OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!
848 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 15 16 17 18 19 … 34 Newer→ Last
-
I can't blame them, but they are wrong.
It's not a *question* of being wrong, it's a question of being able to eat! As Sacha says, Kiwisaver is being taken up by a large number of people, so it isn't actually that people are hostile to saving, per se - it's that they're hostile to not making ends meet *right now*, in their current situation. This isn't directed at you, Ben, but god, I am so OVER comfortably well-off people pontificating about how the workers just don't know what's good for them. (Also, I hear it's so hard to get good help these days.)
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
I can't blame them, but they are wrong. If you're not planning for the future, you're not actually living within your means
If you're in debt throughout your adult life - due to the unaffordability of housing and our perennialy low wages, perhaps with the cherry of a student loan on top - it hardly comes down to profligacy, does it? It's the economy that doesn't put you in the conditions to save. And we all know you simply must pay down your debt first. It's just bloody hard for a lot of people. The good thing about Kiwisaver is that it's (mildly) redistributive and the matching contributions mean that it pays to put money into it even if you're still in debt. We need more of that. And a capital gains tax. And a more progressive taxation regime. And stronger unions to help us earn more.
-
Dismal Soyanz, in reply to
Yes – Kiwisaver has dome well but my impression was that before its introduction there was a fair degree of ambivalence/opposition. One of the reasons for Kiwisaver’s success amongst the financially literate was the attached subsidies.
The public rejection of compulsory superannuation in 1997, while nearly a decade and a half ago now, I would have thought was fairly strong evidence that NZers oppose compulsory super. We have had opposition to compulsory super from both sides of the (imaginary) political fence since then.
Workers taking up new jobs automatically got enrolled so their take up cannot be considered to be a positive endorsement of Kiwisaver.
I’ve not had the time to look for data on savings behaviour changes since the introduction of Kiwisaver but the key demographic is the upper half of the income table. This is the group who have the income over and above “necessary spending” that will drive any improvement in the savings rate. I have no doubt that savings has picked up but that is also due in part to the recession and the natural tendency for greater caution.
That’s all very bloody well if you actually earn enough. I can’t really blame people on average incomes for being hostile to compulsory savings when New Zealand’s wages are low and our supermarket duopoly keeps raising food prices because they know they can. It’s not as if most people are flush with discretionary income to save at the moment, is it?
And this will always occur when trying to improve our savings behaviour. Of course there are examples when low income actually drives greater dissaving (e.g. when we have finance companies who target low income workers to borrow). Quite possibly some rejigging of tax rates would be necessary to keep disposable income for low income workers constant. It is not an insurmountable problem.
-
Martin Lindberg, in reply to
Do people vote for a party? Or do they vote against the incumbent.
Well that's another basis for voting I had not considered.
I've made it fairly clear that I'll be voting for a yellow dog before I vote Tory, ever.
Which is what I would consider ideology-based voting. I probably fall into that category myself (although not necessarily the yellow dog)
-
BenWilson, in reply to
I am so OVER comfortably well-off people pontificating about how the workers just don't know what's good for them.
Heh, well, again, that doesn't make the pontificators wrong. That's why we have these dialectics, to flesh out the truth of the matter.
There are some genuine advantages to compulsory saving that make it quite different to trying to do it yourself. For starters, it can't be beaten out of you by a loan shark when you fail to make the repayments you used to pay for your kids dinner. Second, you don't have to be a strong-willed person to do it, which is quite a rare characteristic. Third, particularly if it is incentivized, the returns are much better. Fourth, you don't need to be canny to avoid getting scammed if the government backs the investment.
Yes, sometimes you are down to your last dollar, and seeing that you have $50,000 in some untouchable trust could be quite hard to bear. But that is why we have welfare.
Considering how much of a percentage of what we earn is happily torn straight from us to fund things that politicians get to decide about, I don't think a bit extra that is actually your money and always will be, going somewhere safe from all interference (including the most likely kind, your own), is actually that hard a sell. If it were sweetened by a corresponding tax cut (which would actually be completely affordable considering what it is funding), would that make poor people feel better about it? Something for Labour/Green policy makers to think about.
-
Greg Dawson, in reply to
... (although not necessarily the yellow dog)
Clifford for prime minister!
-
<i>If it were sweetened by a corresponding tax cut (which would actually be completely affordable considering what it is funding), would that make poor people feel better about it? Something for Labour/Green policy makers to think about.</i>
I was very vocal in predicting that Labour's big policy this year would be a tax free threshold diverted into KiwiSaver, a prediction that was totally wrong. I'm still a little staggered that they didn't go for this. Now they still have to come up with a savings policy they won't be able to cost.
-
But that is why we have welfare.
Ah, but we'll be getting rid of most of that after November 26, when Key gets his 'mandate'. Perhaps then we'll all have to start wearing magical pixie balance bracelets.
-
Sacha, in reply to
a good percentage feel we can just magic up that standard of living indefinitely
After a couple of decades of kool-aid, it's easy to forget the taste of water.
Our neoliberal governments and cronies have actively shaped our economy to create wide inequality and low wages relative to the cost of living for many, while fostering notions of 'aspiration' and 'ambition'as a band-aid to quell unrest. (note I even managed to get some brand placement in there)
it's that they're hostile to not making ends meet *right now*, in their current situation.
Not enough
-
Dismal Soyanz, in reply to
Something for Labour/Green policy makers to think about.
I was particularly disappointed that the CTU saw compulsory super as a threat to NZS. NZS must change - won't be able to afford it in its current form. Personally, I don't see why greater reliance on personal schemes is such an anathema to some people when it is possible to ensure that NZS role as a safety net is not compromised. And before anyone jumps up and down about current or near retirees, changes to super schemes happen overnight only when they are on the brink of collapse.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
With the greatest of respect, I'm always a bit bemused by those who vote Tory, and who then act surprised when they act exactly like they did last time they were in power - privatisation, law and order, public sector cuts, etc
What gets me is the people who vote because "it's time the other mob had a go". FFS!
-
Sacha, in reply to
Considering how much of a percentage of what we earn is happily torn straight from us to fund things that politicians get to decide about
Sigh. Less than most other countries. Next.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Giovanni has a fascinating examination of the relationship between ourselves and our objects, and the mediation of advertising. Slightly off topic
Hey - my writings are never off topic, dammit!
(Also: thank you.)
-
What gets me is the people who vote because "it's time the other mob had a go". FFS!
Isn't that a completely reasonable thing for a centrist voter to do after one party has been in power for nine years?
-
Shorter roymorgan poll this month: Game on.
The latest New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows support for John Key’s National-led Government has fallen to 53% (down 6.5%). Support for Prime Minister Key’s National Party is 49% (down 6%), the Maori Party 3% (up 0.5%) and ACT NZ 1% (down 0.5%).
only 6% in it, and when you run the numbers it is virtually a tie 61-57 with the maori party holding the balance of four in a 122 seat house. The polling period was January 17 – 30. Key announced the sell-off on January 26. So that would only have had a small influence on the result.
Only another 2-3% and National will be turfed out - "we love YOU John, but, ummm, no thanks on everything else."
-
Lost another post to the timing out clause.
What did I write? Something like, but not exactly, this;
With the greatest of respect, I'm always a bit bemused by those who vote Tory, and who then act surprised when they act exactly like they did last time they were in power - privatisation, law and order, public sector cuts, etc
Would you respect me more if I wasn't disappointed?
And other stuff that sounded Ok the first time, but then sounded whiney.
There's a Friday post going on, and I'm in the mood for some music.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Isn't that a completely reasonable thing for a centrist voter to do after one party has been in power for nine years?
Not really, seeing as Parliament isn't a school playground. It's reasonable only if the centrist thinks that the other party happens to have better policies. Otherwise it's just conservatism, which is not the same thing as centrism.
-
Otherwise it’s just conservatism
That's rather charitably put.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
That's rather charitably put.
Welcome to my New Year's Resolution.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Isn’t that a completely reasonable thing for a centrist voter to do after one party has been in power for nine years?
No, it isn't. Vote for what people say they will do, not because it's "someone else's turn". I cannot grasp how a reasoning adult could find that reasonable.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
compulsory saving is indeed one way they could be looking after our future, and it's also a way that's quite hard for successive governments to fuck with.
Except that National have demonstrated, twice, that it's actually pretty easy. Piggy canned compulsory super, and then B'linglish came along and suspended payments into the Cullen Fund so that he could offer bigger tax cuts to the prolles.
National could easily fuck with compulsory saving, by making it optional and selling it as "personal choice". People might even buy the lie.
-
KiwiSaver is significant for bringing investment to the non-investor - I'd go as far as saying that it's brought investment to the Roger Awards crowd. The biggest obstacle to KiwiSaver's full potential now - like the Temasek model - are the lingering Dancing Cossacks attitudes towards it from the usual suspects. The same attitude that dissolved the British National Oil Corp.
And hyper-materialists need reminding that Kath & Kim is a sitcom, not a training manual.
-
No, it isn't. Vote for what people say they will do, not because it's "someone else's turn". I cannot grasp how a reasoning adult could find that reasonable.
A centrist voter will be, by definition, a pluralist voter who believes that both left-wing and right-wing parties have appropriate solutions to various social and economic problems, so it makes perfect sense to alternate them. I think this actually makes more sense than picking a party and supporting it indiscriminately of policy or values, which is what many people do.
If you look at both Labour and National it's hard to see any continuity over the last thirty years, other than they've kept the names the same. Yet many people remained loyal to them.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
A centrist voter will be, by definition, a pluralist voter who believes that both left-wing and right-wing parties have appropriate solutions to various social and economic problems, so it makes perfect sense to alternate them.
Possibly, yes, but that doesn’t mean that “It’s the other side’s go” is a justification for casting one’s vote in that direction. “The other side’s solutions to the current problem(s) du jure are better than those of the current side” would be a justification, and one that would work for a proper centrist voter.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
A centrist voter will be, by definition, a pluralist voter who believes that both left-wing and right-wing parties have appropriate solutions to various social and economic problems, so it makes perfect sense to alternate them.
No, that's conservatism: alternating regularly between two parties as the way to ensure that there is no long term change - which is both comforting and protects your privilege.
A principled centrist on the other hand would have certain ideas about the balance between free market enterprise and social safety nets, and at different elections the policies of either party may be closer to that view, and they'll vote accordingly. So yes, they may switch parties (and change their mind a bit on what the best model is), but not on the grounds of "giving the other guys a crack".
(ETA: Matthew, snap.)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.