By Bernard Hickey
Anyone who decides to save is essentially taking a bet on future consumption being better than current saving.
That sort of bet requires trust in institutions and rules, confidence about the future, belief in investment returns and a willingness to sacrifice instant gratification.
That sort of trust and confidence is not easy to build up and should be protected at all costs.
KiwiSaver had become one of our loved institutions in a short period of time. We believed it would be there in future. We believed it made financial sense for ourselves and the country.
We welcomed the initial tax breaks and the plans to ramp up the savings Australian-style to something decent.
KiwiSaver has been a huge success so far in encouraging people to sign up to a scheme that actually makes them poorer now.
The government's announcement today of cuts to the government's matching NZ$1042/year tax credit to match employee contributions is another change that undermines confidence. See Alex Tarrant's article on the changes announced here.
In 2008 the National government cut the minimum contribution to KiwiSaver to 2% from 4%, effectively reducing the 4% contribution from employers at the same time.
Then it stopped contributing to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund or the Cullen Fund as it became known.
One of the reasons 1.7 million New Zealanders have opted into the scheme and now have NZ$8 billion in there is they believe it will generate returns and they can get the money back when they retire.
Changing the rules every time the government wants to reduce the budget deficit simply erodes trust, which is the most ephemeral thing. Will the government confiscate the money at a later date? Will it tax it differently? Will it be there in 40 years? With so many changes in less than 6 years there's a tipping point we need to be careful about approaching.
It encourages people to disbelieve public institutions such as New Zealand's capital markets and encourages them to instead invest in 'things they know' such as bricks and mortar.
It is the wrong type of deficit reduction.
'The right type of reduction'
Prime Minister John Key is right on the face of it when he says that borrowing from foreign creditors to put money into KiwiSaver funds (most of which is then invested offshore) doesn't make financial sense.
Issuing government bonds at 5.5% and then handing the money over fund managers who might get back 5-6% after taxes seems marginal at best. Once fees are taken into account it seems counter-productive.
Key cited research from Treasury that cutting the budget deficit through such KiwiSaver tax credit reductions would cut New Zealand's net liabilities by 2% of GDP over the next decade.
That may be true, but it's just as true for cutting spending elsewhere.
And those spending cuts, particularly on consumption spending such as Working for Families and Interest Free Student loans, would be sending a much stronger message.
That is: New Zealand prefers to save by spending less rather than investing less.
That money that would have gone into KiwiSaver and the NZ Super fund would have been invested, often in New Zealand, to increase our long term productive capacity.
Instead, most of the money now being borrowed is simply being spent by consumers on trips to The Warehouse, the cafe, the pub, the supermarket and the casino. None of it is boosting our production and reducing consumption.
John Key should have sent the message: we'll save money by spending less, not by investing less.
If we're going to create a savings culture we have to be serious about choosing future consumption over current consumption.
The government has chosen to prioritise current consumption over future consumption.
We get the message.
108 Comments
Have to face up to it Bernard...kiwisaver was a vote buying pork offering dressed up as good savings policy cooked up by Labour and served up under National with Bill and John wearing Helen's red skirts.
It was all the rage because of the $1000 'gift' by govt....stolen from other taxpayers or borrowed...and the tax credit was an extra slice of pork each year.....
Far better had Labour issued CPI adjusted 2.5% real return govt bonds with ceiling investment limits per person. But that would not have brought in the votes.
National continue to tweak and fiddle and tinker because they too rely on buying votes with pork and what better than to run with the same pork rort that Cullen dreamed up.
How many cannot collect employer contributions?
How many will discover management fees and debasement of the currency eat up any real gains over 20 years?
Your comment re the Cullen fund excepted, what you say is correct. What I would like to see is a plan of reduced spending spread over the next three years (starting now). Should cover WFF, student loans, pay rates for govt employees ( a pay freeze as a minimum, cuts for higher income earners better), control over infratstructure spending (would like to see actual economic justification for roads spending) etc etc. They don't need to do all at once (which would have bother economic and political implications) but set out the plan of how they are going to cut the required $10bn+ out.
I am not holding my breath!
Because they are overpaid relative to the private sector. They are also insulated from the fairly automatic pay cuts many of us in the private sector get when things turn down.
My income goes down immediately if my customers can't afford my services.
Why should government employees continue to get paid the same when their customers (that's me) can't afford as much?
It's a daft system. I'm all for protecting those at the bottom of the heap but what about all the government employees who earn more than the private sector median wage? Cut their pay automatically I say. Those at the top should lose more on the basis that they helped get us into this mess in the first place.
It's the lack of feedback systems that is the problem.
Because they are overpaid relative to the private sector. They are also insulated from the fairly automatic pay cuts many of us in the private sector get when things turn down.
My experience is private sector tends to be paid higher, with the traditional trade off being public sector had more job security. And of course public AND private sector both have declining real wages in the last few years.
True. Comparing equivalent jobs, private sector salaries are higher. The public sector average is higher because there's no equivalent for the vast numbers of private sector minimum wage jobs such as supermarket checkout, cleaning, and fast food. The cleaners working in government facilities aren't employed in the public sector - they're generally employed by the private companies contracted to do the job.
Kiwisaver was always a con,although not surprissed that so many have joined up shows how many people havent got a clue when it comes to investment.None of them realise that in practice they cease to have any control over their contributions or in fact if it will even be available (in cash)when they retire.
Whilst some may think it was a con, at least for joe average it got them started on saving for the future with a small incentive for doing so. Over time if it had ramped up to the Aussie style levels it would have surely improved our capital markets (which you would have thought would be to the NZX cronies approval) and overall savings levels.
As BH states, this is the wrong signal to give people. The great unwashed took a punt and bought into saving for the future with Kiwisaver, now they've been slapped on the hand. Meanwhile bizzarely consumption expenditure items (WFF & interest free student loans) remain in in play relatively unscathed. Unfortunately KiwiSaver was a much easier target politically to effect some savings on the balance sheet than to try and touch the other two..
At the end of the day the working middle class once again gets the finger. Yes I know the govt needs to reduce expenditure (I'm all for cutting WFF and 0% interest student loans), but a bizzare move to make this item the first cab off the rank. One couldn't but help suspect if push come to shove a future govt wouldn't (if pushed) just reclaim all govt contributions to kiwisaver to help put out a fire...
Unless I am missing something (which is highly likely) I am wondering why the Government hasn't considered reviewing the automatic enrolment procedure. A third (ish) of all KiwiSavers have joined this way i.e. by doing nothing and allowing it to happen *to* them when they change jobs. It's fair to say that they probably wouldn't have joined if they weren't defaulted into it.
I know auto enrolment is what makes KiwiSaver so lovable, but tightening that procedure (or taking it away) could save the Govt heaps of money. Then they have a better chance of keeping their 2008 promise i.e. " It's all still there - you just have to make an effort yourself to join it ". A move like that would be more palatable with the voters, I'd have thought and John Key could use words like "choice" and "freedom" and everything.
Noooo! That way, the only people who'd join KiwiSaver would be the motivated, well-informed and financially literate - in other words, precisely the people who are likely to have their finances in good order and be saving for their retirement. Why should the Government pay them to do what they're doing anyway? The whole point of the auto-enrolment is to catch the people who are not any of the above.
Excellent post....! Ms de Meanour....a beautiful encapsulation of core problems in N.Z. Society where responsibility and self determination are sorely missing amoung the wider populace.
But then the policy of .."The Mushroom" is applied from the top down...that policy entails
"keeping them in the dark and watching them thrive on bullshit."
Why are KIwisaver and Student Loans different accounts? Aren't they both an investment in an individuals future? Any student loan should be a negative balance on ONE compulsory account ( call it Kiwisaver for ease) and future earning should pay that balance off before the credits start to accumulate for retirement.
I have difficulty with Kiwisaver. It just seems so unfair.
Why tax everybody and then give money to the people with good jobs who can afford to save anyway?
GST on bread and milk goes to bulk up the pension scheme of people earning $100,000 or more, probably working for the government.
It just ain't right.
to me its all about the message
this govt have been harping on about developing a savings culture, now they are confusing that message
At the end of the day, all they care about is their fat cat mates, and despite their talk (talk is cheap) about moving away from housing, they've only made token gestures
At the end of the day they actually really want us to coninue on with our bad old ways, because they know a housing-led economy and debt fuelled consumption is our only saviour (even though in the longer term it will not be our saviour but rather our ruin)
You are so right, Matt.
Cut the government subsidy to landlords by way of accommodation supplements (in excess of $1 billion per annum, I believe) and watch rents and prices plummet. In fact, just announcing a date in the future when they won't be available would do it. The market adjustment would be swift.
That's a REAL message but not one that suits them or their property ponzi cronies.
"Bernard Hickey argues the KiwiSaver tax credit cut is the wrong type of budget cut".
Agree. This is in effect a tax rise.
"Key should instead cut spending..."
... and taxes!
"...and raise taxes"
No way. The less tax we pay the less money is wasted and the better off we are!
SAY WHAT!!!!????
You need to turn comments on to this article of yours;
So we have a PM who negotiates public policy with Standard & Poor's and announces such policy in an international news journal.
He really is something else.
Kate
Get real!, countries much larger than ours listen to the rating agencies because as corrupt as they are we have to borrow, All JK is doing is informing the public of the fact.
Given that most of NZ seems to have their head in the sand, I think this sort of openness is required.
Bernard is becoming more inane in his OpEd's the change to KS is a tax increase and removing the kickstart was a non starter as the horse had bolted. "Increase Tax!" he is starting to sound like Cullen (or worse still Dr Norman)
Neven
You are exactly right Bernard, I voted for these guys and thought they would be good.
Really all they have done is cut taxes for the rich, but then realised it was too unpopular and too difficult to realistically make enough savings cutting spending to actually afford the cuts they have already done.
Now they are poised to have the biggest sell off of our assets that we have built up over 100 years or so as a country, because of the above reasons, probably within 3 years, something no other government can do every 3 years once they are sold.
They may be very surprised how unpopular these selling off assets policies are going to be, possibly election losing I think.
your right Matt - its the wrong bloody message just when the country are getting it
In the last couple of years joe and jill bloggs have finally started to deleverage and live within their means after two decades of a credit filled boom largely from housing values - then millions join kiwisaver - and yes we know it is costing the government but its being matched by the public - saving for the future and their retirement
Super annuation will be long gone in 20 years - it will be a means tested benifit - so anything we can do now to get people to contribute towards their retirement has to be good - better contributing the 30-50% of the costs getting employers and individuals to save than waiting and paying 100% for a great number of people who have virtually no plan or savings
If it was compulsory - pretty much everyone under 40 would be set up for their retirement thus in another 25 years a huge drop in the need for super annuation (means tested) given that compounding will mean the young people enteringthe scheme will be even better off - it will be a sustained drop in a major and increasing cost(greater life expectancy)
As time progresses, the % of subsidy can shift - say 4% employers and 1% government - still ensuring the vast majority of the population have an adequate savings and retirement strategy.
And lets not forget that these funds are then avalable to be invested in our economy / financial markets and hopefully to generate growth and jobs
Very very bad message
On the contrary, it's the KS subsidies that send the wrong message - that saving is only worth doing if somebody else is paying you for it. That just encourages dependence on Government handouts rather than learning to manage the money you actually earn.
Indeed, as many contributors here have demonstrated, a lot of people are simply shifting money that they would have saved somewhere else into KS, so as to collect the subsidies. How is it a good use of public money, to pay people to move savings from one account to another?
Bernard on a point of principle (altering the landscape of people's financial planning for old age) you are correct, but then again desperate times call for desperate measures. All the money the Government puts in to the Kiwisaver tax credits is borrowed by them, offshore. Given this scenario, the sooner the tax credits are canned, the better for the country as a whole. We as a nation have to live within our means and the sooner we start doing this the less burdensome the adjustment process will be,
Kiwisaver is not and never will be a panacea. "Don't put all your eggs in one basket" = the astute person will have other irons in the fire for providing financial security in retirement. There are still inducements to join Kiwisaver or keep contributing, especially if you are an employee.
Personally I believe John Key was foolish to give any commitments to retain KWS, WFF, interest free student loans etc before the previous election. This now paints him into a corner of appearing dishonest while he asserts he is taking the actions the situation demands
From another angle, this makes Kiwisaver look distinctly stingy by comparison with the Australian super scheme, where:
Since 1 July 2003, the Government has made available incentives of a Government co-contribution of up to $1,500 for lower income employees who make personal contributions to their own superannuation fund. Depending on individual income thresholds, the Government pays up to $1.50 for every $1 contributed. The amount has since been lowered and is now a matching contribution up to $1,000 (until 2012), but will be increased in two stages to the same level as before by the 2014/15 financial year.
The 2007 Federal Budget announced a one-off double payment of the co-contributions paid due to personal contributions in the 2005/2006 financial year. Lower income earners received up to $3000 co-contribution for $1000 of personal contributions in that year.
Borowing to save money has rarely worked. Taxing high income earners only punishes those who work hard. Hundreds of years ago taxes were based on the numder of windows in your house,so people didnt put in windows.No sunlight to kill germs so people got sick. We Havent got it right yet graduated.Income tax is fundamentallt flawed as it discourages working.Cut spending, we aint earnt it it isnt our right to have it. Isnt that reality
Jimbo and Wolly. I understand what you are saying there are many who earn much and do not put in much to get it. They annoy me. There were many when importing was licensed. Ie you couldnt import unless you had a licence given to you by the ""appropriate person"".
However there are so many rich who work hard to keep what is left of our productivity, they work 12 hour days or more and risk what they have earnt. If we hit them, then not only will we be borrowed to the max, these people will stop. They will have no choice and many of them are giving up now. Staff that do not work, huge compliance costs, etc. Still as some have commented its not until we hit the wall completely that we change
Its not just about working harder, its also about working smarter .... i.e. i could hammer in nails all day with a hammer, someone else could do the same with a nail gun in a faction of the time, I certainly worked harder and longer hours but do i deserve more money ...
Salaries generally increase with the level of responsibility associated with the job.
No responsibility, can't expect to earn too much. With responsibilty comes risk, make the wrong decision & it could cost lives (i.e. Doctors)
The other factor is obviously skills. Unskilled generally = low pay.
However, lefties would like to see everyone earning the same, why its the communist idea no? I saw this as one reason why Labour hiked the top PAYE tax rate & raised the support at the bottom, to go some way to level the take home pay.
jimbojones....I know a lot of people who work really hard and earn little. What markets do is send signals clearly to people...so they know to move, or re-skill into other areas if they want to earn more. Take away those signals with subsidies for low wages or over-taxing high incomes, and the economy ends in a heap of low earners.
So right Andrew, these incompetent fools running this country are to stupid to admit they cut taxes too far. The tax cuts they put in place a costing 12 Billion a year. The so called cleaver money man can't even ballance a budget. If it takes a transation tax, do it! But no they will do what they always do... borrow another billion.
For me Kiwi saver was just a way to get on the property ladder and into my own place. The money could be withdrawn after 3 years as a deposit on a first house.
The government puts in, the employer puts in, I put in and walla a 1 to 10% deposit is established boosting property prices? Yes.
But a first apartment non the less.
The govt has decided not to do more than tweak and fiddle until 'we' scream for change...that's the simple truth. WFF and other vote winning rorts will remain until 'we' demand they go. And 'we' will not do that until the rorts start to cut 'us' to pieces. That is why key and Co went with the promises to carry on with Helen's vote buying pork handouts. The public are simply too bloody thick and greedy to understand they themsleves and no other sod have to pay for the promises.
On that point you need to realise there will be no changes for the better until the 'electorate attitude' changes. Ask yourself if a Swiss population..........., let's call it 'popswap'.....would not make a better thing from the potential on in and around these islands....you know bloody well they would. New Switzerland would never have been allowed to sink to these depths.
The problems are in the attitudes and cultures within.
Wolly, John Key has few options - We just have to to keep for example:
$880 million pa of policy advice
$ 1 Billion Vote Climate Change
$ 800 m this budget ETS credits
Open ended $ 1 B + liability for future carbon increases
South Canterbury Ponzi
Farms in Fielding
TV3 funding
Far better to bugger around with savings for about the 40th time in 40 years !
We now have Govt - including local and Air NZ etc over 50 % of GDP
The future is assured - just may not be the one we would like !
The pigs at the trough face are by far regarded as more important JB. I expect the game to continue. No real policy changes until polling points to a clear voter demand for change! a sad tale of poor govt no matter which fools are in the Beehive.
State waste is now engrained under the finger nails like dirt. "Govt" including the SOE scams is a machine of Sir humphreys et al with a determination to preserve its dominant position in this country and for that reason this country will NEVER EVER be as productive as it could be.
FYI from a reader via Facebook:
"So the wealthy get to keep their (clearly unsustainable) tax cuts, but low-income earners trying to save for retirement lose their tax credits on Kiwisaver. Yes, we clearly have a National party government. Say no more. The $1.2B they paid out to South Canterbury Finance (even after SCF violated the terms of their guarantee) would have more than covered this....with enough left over for Women's Refuge."
Bernard,
If the government is changing any scheme I signed up for, I want the option to opt out.
-- Allow me the OPTIONS: Get out with MY Kiwisaver funds as they stand today, or let me stay in with the news rules
-- Same things with Super. You told me to pay for the elders with my taxes when I was earning--on the implicit promise that you were going to give me my super when I got old. If you are changing the plans --change it for people who come in to the work force from here on in. Or give me a fairly calculated lump-sum figure at this point and I wil be happy to sign away any expectation of super.
Works for any other company in the real world (e.g. premium/price goes up I get to opt out of insurance/buying more of ot) .
Should work the same for the government. Simple as that.
I AM FED UP WITH POLITICIANS' TINKERING SCREWING UP MY PLANS.
I don't see any reason why you should get back the money you have already paid in. You paid it in on the basis that it would be locked up until you are 65, and that you would receive up to $1040 Government contribution and up to 2% of your salary tax free in addition from your employer. You received that. You got what you paid for and it hasn't been taken away.
You do have the option to stop paying into your KS account. In fact, please do that; start saving your own money instead of expecting continuing free handouts from the taxpayer.
As for NZS, the Government has said repeatedly that they're not going to change the terms. They're wrong, in my view, but the fact is that the deal as you've described it remains in place so you've no grounds for complaint there either.
The joys of working for a living mean that I could not respond to you immediately.
You still do not get it--you change the rules on anything in any way (which is your prerogative), you must give me an option to get out--in entirety.
Whatever I did was done based on the whole package presented to me--any tinkering even though it is only certain parts of it , means I should have the option of calling the whole deal off.
Work in the (real) world of commercial contracts, you would see what I say is logical. In fact I could take the other party to court if they do not agree.
"Baby Boomers close to or considering retirement had better get their act together. The risks of relying upon continued asset values in property to remain high will leave many exposed if the situation worsens and ..... ends up turning Irish, American or Spanish."
http://macrobusiness.com.au/2011/05/planning-for-boomers/
From: "Q. I’m 48 and my husband is 55. As a result of renovations blowing out to $300,000, our mortgage is $690,000.
Our home is worth $1.1 million. We have two positively geared investment properties, owing $280,000 and $525,000, with about $100,000 equity in each.
Our incomes are $95,000 and $76,000 and we have $200,000 each in super. Should we sell one rental property and pay some off our mortgage or buy another investment property to minimise tax?
I looked at the figures a few weeks back and came up with 75% of NZ's total overseas liabilities is against residential property. If you think that is healthy then by all means borrow and buy more houses.
You can work out how many houses you need by caluclating against how many operations you will need in retirement. I reckon about a house for each one.
In terms of immeasurable wealth W.A.S.........Time ........is what I've come to value above all things...while attempting to enjoy all things....without fear and envy occupying my time long enough to distract me from finding things to be enjoyed.
Deep...? no...........it stares you right in the face,but by the time most see it times up.
I thought the idea of tax cuts is that there is a 2-3 times multiplier effect that takes 18 months to 2 years to kick in. Whereas government spending typically has no multiplier effect but kicks in immediately.
I'd be very cautious about knocking the wealthy Bernard. They are not all corrupt and incompetent like the finance company bods. We need people who are good at deploying capital wisely. It is a rather complex and essential skill for a successful society and it is bloody hard to learn.
Bernard has worked out that the politics of envy generate website clicks........hence his continual attacks on the oldies, property owners, the "wealthy", Trusts etc. Its like chucking a bone into a cage of hungry dogs.
Some of his comments are spot on, but more than a few appear very poorly thought through.
There are plenty of other problems in NZ that need fixing but for some reason they dont seem to capture Chairman Hickeys attention.
Indeed Roger, things are not as they appear:
http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2011/05/11/budget-faqs/
Useful points by David Cunliffe.
I agree with you on needing people skilled at deploying capital, in fact it is paramount for the success of the capitalist system. (I am not one of them)
I can't help wonder whether some financially wealthy people might come under the banner of ignorant rather than corrupt or self serving. I say this because they have assumed a functioning capitalist system that isn't there.
Capitalism describes itself quite well but ,since our money system is flawed and based on debt, it can't be what we have.
All other arguments are really trivia until the money system is overhauled. One based on energy, as others have proposed, would be sensible.
Other way arond,
Tax cuts actually have negligable multiplier but Govn spending programs or lump sum tax rebates do.
"deploying capital wisely" Im afraid I cant see that many cases that prove rich ppl are good at this, in fact if the GFC is anything to go by, the reverse is true.
regards
Other way around,
Tax cuts actually have negligable multiplier but Govn spending programs or lump sum tax rebates do.
"deploying capital wisely" Im afraid I cant see that many cases that prove rich ppl are good at this, in fact if the GFC is anything to go by, the reverse is true.
regards
Key seems to be simply cutting in areas that won't impact on a possible economic recovery.... He does not want to make the tough decisions.
In the current economic environment if the Govt AND the private sector are trying to "save"... ie.pay down debt by reducing consumption... then we will fall into another recession.
The Reserve Bank AND the Govt are doing everthing they can to stimulte growth.... They DO NOT want another recession. ( no one does)
This requires "Spending" and "consumption"....
You just can't have your cake and eat it toooo.... u can't increase spending and consumption and save as well.
If we, as a Country, REALLY want to pay down debt... then there is no choice... There will be HARD TIMES ahead.... there will be a recession..... (which might seem like an evil word, but is simply a reduction in GDP.)
The Govt has wasted 3 yrs of opportunity... Our Total public and private debt is more than it was.
The irony is that we actually need to reduce our GDP...and actually consume LESS... and reduce debt .... in order to become healthy as an economy.
Now might be a good time to shift our hypnotic focus on Growth to more meaningful measures such as "standard of living"... "quality of life".... " being wise custodians of our nation for following generations.... etc.
Cheers Roelof
They may stipulate that the minimum contribution should be 2.5% or 3% and hope no one will notice the missing 1% or so from the government,
I think they are hoping for many members to take contrinbution holiday, which would save heaps for the businesses and the government.
Groundswell backlash...? reading the above posts and others I would point out I had asked Wally for some time ...Where would a meaningful vote be cast in the light of many disillusioned.. Key.. voters (myself included)....he did not give an answer again ,but decided to reinterpret the question....demonstrating ...He( in my opinion) along with many others is confounded as to what to do now...!
No vote is not an option... even when the options lead to a no vote.
No vote ..is.. a vote for the sitting candidate/ and or Govt.
I am seriously contemplating the unthinkable.......and yet still trying to figure options with possibilities.
Consider this ...if the Nats in the near future sense a backlash is on ...they will utilise every option to gain social welfare and benifit dependants votes to gain the numbers....
I think it's worth a thread.......
This is the tried and tested expectation management approach employed by NACT. Check polls; forewarn with small chunks of information before a more significant communication (well anticipated speech) about a subsequent change; check polls; adjust speech before the main change; check polls; modify main change event accordingly; check polls; gutting complete, job done. Or am I just being too cynical?
No Les I dont think you are being too cynical......you are probably there or thereabouts....
While MMP has not been everyones cup of tea it has created options for new voter blocks to become parties in their own right with some kind of leverage should they be successful.
I think the good Doctor is capitalising on what is a very real sense of disillusionment out there............so I don't think he's got that part wrong.....but he would need to demonstrate more flexibility as to who he could work with......to make it with any real leverage potential.
You know maybe it is really time to start the Bones of a new contender.
Christov
In business (as in politics), a business can be in two states, in crisis, or not in crisis. When a business is in crisis it can do nothing and fail or it can call in the head-kickers, the axemen, and take the really hard decisions. The type of people who will look you in the face and kick you in the nuts. When the business has been turned around (assuming the fixers were called in in time) and things are sailing smoothly it is time to hand the tiller over to a different set of masters who will be kind, the nice guys, with a lot of people skills, who dont require serious decision making skills, but can keep the horses happy, and roll the hula-hoop down the road without making a lot of waves. When they good-guys stuff up again they have to have the cojones to to recognise it and call in the fixers again.
To help you along in your quest, you need to ask yourself - is NZ in shitstreet. If not then keep the soft-guys in. If you should decide the opposite is true, then you need a head-kicker. Someone who is thick-skinned, impervious to the probable vitriolic uproar the decisions required will make, arrogant, confident, indifferent to peoples pain. Can you think of anyone who fits the bill. I can think of two. Ready and available. And air-head-Brash is not one of them.
Iconolast......while I thought your paraphrasing was absolutely outstanding...I am no stranger to ball kicking....and being the kicker of those balls.
If you read into the thread i would give the good Doctor my vote you may have been mistaken...I pointed out the space of disillusionment he is seeking to fill albeit in the name of the sitting administration in another dress.
I do really apreciate your directness and absolutness in knowing the right persons for the job.............and that is to be respected.
Did I take it right you meant Key and English....? not Maystadt and Camdessus.
Bernard , i think you are just stirring . Keep kiwisaver on you have to be joking. It is a crackpot scheme locking money up with the same investment outfits that have already stuffed up the economy. To take borrowed money from the govt and also give it to the margin scalpers for investing unwisely is terrible policy. However i reiteratelike being on drugs you have to get to the lowest point before you have two options carry on and die or see the light. NZ cannot afford these crap policies. Everyone needs to take a deep breath and get on with electing politicians who will take the hard decisions on expenditure. The country is on welfare at present and is borrowing its way to oblivion. You can keep hoping the economy will come right and blissfully borrow until noone will lend to you or you cut your cloth to what you can afford.
P.S.Iconolast.........".impervious to the probable vitriolic uproar".......no ...no...that's not our little Johnny...i swear to God if it gets too ugly he's gonna cry I know it.......you see money aside he needs the approval it just the thing that drives him.
Billy Bob however....can just look at you and say ...well there's the numbers....I don't care whut yer complaint is ya bootscrapings....there's the numbers and that's it.............which probably helps to demonstrate a little personality helps now and then.
Christov. That Bernards seeming view to further supply resources to those who do not have, will only make things worse. I am surprised. I have followed his reporting well before interest.co came into place. He is a very good reporter. If we take from the productive to give to the waisters then the result is only logical. Perhaps we need to define who is productive and who are the waisters? Overall though I still say we will need to hit the wall in some major way to make people change. People are the voters. WE as a whole want it easy and to find excuses to blame another segment
Appreciated sprik.....not much to argue with there save what it is Bernard is up to .....he's becoming quite adept at inciting reactions ...both Pos and Neg....but then that is his bread and butter.
He should say a big thank you to Cassius Clay....who knew very early in his career he'd make as much money out of people who disliked him as those who loved him......what a philosophy eh.
Well.... iconolast......I sweated that much under the thinking cap that I'll need some free and lovely.......and my bollock scratcher hasn't seen that much action since the time I bought that cheap double mattress for the bach from the Sallies.
But the only two I could come up with ....that were...indifferent enough to the plight of the people and would probably make Louis XV look a public benefactor.........unspeakably callous enough to make Ivan the Terrible look sensitive.........were...........
John Banks and Roger Douglas who may have their arms up the back of the good Doctors suit as we speak as a means to steady his tightrope walk.....?
was I close......?
Christov: Almost. Very good
First I should disqualify myself. I'm a-political. Have only voted twice in my life. Both times National. Was born on the left, raised on the extreme left, educated on the right, employed on the extreme right. My father was a member of the LRC. We had many Labour members of parliament visit our house. As a little nipper I would sit in a corner and listen to them debate into the small hours of the AM.
The only two who have the cojones are Douglas and Peters.
If you want to shake things up and frighten the horses they would do the job.
Lets face it. NZ Inc is broke. We are rapidly becoming a banana republic thanks to our overly generous welfare. Our govt's are spending far too much. We can no longer afford all those "nice to have" welfare schemes, ministries, etc. We need to go back to basics. Health & Education. Safety net welfare, with strict & enforced rules. Heck the ozzies make people work for the dole, why cant we. Unfortunately NZers are suckers for bribes, and there is a deep culture of entitlement mentality. The govt should fix this, fix that. Welfare is causing paralysis. 2 examples off the news which got up my nose:
Case1: Bleeding heart reporter goes to state house where tenants wont live till a broken window is fixed. Someone needs to come fix, or we want a new house. How freekin useless are these people, cant spare a few bucks (beer money) to buy a newspaper/cardboard & tape up the hole??? We're supposed to feel sorry for these people?
Case 2: Bleeding heart reporter goes to state house where tenants have mold on walls & its making them sick. Someone needs to come fix, or we want a new house. Have they not heard of Janola & elbow grease??? We're supposed to feel sorry for these people?
Now its Kiwisaver. "I want out cause the govt isnt paying me any more". How about a bit of personal responsibility. If your going to piss your pay check against the wall your whole life you cant expect to have a rosey retirement.
NZ Inc needs to have a good long hard look in the mirror, and do some bigger picture thinking. Politics of envy will send us broke.
/rant
I remember watching that clip and thinking that they were living like absolute pigs and didnt deserve a state house. Mould etc aside, it was a tip.
Where on earth has the individual accountability gone in this country ? Why do people like this deserve state assistance when they obviously dont respect it, and the rest of us are having to tighten our belts to fund them ?
As much as I hate state intervention JJ its probably a matter of more regular inspections and (initially at least) trying to educate them on why you cant live like that. If that doesnt work then it may ultimately be a case of telling them straight....look after our asset or you wont be living there.
Yes it may cost more to do be a bit closer to these types but its got to be cheaper than the cost to the health system when they get sick...and the cost to HNZ to fix the place up afterwards.
The problem with this country as a whole is that there is too much pussy-footing around. Everybody seems to have some form of entitlement, but not everybody has obligations or responsibilities...and that is simply not sustainable.
There is pain coming and it is important that everybody feels it to some extent...otherwise in the long run the tinkering with KS that everybody around here is bleating about will seem quite tame.
Bernard the reason the country is in this mess is we belive that the Goverment has the answers well it doesent. Less tax is the answer not more all this talk about kiwi saver house prices etc whats it all about, Big Goverment and a Big Fat nanny state thats what we have .Unless the guy in the street has spare money in his or her pocket were all poor . Bernard the Goverment takes over 55% of my income with direct and indirect taxes we need to say no more the person who needs to have a say about your money is YOU not some commie nanny state be it Labour or John Keys lot. Taxes should be way lower its is theft and nothing more.
Baz
The government need to start looking at themselves first before they start cutting back anything anyone else get. They get so much money they should not get money back for holidays, no super just the kiwisaver super no perks once they have left ( do I recieve anything from my former emploeres once I quit NO. Why should I and why should they. Wff is a g ood thing but it need to be limited to a max of 3 kids not as many as you want. Anyone breeding over 3 kids is usually the sort of people that should'nt so why should we be incouraging it. Every polical party needs to have some balls and do the right thing. National are just doing what I said would happen 3 years ago as soon as they make second term. Labour are just as bad at the mo. They still can't get it through there head why they lost. WAKE UP
The government need to start looking at themselves first before they start cutting back anything anyone else get. They get so much money they should not get money back for holidays, no super just the kiwisaver super no perks once they have left ( do I recieve anything from my former emploeres once I quit NO. Why should I and why should they. Wff is a g ood thing but it need to be limited to a max of 3 kids not as many as you want. Anyone breeding over 3 kids is usually the sort of people that should'nt so why should we be incouraging it. Every polical party needs to have some balls and do the right thing. National are just doing what I said would happen 3 years ago as soon as they make second term. Labour are just as bad at the mo. They still can't get it through there head why they lost. WAKE UP
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.