So, how about that budget?

Forums › Off topic › So, how about that budget?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1309933 22-May-2015 14:31

shk292:
Fred99:
If you don't know what a straw-man argument is, please google it and then hopefully you might return and apologise, if you have any decency.
Not my problem if you found that patronising. If you don't want to google it, and would like me to tear your misanthropic non-argument to shreds, I'll do so - but I'd have hoped that it should be obvious.
Ironic that you used the term "uneducated" as one of your key points.

My, we are sensitive today.

I'm quite aware of the meaning of a strawman, thank you. What I found patronising was your implication that this term applies to my valid argument against your assertion that income is a causal indicator of academic success. My "thought experiment", or "strawman" as those of a closed mind tend to call such a device, aimed to indicate that income might in fact be a symptom of other factors which in themselves are more likely to be the causal factors of academic success. If you're too wrapped up in socialist dogma to accept this as a valid point of view, then that doesn't make me uneducated or my arguments less valid.

And I fail to see the irony, for which I do apologise

I'm not any more sensitive today than I am at any other time.
Go back and re-read the quoted text for which I correctly awarded you a straw-man trophy.

You might have gotten away with an excuse that it was a "thought experiment" but it's patently obvious from your final comment in that post that it was never intended to be so - you've already provided the answer to the straw-man argument you've created.

Very convenient for the socialists to believe that redistribution of wealth would solve all society's problems though

I'd just add that it's very convenient for you to presume to know what "socialists believe". Our present government is socialist. They redistribute wealth in order to solve problems.

You've also now deliberately and disingenuously misquoted me:

your assertion that income is a causal indicator of academic success

When what I actually said was:

AFAIK the best predictor of how well a kid does in the education system is household income. Pretty simple really.

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1309942 22-May-2015 14:38

Fred99:
Go back and re-read the quoted text for which I correctly awarded you a straw-man trophy.

You've also now deliberately and disingenuously misquoted me:

Read it, re-read it, still don't get your point, sorry. You disagree with my point of view; this doesn't make my argument invalid or me uneducated

And I disagree that income is the "best" indicator of educational achievement. It may be a convenient one, but it masks the underlying cause of success or lack thereof, which I believe are:
- intelligence (which in turn I think has a large hereditary element)
- ability for hard work
- parental involvement, and
- quality of education system

nakedmolerat

4629 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1309943 22-May-2015 14:40

I almost fell off the chair after reading the Budget summary - I thought it was from labour/green.

I like that the govt get rid of the $1000 kiwisaver and put the money to good use.

What I don't like, paper thin surplus.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1309947 22-May-2015 14:47

nakedmolerat: I almost fell off the chair after reading the Budget summary - I thought it was from labour/green.

I like that the govt get rid of the $1000 kiwisaver and put the money to good use.

What I don't like, paper thin surplus.

I don't like deficits, balanced budget or modest surplus is ideal for Governments

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1309950 22-May-2015 14:56

sen8or: There are still strong incentives to join Kiwisaver -

Government contributions up to $ 500 odd per year provided at least $1000 has been invested in the scheme plus Employer contributions (3%?).

Both of these are bonuses over and above any returns you may receive on the investment.

Looking at my own (which I am not a top tier tax bracket earner) -

Started contributing in July 2014 when I stopped being self-employed.
For the 9 months to March I contributed about $1200 or so in deductions
The balance on my Kiwisaver was circa $3400.

Even If I take out the $1000 kick start, that leaves $ 2400, of which I only put in 1/2 of that, a 100% return on "my funds".

How is that not an incentive to join the scheme?

If you want to get ahead, you have to make sacrifices, wealth and success (for most) just simply aren't handed to you on a platter.

If they really cared they would not match $ for $ but simply convert the lot of it into gold or silver bullion and store physical value for you, when you retire you get the going rate which when you consider how much our currency will be worth in 40+ years...gold and silver are far better options with chance for massive returns.

If the world goes into financial crises in the next 40 years (which is practically gauranteed) then physical PMs would be far better to have on hand.

The only people benefiting from Kiwisaver is the government and banks.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1309951 22-May-2015 15:00

Fred99:
frankv:

Anyway, the best predictor of how well a kid does in school is how much his parents care about his education.

Not sure about that... Trying to actually survey something like that would be heaps of fun.

It's been done... see the original Freakonomics book.

As part of desegregation, poor (black) kids in Chicago (IIRC) were allowed to apply for better (white) schools. Far too many applied, so they were selected at random. Black kids who went to white schools did better (not surprising). But black kids who applied but missed out on going to a white school also did better than those who hadn't applied.

AFAIK the best predictor of how well a kid does in the education system is household income. Pretty simple really.

Disclaimer: I was speaking from vague memory, and may have misremembered... it may not be the *best* predictor, but it is a significant factor.

Without some balance applied, in a meritocratic society there are two inevitable consequences - cycles of poverty, and cycles of wealth.

Yes.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1309952 22-May-2015 15:04

garvani:
MikeB4:
garvani: They are busy trying to distract everyone with the John Campbell resignation before people start asking questions. (funny how that came out at the exact same time, surely that could have been released eariler in the day? later? The exact same time as the budget? riggght..)

Yep $6 and $16 fee's are the only thing of note for me.

Am I missing something here, what has a Govt Budget to do with John Campbell ?

Ummm really, you cant see what im saying? i thought it was pretty clear. All the news headlines are focusing on John Campbell instead of the budget, coincidence? Perfectly executed news story at the exact moment the budget comes out. But it doesn't matter, i just thought it was a perfect distraction technique and i was voicing my opinion which the last time i checked is what a forum is intended for.

One can only say then that the Budget must have been particularly forgettable if it can be upstaged by one mans resignation.

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1309954 22-May-2015 15:11

shk292:
Fred99:
Go back and re-read the quoted text for which I correctly awarded you a straw-man trophy.

You've also now deliberately and disingenuously misquoted me:

Read it, re-read it, still don't get your point, sorry. You disagree with my point of view; this doesn't make my argument invalid or me uneducated

And I disagree that income is the "best" indicator of educational achievement. It may be a convenient one, but it masks the underlying cause of success or lack thereof, which I believe are:
- intelligence (which in turn I think has a large hereditary element)
- ability for hard work
- parental involvement, and
- quality of education system

Oh well - perhaps you'd "get it" if I used your method:

Do the plutocracy believe that genetics and birthright are the causal factor for their financial success? Put it another way, strip them of everything they own, throw them into a slum to breed, and most of all - do whatever you can to convince them that they have low value and few prospects to ever change. Would their kids fail to meet their genetic destiny to instead start doing poorly at school? I very much expect that they would.

Very convenient for the rich to believe that the present distribution of wealth in a society which privileges the already privileged is solving all of society's problems though.

shk292:
But is household income the causal factor, or is it having parents who have the intelligence and attitude to generate that income? Put another way, if I take a poor family with wastrel parents who never tried at school and are therefore uneducated and on benefit or a minimum wage, and then pay them say $100k per year for doing nothing, would their kids magically start doing really well at school? I doubt it very much.

Very convenient for the socialists to believe that redistribution of wealth would solve all society's problems though

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1309956 22-May-2015 15:13

Disclaimer: I was speaking from vague memory, and may have misremembered... it may not be the *best* predictor, but it is a significant factor.

To me, as an engineer, it's more important to find the root cause than a convenient indicator - just like root cause of failure analysis in engineering. Ask the three "why" questions

So, you don't stop at "Kids do well because family income is high", therefore "we need to raise families' income". You ask "Why do kids from high income families do better?". Is it just because they live in a bigger house and eat better food and go to a higher decile school? Or is it linked to the cause of high family income? Because if it's the latter, artificially increasing family income isn't going to have the desired effect.

Anyway, that's my $0.02 worth

And for what it's worth, I thought the budget was very politically clever by the Nats

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1309960 22-May-2015 15:21

In my feeble mind the answer to child poverty is the same as for any poverty, give a man a fish and he will eat for one day, teach him and give the resources to fish and he eats for a life time. So, to address child poverty and poverty in general
we need to increase overall "wealth" by economic stimulus and growth. If we just do Government hand outs any gains are artificial and the root cause will still remain unresolved. Having said that we still need to apply Elastoplast work rounds to ease the symptoms in the interim.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1309966 22-May-2015 15:32

shk292:

Disclaimer: I was speaking from vague memory, and may have misremembered... it may not be the *best* predictor, but it is a significant factor.

To me, as an engineer, it's more important to find the root cause than a convenient indicator - just like root cause of failure analysis in engineering. Ask the three "why" questions

So, you don't stop at "Kids do well because family income is high", therefore "we need to raise families' income". You ask "Why do kids from high income families do better?". Is it just because they live in a bigger house and eat better food and go to a higher decile school? Or is it linked to the cause of high family income? Because if it's the latter, artificially increasing family income isn't going to have the desired effect.

Anyway, that's my $0.02 worth

And for what it's worth, I thought the budget was very politically clever by the Nats

I agree that it was a clever budget all right.

Not sure about your argument about "artificially" increasing family income though. If you put (unemployment - and other) benefits to one side for now, then look at income as a reward for labour, it's always an artificial construct anyway - with forces acting in both directions. WFF artificially inflates family incomes - and IMO the fact that NZ seems to need it is an indicator of market failure. Then the argument devolves to discussion on "working wage" etc. It gets really nasty when some seem to actually believe that increasing low wages isn't good - regardless of how it's achieved. Polarised, confused, partisan twats - smug low rent plutocrats. Even the most right-wing politicians/economists would agree that increasing wages is a great goal for society. How to get there is the problem.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1309986 22-May-2015 16:27

Satch:
MikeB4:
Satch:
MikeB4: Irrespective of the $1000 startup going people should still start retirement saving at the earliest time. Using the startup going as an excuse not to is a huge mistake.

You missed the point completely. Having an incentive for people to save is a positive thing, especially for those who don't see a need or are sitting on the fence. By removing this incentive you are only going to make some people think it is no longer worth it regardless of the fact that it still is. There is at least one example of this on this very thread.

The less that people save the more it is going to cost the country in the long run.

Hopefully you get the point now.

I didn't miss any point, the point I was making is that in order to help those in need some things needed to be sacrificed. When the fiscal balance is neutral or positive things like $1,000 incentives can be made, this is not currently the case.

As for incentive to do long term savings and retirement savings, the only incentive really needed is the need to provide for oneself and to provision for a more comfortable twilight years and not to delay until some handout from the Government
coffers.

Yawn.

Don't bother arguing with MikeB4. He's generally unable to offer much beyond canned lines nor will he critically examine the underlying assumptions of his posts. Underlying the notion that a lack of "balanced books" makes abandonment of the kickstart justifiable is an assumption that rushing back to surplus by any means (including this) is good. Even worse, as you say, this ignores the potential long term costs of undermining the much needed savings culture, not to mention the undoubted need for investment diversification. And a government also needs to be seen as supporting things such as savings scheme in a long term, apolitical way, rather than using super/savings issues as political football, as this government is prone to do. And all this is coming from someone who has either vote National or abstained all his adult life.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1309988 22-May-2015 16:32

MikeB4: In my feeble mind the answer to child poverty is the same as for any poverty, give a man a fish and he will eat for one day, teach him and give the resources to fish and he eats for a life time. So, to address child poverty and poverty in general
we need to increase overall "wealth" by economic stimulus and growth. If we just do Government hand outs any gains are artificial and the root cause will still remain unresolved. Having said that we still need to apply Elastoplast work rounds to ease the symptoms in the interim.

I think you need to change the parent's attitude. If you look at typical Asian families, they drive the kids hard and consequently they do well. This despite often poor parents.

At the most fundamental, I have seen it first hand in Cambodia where I covered a school run by a US charity. The parents of the kids could not read or write for the most part, and lived in what we would regard as very very basic conditions: they were determined that their children would lift themselves out of that life and took them many kilometres to school every day.

Without the attitude change, throwing money at the problem is likely to have limited results.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1309989 22-May-2015 16:39

shk292:

Disclaimer: I was speaking from vague memory, and may have misremembered... it may not be the *best* predictor, but it is a significant factor.

To me, as an engineer, it's more important to find the root cause than a convenient indicator - just like root cause of failure analysis in engineering. Ask the three "why" questions

So, you don't stop at "Kids do well because family income is high", therefore "we need to raise families' income". You ask "Why do kids from high income families do better?". Is it just because they live in a bigger house and eat better food and go to a higher decile school? Or is it linked to the cause of high family income? Because if it's the latter, artificially increasing family income isn't going to have the desired effect.

Things are getting confused, at least partly because of my last post.

What I meant to say was that "parents who value education" is a significant factor in how well children do at school. Levitt's conclusion in Freakonomics was that it is NOT better housing or a higher decile school or better food that resulted in a better educational outcome. Kids with the same housing and school and food did better than other kids in the same circumstances. The distinguishing factor in the 'better' group was that their parents *tried* to get them into a better school, but failed.

There have also been documented cases where, when a benefactor steps in to pay for further education, educational outcomes improve e.g. George Weiss and Eugene Lang. So it's not just about pouring money into the problem, but about providing some hope... an accessible exit from the poverty cycle.

mattwnz

20147 posts

Uber Geek

#1309992 22-May-2015 16:46

floydbloke:
pinkydot: the travel levy is just similar to the departure tax years ago before leave the country & have to pay the $25 dollar.
so now it's just pretty much they bring it back but just 3 dollar cheaper.

I was of the impression that this departure tax didn't disappear but eventually got collected by the airlines on behalf of the government when paying for your ticket, and is shown as part of the quoted price when you're booking.

I sincerely hope, and expect, that they'll do the same with this new levy. I don't much fancy queuing at forex booths and faffing about with little stickers again.

It's a joke really, you have a departure tax, and then a travel levy. Essentially they are the same tax, just added twice under different names. It is an interesting way to generate new tax revenue when you need to push a surplus for political reasons. You look at what can be taxed, that taxes many but is a small ticket clip each time. The problem is that councils are also using this sort of thing so they don't exceed the maximum percentage rise that they can charge. We got our local council to back down on a new levy like this that they were going ot bring in, and instead they are borrowing to fund the cost. Shifting the cost to future generations is what many are doing now too.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5