TKP 26/50: Interviews with Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Treasury's Chief Economic Adviser Dominick Stephens on whether the Government can afford the rising health and NZ Super costs of ageing.
Isn't it true that the Covid induced government spending she discussed, was because of Covid, and other disasters, and this was experienced by every other country too? Isn't it logical that that intended stimulus 'overspend' is not something that could be reasonably paid off in the same timeframe as the crash Covid created? To not acknowledge the damage of Covid is disingenuous.
So if transport infrastructure means that local land and property valuer rise, they will look at clawing back some of that. That's a capital gains tax. It should be universal. It is a travesty that houses are seen as a speculative investment rather than a stable rock supporting the productivity of the family or whanau there.
And isn't it a complete cop out to consider raising the age of the pension to reduce the cost of increasing age with no targeting of those who do not need the pension at all? With IRDs efficient systems now, I would have thought it should be much easier to corral the wealthy and chop their pension off. Surely that would save a bunch.
The tax system, again, needs radical and fair overhaul.
Creating a country of land owners and serfs is not the way to productivity.
I feel the Finance Minister's framing avoids all inconvenient truths.
Well said Roger, agree, means testing our universal super, and perhaps we should then over the next 15 to 25 years realign Kiwi Saver into a universal super, employer/employee funded scheme. Overhaul our tax system, have a capital gains tax, with a higher tax rate over 170k say 3-5% above. The means testing will act as a wealth tax of those over 65. A CGT will direct money into the productive sector, would allow more infrastructure to be funded. Covid is an inconvenient truth that doest suit the coalitions aim for reducing bureaucracy to fund tax cuts.
A question Bernard is why treasury and successive governments especially our current one only talk about debt and never about the benefits it can give a nation if spent wisely?
30% of gdp is just an arbitrary number from a pre financial sovereign time. Debt is a fiction, we don't need to "borrow" but there are good reasons to do so.
You can't have world class services with an arbitrary spend of GDP figure. It makes no sense.
If the objective of all this is "Growth", then we are all doomed. Instead of obsessing about growth, we should be looking at resilience and co-operation in the face of extreme weather events, already happening and going to increase exponentially. This government is wilfully blind to the reality and are making many lives worse in the process.
Bernard you had it so right about Willis being like Richardson. I recall the decimation the latter dictated as Finance Minister. In my view Willis is worse with cuts affecting the most vulnerable.
Also noted she talked over & at you. Not a person who listens methinks.
Grumble grumble. She says we need better investment and outcomes (good). So why is this government hellbent on ignoring evidence based solutions and replace them with ideology based solutions.
If you ever play poker with the Finance Minister when she is about to tell a fib her left thumb has a nervous twitch.
If you pull Covid support from the increase in government spend what is the remaining increase?
Also her bristling at being compared to Ruth Richardson was telling.
A pretty one sided conversation.
Isn't it true that the Covid induced government spending she discussed, was because of Covid, and other disasters, and this was experienced by every other country too? Isn't it logical that that intended stimulus 'overspend' is not something that could be reasonably paid off in the same timeframe as the crash Covid created? To not acknowledge the damage of Covid is disingenuous.
So if transport infrastructure means that local land and property valuer rise, they will look at clawing back some of that. That's a capital gains tax. It should be universal. It is a travesty that houses are seen as a speculative investment rather than a stable rock supporting the productivity of the family or whanau there.
And isn't it a complete cop out to consider raising the age of the pension to reduce the cost of increasing age with no targeting of those who do not need the pension at all? With IRDs efficient systems now, I would have thought it should be much easier to corral the wealthy and chop their pension off. Surely that would save a bunch.
The tax system, again, needs radical and fair overhaul.
Creating a country of land owners and serfs is not the way to productivity.
I feel the Finance Minister's framing avoids all inconvenient truths.
Well said Roger, agree, means testing our universal super, and perhaps we should then over the next 15 to 25 years realign Kiwi Saver into a universal super, employer/employee funded scheme. Overhaul our tax system, have a capital gains tax, with a higher tax rate over 170k say 3-5% above. The means testing will act as a wealth tax of those over 65. A CGT will direct money into the productive sector, would allow more infrastructure to be funded. Covid is an inconvenient truth that doest suit the coalitions aim for reducing bureaucracy to fund tax cuts.
A question Bernard is why treasury and successive governments especially our current one only talk about debt and never about the benefits it can give a nation if spent wisely?
30% of gdp is just an arbitrary number from a pre financial sovereign time. Debt is a fiction, we don't need to "borrow" but there are good reasons to do so.
You can't have world class services with an arbitrary spend of GDP figure. It makes no sense.
"...in the history of the graphs that he produced" Willis 🤦♀️
If the objective of all this is "Growth", then we are all doomed. Instead of obsessing about growth, we should be looking at resilience and co-operation in the face of extreme weather events, already happening and going to increase exponentially. This government is wilfully blind to the reality and are making many lives worse in the process.
Bernard you had it so right about Willis being like Richardson. I recall the decimation the latter dictated as Finance Minister. In my view Willis is worse with cuts affecting the most vulnerable.
Also noted she talked over & at you. Not a person who listens methinks.
I'm not sure why Willis thinks the conversation about superannuation should be like - so to what age we increase it
And not like - we keep it 65 who do we tax more to pay for it.
As usual with National the bipartisan agreement they look for is agreeing with what they want.
Or even lowering it to move towards something like a basic universal income. Heaven forbid we tax the wealthy!
Grumble grumble. She says we need better investment and outcomes (good). So why is this government hellbent on ignoring evidence based solutions and replace them with ideology based solutions.