the economy in one way as it is internal spending creating jobs and growth, it eventually needs to be paid for.

No - you're ignoring the fiscal stimulus of $30-40 billion being sent to NZ and spent locally on rebuilding, and vastly overestimating central government contribution to anchor projects.

If as you claim the central government is spending "billions" on Chch infrastructure, you'll be able to provide details.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/the-rebuild/70084887/How-much-is-the-Government-really-spending-to-fix-Christchurch

networkn

21561 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1973258 12-Mar-2018 14:37

I am not sure of those numbers, I'd want to check them another way (Stuff has a pretty sketchy track record for facts). Tax on a $40B stimulus would have created a massive boon for the Government of the day, and I certainly don't think Tax take was up by Billions (I haven't checked yet).

I need to do some research into this. Seems infeasible that the Quakes etc didn't cost NZ anything (though you could claim the impact on peoples ability to make money if your companies building got destroyed would have massive impact on the economy.

Maybe the Billions of Tax from building only just covered the billions lost from non-working people in CHCH.

Fred99

8915 posts

Uber Geek

# 1973263 12-Mar-2018 14:45

Chch unemployment was the lowest for any region in NZ. I say was - that may have changed as the rebuild investment boom has peaked.

That's also why you won't see any "sudden" increase in tax revenue for the period of the rebuild by looking for any immediate revenue boost in say 2012.

1 | ... | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | ... | 268