Posts by Sacha
-
Hard News: News media meets new media:…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Cousteu-m editors can be fraught
-
Hard News: The Public Address Word of…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
40 is the new 30
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to merc,
Here's an editor for free!
You're appealing to the wrong person. :)
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Sacha,
The comments under that Herald story from "aardvarkash10" say what I was trying to, more elegantly. Ending thus:
In short business owners, quit whining, get your business figured out and get on with it. The rest of us are tired of supporting your incompetence.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to merc,
I am used to working with icons
some might call our host that :)
-
Labour (as others have noted) are broadly committed to current capitalist economics. They're unlikely to be proposing socialist or other ways of managing resources and contributions. "Jobs" is useful enough shorthand for that conventional approach.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to merc,
Thanks for doing that, you're right much better with tags.
Cheers. Like Russell says, it seems easier to make sense of.
-
Hard News: The Public Address Word of…, in reply to BenWilson,
Soylent green, to be precise
-
Hard News: The Public Address Word of…, in reply to Jolisa,
How do you pronounce it? Letter by letter?
yes
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to merc,
The cap doffed, the hand out, so last millennium
True. The assumption of corporate welfare remains strong - bribes rather than obligations.
What is required are incentives to galvanise all of our enterprises, public and private sector, to make innovation a core part of their activities right away.
And a fiscally illiterate angle on the purpose of SOE asset sales.
Nevertheless how do the Government's priorities line up compared to what business thinks are most important for growing the economy, and thereby holding onto our standard of living?
There's strong agreement that the ownership of some of our SOEs should be expanded. That's an early priority for both business and the government. From the business perspective it's important because it will help reduce the amount of debt we are incurring - it is like exchanging debt for shares, or equity, in a business while retaining majority control.
And more tired whining about compliance costs in a country that is in fact one of the cheapest and easiest to do business in.
The average Kiwi business shoulders an annual compliance burden equal to $1000 - $3000 for every staff member, wildly excessive on any score for a country like ours so dependent on the competitiveness of a high number of relatively small businesses.
Businesses will be looking to see similar action on local government - the Regulatory Standards Bill applies there too - and changes to the Resource Management Act.
...
Our skills development and employment opportunities suffer as a result. Business wants to see policies that will compensate for it. One of them should be a further cut to the company tax rate to help attract investment otherwise deterred by our ETS and its accompanying costs.
Until business cheerleaders like EMA pull their heads from their arses and look to themselves for change, New Zealand's poor productivity will not improve. Other nations will also increasingly not buy our goods and services if we ignore our climate obligations and continue subsidising polluters.