Posts by Gareth Ward
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Those people over 60 (over 55 really) who are stating that they've paid taxes under a social contract that would repay that universally at retirement are probably quite correct but, with due respect, a red herring to this argument. We are talking about the retirement policies for the boomers currently in their 40s/early 50s here and they have NOT paid that level of taxation sorry. They've operated under an increasingly low tax environment post Rogernomics and therefore are on very thin ground if they now claim they're owed something back - unfortunately even for those who didn't want those policies.
A model that defers a liability against current revenue for an entire generation may have made sense under previous economic policies and demographic changes but not under what we face now. -
David I'm not particularly a lefty nor partisan to any political tribe but I reserve the right to point out what I think are awful sentiments. And one that says "why should we care when it's not going to be our problem but our childrens'" is something I'll call out.
It's not all tribal mate -
On Q&A, Steven Joyce argued that it was ridiculous to be debating this because any benefits are 40 years out
Did he really? What a $^+# %€.
I accept that thinking is at the heart of conservative politics but shit that's awful. Given my generation would plausibly go broke trying to pay for his generation's retirement (on current policy settings) I have no idea who/when/how my kids are going to pay for ours. -
Cracker: Spotted, in reply to 3410,
Or, possibly, the name of a proposed new country.
Not a country so much as a set of individual property holdings all located geographically nearby, operating within a web of individual contractual agreements. Within three months approximately 74% of those land holdings would be needed for the contractual court system that would entail. And the flag would be a mess...
-
That's just the plural of Libertarian.
-
This detailed level of beautiful nitpickery has largely gone past me but certainly encouraged me to read up on the details of the systems offered so thank you for that...
But the one thing that always gets me in these discussions is the "Winston chose the Government" line. No, a majority of Parliament (as elected by an incredibly proportional voting system) including Winston's MPs chose the Government. Just because the representatives of 40% of the population can't fathom the idea of working with the representatives of another 35% of the vote doesn't make the outcome Winston's fault.
You want to lead a Government? Garner confidence and supply from >50% of a proportionally elected Parliament. If you've historically straight-jacketed yourself to a position where you won't engage the other "major" representative of the people and have to go to "minors" then that's your own choice. -
Under the 2-vote system, I fail to see why the party of the person voted to represent the electorate should have it's national representation affected at all? The party vote covers that.
And even if you're voting to have, say, Labour (rather than Arden) electorate representation that has no bearing on broader national representation? Which is probably a slighty different way of saying the same thing as the post... -
I can’t wait to see how crazy Act’s campaign address is
Brash transmitting from a bunker in the Hindu Kush having gone Gault? And misunderstanding the subsequent cheering? -
Thanks Sacha
-
OnPoint: If Wishes Were Horses..., in reply to Paul Campbell,
the difference at the moment is that the size of the employee portion is determined by the employee (I choose to put 8% in). The employer portion is also tax free
Right, your first point there is just the same as having a 9%-of-salary minimum contribution with the optional right to invest more of your own salary into the fund (as per Australia although it makes more sense there as they tax-advantage retirement savings). Your second point is an interesting one, just seems to make the whole thing overly complex.
Should be 9% minimum contribution, tax-advantaged savings and no other incentive*. i.e Australian. And given that Labour is now advocating the more-like-Australian GST model, a more-like-Australian progressive taxation rates, a more-like-Australian CGT it would seem to fit well...
*But this is still an excellent start and I understand the limitations to a complete overhaul in one policy statement