Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Envirologue: What has Neoliberalism Done…, in reply to Rob Stowell,
But just as silly to ignore it in when trying to understand who and what we are.
I just don't think it's necessary to invoke evolutionary arguments in this discussion. Especially given the level of uncertainty in the validity of the data.
-
Envirologue: What has Neoliberalism Done…, in reply to Russell Brown,
still 100% publicly owed
Awesome typo :)
-
Envirologue: What has Neoliberalism Done…, in reply to Rob Stowell,
The hunter-gathering we evolved for is supposed to have involved considerably less work hours than most people do today.
Please remember hunter gatherers died young.
Any estimates of their work ethic are wild guesses at best.
And evolutionary arguments to justify behaviour are usually utter bollocks.We can talk about this stuff without such rationalisations.
-
Envirologue: What has Neoliberalism Done…, in reply to Rob Stowell,
Why is it a bad thing that a junior journalist, or a freezing worker, or a port worker who worked holidays and extra hours could hit the top income bracket? Doesn’t seem so terrible to me.
To be fair, while I'm strong on raising taxes and particularly for the well off, I'm not suggesting anything like the lower thresholds that Tinakori is talking about.
They aren't necessary now we have GST anyway.
For example last election there was a huge drama about how Labour's policy would tax us all and steal all our hard earned money. In fact what was proposed was a higher rate that kicked in at $150k (I think). If any freezing worker is earning that I'd be amazed.
-
Envirologue: What has Neoliberalism Done…, in reply to John Farrell,
“Anyone working long hours at a pretty standard labouring or semiskilled job soon found themselves paying tax at the 60% rate.”
You will, of course, be able to give a reference for this.
It was possible when you worked multiple jobs and especially if you did overtime in your secondary income.
But it's worth noting that you only paid 60% on a tiny portion of your income. That 60% number gets waved around as some scary boogy man when in fact the people paying that were generally pretty damn wealthy by most measures.
-
Envirologue: What has Neoliberalism Done…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
National campaigns on all kids under 13 getting free doctor’s visits and prescriptions – but now they reckon 90% is okay…
To which my response is - oh didn't we give you enough of our money to make that happen? Well damn - here, why don't you tax us a bit more because that is a worthwhile policy.
-
Envirologue: What has Neoliberalism Done…, in reply to BenWilson,
dichotomy of tax-and-spend vs drop-tax-and-let-consumers-spend
It is absolutely NOT a binary option.
There is no question that the Soviet system failed, but that should never be evidence that the opposite must succeed.
The ideal is to do what works, to hell with ideology and ideologues, just do what works. Find a balance.
And if something does not work stop doing it.
Honestly it isn't complicated BUT it requires people and politicians in particular but also bureaucrats to accept that something they may personally have suggested is not working. And hence we should try something else, which might also not work.
Fortunately we don't exist in a tiny bubble of New Zealand - we can look at other countries and decide what might actually work for us.
Hence ACC essentially prevents the appalling US system of health insurance and sue or die. ACC works, not perfectly, but pretty damn well.
Equally privately run prisons are a disaster - lets not do that, oh crap.
But most obviously, there are a number of things that are best done when they are done by a government, to do that the government needs taxation. Not so much taxation that there is no incentive to succeed but pretty obviously more than we have now.
-
Envirologue: What has Neoliberalism Done…, in reply to Dave Hansford,
depend critically upon creating a high-wage economy first
No that's a lie as well. We have been conned into thinking we can't have higher taxation until after X or Y or Z happens.
Whereas the opposite is true, we will never get a high wage economy (except for the very very rich) until we adopt a higher tax economy. Or at least that is what is true everywhere else in the world.
Creating the social support system allows workers to be more productive - well to be fair that is only true everywhere else in the world - New Zealand could be the exception - sigh.
-
For me it's simple, we have been told taxation is bad. We have tried 30 years of ever lower taxes.
Now we are one of the lowest taxed societies in the world
Had all those ideologues been right we would now be one of the most successful nations in the world.
IT DID NOT WORK
A definition of stupidity is repeating the same action again and again expecting a different outcome and so New Zealand votes again and again for tax cuts.
The most successful nations in the world have high taxes and that is not a coincidence it is cause and effect. High taxation leads to better societies. Anyone who argues against that is deceiving themselves and everyone around them.
The things we complain about in NZ at the moment stem from our unwillingness to pay for the things we need.
Want a health system that works - pay tax
Want high quality public schools - pay tax
Want high value state owned assets - pay tax
Want scientific research to benefit NZ - pay tax
Want public transport - pay taxIf you voted for a tax cut you are to blame.
-
Up Front: Reviewing the Election, in reply to BenWilson,
I think there’s pretty sound reasons not to let them vote, quite aside from whether they would show up. 14 year olds are legally children. They have far lesser responsibilities than adults. On average they have very rudimentary knowledge about a whole lot of very important things. And their dependence on their parents and the school system makes them prey to a lot of pressure. They might not know, nor have the skills to find out, that the secret ballot means that their parent’s can’t easily force them to vote one way or another.
All of those apply as equally to the 18-25 age group and can be backed up with studies of brain development. So while we're playing the slippery slope game lets remove their right to vote.
Personally my experience of 14-18 yr olds is that they are far less cynical and actually more engaged than the 18-25s. my guess is that it is precisely because they have less knowledge that they take it more seriously.
You could also make the argument that since they will have to live longer with the mistakes of the govt then they should have more right to vote rather than less.