OnPoint: Taskforce 2025: A Space Odyssey
142 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
I can't have been the only to read all the 35 points with an increasing sense of open-mouth horror
Read the whole report though, it's intriguing. It seems to me that some (undoubtedly right-wing economist) boffins wrote the bulk of it, but then somebody (presumedly Brash) took a very partisan and personal spin to it to create the Exec Summary.
The tax options I discussed above is what strikes me the most - the report itself says "we won't say how the tax system could be structured but as two examples we could go to a really flat top rate or we could have a tax system like Sweden". Like Sweden! High progressive income tax rates and dramatically lower capital income tax rates.
Yet the Exec Summary says "hey we could have a 20% top tax rate". -
Read the whole report though, it's intriguing.
I read the executive summary, then the main body of the document, in that order. If anything, reading the main body of the report made me more convinced the report's authors were batshit crazy. There was almost no serious analysis at all in the document.
-
Where does this crap come from about "catching up" with Australia.
If I wanted to live in a fucked up, polluted, redneck racist desert for the sake of a few more dollars, I would.
If I had a deep personal need to make huge amounts of money, I'd do it in Europe or the US. They'll always have much bigger markets for that sort of thing.
-
Catch up with Australia?. Who are these idiots? We are 2 hours ahead. Its those slackers over the ditch that have the catching up to do. What piffle.
-
Rich: you are reminding me of all the handwringing about how unambitious our entrepreneurs are, all wanting to retire to their baches and go fishing, which is to say redefining the parts of our national character that are most humane and admirable as being a problem.
-
all the handwringing about how unambitious our entrepreneurs are, all wanting to retire to their baches and go fishing
Oh YES! I heard something to this effect on NatRad the other day and was very weirded out. 'Wait: there are people who think this is terrible, somehow? I think it's fantastic!'
-
You people are not ambitious for New Zealand. Frankly, you disgust me.
I'm off fishing now.
-
all the handwringing about how unambitious our entrepreneurs are, all wanting to retire to their baches and go fishing, which is to say redefining the parts of our national character that are most humane and admirable as being a problem
In the wake of recent opinion by NZTE's chief economist, Gareth Chaplin, market researcher Jonathan Dodd concurs.
Well, Chaplin misunderstands the Kiwi psyche if he thinks that business growth is the only avenue to a better quality of life, and likewise many would question his inference that quality of life is best indicated by income.
...Chaplin's lament at the so-called malaise of "enoughism" misses this difference between people who want to build an empire or who need to expand out of sheer necessity, and those whose satisfaction and drive comes from different sources.
-
Also, it's not as if wanting to build an empire always ends terribly well. It's right there in the metaphor!
-
redefining the parts of our national character that are most humane and admirable as being a problem.
This is very true - but the flip-side holds: we need to understand that if our national character is not to generate wealth, then as a nation we simply won't have the tax take/private income of other nations and perhaps have to re-evaluate some of our assumptions re what we can all afford - both through private spending as well as public spending.
Nothing annoys me more than a Govt that says "we're going to cut all these taxes but don't worry, we can keep handing out free ponies as well! How? Well you're not being very ambitious are you?"
-
Wot Rich said.
Spot on.
Maybe (self-appointed) Bishop Brian should have been talking about dosh with his "Enough is enough" slogan. But I don't think he sees it like that for all but the very largest values of 'enough'.
The very thought of "catching up with Australia" makes me feel unclean.
-
Maybe (self-appointed) Bishop Brian should have been talking about dosh with his "Enough is enough" slogan
I passed a mailbox yesterday that said:
NO JUNK MAIL
ESPECIALLY DESTINY CHURCH -
I like the way The Bish got in a reference to the size of his dick in the name of his church.
-
Also, it's not as if wanting to build an empire always ends terribly well. It's right there in the metaphor!
John Hayes has the ambition. The head of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee wants to start by reclaiming the Pacific.
-
I have to take a contrary opinion to many of the points made regarding the NZTE research.
I know Tony Smale, the person whose research the NZTE report relies on, and I’ve heard him speak twice on these issues.
He is not advocating an abandonment of our lifestyle aspirations. He is, however, interested in looking at why we perform so poorly economically. Despite our lifestyle aspirations, we work longer hours than people in most other countries and are poorly paid by comparison.
Part of this is because of our national psyche and tall-poppy syndrome: we don’t do enough to encourage or celebrate business success, and are openly hostile to people with wealth. Our heroes are mostly sportspeople.
As a result, our businesspeople don’t generally create large companies, take risks, or invest hugely in infrastructure and capital. So productivity suffers.
People may decide “enoughism” is fine, but it does impact on our economic performance.
-
Part of this is because of our national psyche and tall-poppy syndrome: we don’t do enough to encourage or celebrate business success, and are openly hostile to people with wealth. Our heroes are mostly sportspeople.
Well, except for Peter Jackson -- who was colossally ambitious (and often told that he was crazy) in his naive little dream that Weta was not only viable, but could foot it with the big boys in L.A. I don't think the guy has an "enoughist" cell in his body, and that doesn't make him a bad Kiwi.
-
Scott beat me to it more or less, but here's part of the relevant section from the actual NZTE report:
Satisficing is the technical term for what we often refer to as the bach, boat and BMW phenomena. It is probable that satisficing, that can be described as the struggle between applying effort to creating more wealth and spending time and effort in leisure pursuits, occurs in all cultures. However it appears that in New Zealand leisure wins out at a lower threshold of wealth accumulation than in most other cultures.
While this is an important issue, and the national cultural origins are supported by our research, satisficing cannot readily be altered by changing management practices so the aim embodied in this report is to create additional wealth without compromising our lifestyle ambitions, thus negating any adverse impacts of the habit and allowing us to make the most of the Kiwi lifestyle. That is, to create additional wealth from the same amount of effort.
-
Well, except for Peter Jackson
Indeed. The report isn't saying we don't have any successful people. We just don't have enough businesses making an impact globally.
-
I try not to measure my life or its worth in $-value terms. Money is just so arbitrary.
-
The taskforce's woeful understanding of productivity is highlighted by that scanty passage Keith highlighted about the people component of it.
Part of this is because of our national psyche and tall-poppy syndrome: we don’t do enough to encourage or celebrate business success, and are openly hostile to people with wealth. Our heroes are mostly sportspeople.
As a result, our businesspeople don’t generally create large companies, take risks, or invest hugely in infrastructure and capital. So productivity suffers.
Business investment in smarter systems and better management skills is essential. I'm unconvinced our widespread failure to do so is down to lack of praise for businesspeople. Pride in being good at it is another thing, however.
Capital depth is a problem that seems hard to separate from both our poorly governed and enforced investment markets and our distorted penchant for unproductive real estate that comes with untaxed gains and writeoffs. The Aussie super fund has to be a major difference too.
Amidst her despair at Key's lack of resolute ambition to reimpose the glories of the 80s and 90s, Fran O'Sullivan again trots out the tired neolib mantra that somehow cutting government spending and taxes will single-handedly improve private sector performance, just like that.
The Brash taskforce inevitably pinged out-of-control Government spending as the behemoth which must quickly be slaughtered so that competitive tax rates can be introduced to give incentive for businesses, entrepreneurs and wage and salary earners to invest here and strive hard to build a successful future.
This is a no-brainer.
Uh huh.
-
we don’t do enough to encourage or celebrate business success
Aren't we one of the easiest countries, regulations-wise, to do business in in the whole wide wacky world?
are openly hostile to people with wealth
I don't agree, since a bunch of people seem to have swallowed a whole lot of Business Round Table Kool-Aid in NZ, but if there is hostility, that could be because:
we work longer hours than people in most other countries and are poorly paid by comparison.
You dig?
ETA: Danyl speaks truth below me, too.
-
we don’t do enough to encourage or celebrate business success, and are openly hostile to people with wealth.
I don't think this is true; we're hostile towards a lot of our top business people, but that's because most of them are evil thieves. Self-made guys like Bob Jones, Sam Morgan, Steve Tindall and (yes) John Key are widely admired.
-
Part of this is because of our national psyche and tall-poppy syndrome: we don’t do enough to encourage or celebrate business success, and are openly hostile to people with wealth. Our heroes are mostly sportspeople.
As a result, our businesspeople don’t generally create large companies, take risks, or invest hugely in infrastructure and capital. So productivity suffers.
I'm not convinced that that conclusion logically follows your initial statement. Most sucessful businesspeople have large enough egos that they generally don't give enough of a rat's arse about what people think about them for it to effect their business.
You said 'part of this is because..'. I'd speculate that larger parts of the problem are the geographic isolation of NZ, and the small population, which directly effects both your workforce/pool of talent, and your market size.
I'd don't necessarily disagree that NZ is punching below it's potential weight. I'm just not convinced by the arguments and conclusions to explain this that I've heard so far.
-
Amidst her despair at Key's lack of resolute ambition to reimpose the glories of the 80s and 90s...
God, every time I hear that I want to finally head-butt my desk into oblivion. I don't know if Fran was paying any attention, but folks found Labour's "John Key = Ruth Richardson in drag" mantra unconvincing for a good reason. You may say that's a bad thing, but let's not pretend some con job was pulled on the electorate.
-
In my defence, I'm thinking of the business journalist summaries of the report -- I've only skimmed the thing itself. The summaries I have read basically amounted to "local employers are lazy and their employees are jealous."
For me hostility to "people of wealth" (great phrase, with its echoes of people of colour, oh those poor oppressed rich) is most intense where it's most deserved: inherited privilege (eg Doug Myers), and corporate shenanigans (Brierly and Fay and Richwhite et al). I think we are far more tolerant of people who have built up productive enterprises that employ others.
[edit] yeah, what Danyl said.
Skimming the report it seems that its brief is cultural factors, which excludes the very important scale issue. When just the barrier between us and Australia is so challenging, it's not surprising that people grow their businesses to city or NZ scale and then stop. A business in a country of 10s of millions of people has completely different growth options to a business here, no matter how hostile or friendly the populace are to wealthy people. This is always going to put the "satisficing" balance at a different point to where it might be for someone in a bigger market.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.