Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 25 May 2017 21:20:47 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 25 May 2017 20:21:30 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, 26 May 2017 09:54:53 UTC+12, Crash wrote:

While the Budget provisions for families is largely the expected
election-year 'bribe', there is credible evidence that the time has >> >>>>>> come for the changes announced based on economic conditions -
including surplices past and forecast.

This seems a good analysis of a range of families:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/92988642/we-run-the-ruler-over-the-governments-family-income-package

It should be noted that those on the lowest incomes - the 'Petrovs' >> >>>>>> and the 'Bennetts' - gain the most per week all up. As they both pay >> >>>>>> very little income, tax reduction is puny - their major gains are
elsewhere.

The wealthiest - the 'Chin-Wilsons' and the 'Saxon-Mahutas' get the >> >>>>>> least. This from a National-dominated government!!

Good luck to Labour making political capital out of this.

Labour are screwed by this budget as the Nats are now fully ensconcing >> >>>>>themselves in the centre-left space. And they can get away with it -
it's
not
as if their voters can do anything about it unless they make a
significant
move
into ACT.

--
Crash McBash

---

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/93004962/labour-and-greens-split-over-tax-cuts-despite-joint-fiscal-responsibility-deal

What a crock - Labour vote against a measure that their own constituency >> >>>>really
need! I doubt if their traditional voters will forget that!
Tony

How often did National and ACT vote against budgets from the
Labour-led governments, Tony?

Oh what is this "look over there" that you are always complaining about? >> >>I don't give a fat rats bum what any party has done in the past - it is
now
and
the future that I care about - what about you?

Fair comment, except this is look anywhere!

It's you that did the looking not me!

You claim there is an
issue for Labour for voting against a budget that they believe fails
many New Zealanders - you provide no evidence for that assertion,

Yes and it speaks for itself, even you must see the irony in Labour voting >> against something that helps their traditional voters more than any other
sector of society. On the other hand maybe it suits you to not see that (Ah >> politics how I detest its brain dead adherents).

and
forget that oposition parties often vote against government decisions
- including previous opposition parties.

Of course I didn't forget - see above, it is about this particular strange >> decision when to vote for it would be to vote for their own! Ah but of >>course
you can't or won't see that will you?

That the Greens have voted for the bill as "the best we are going to
get from this lot", makes no difference to hte budget being passed
either. You were in other words talking rubbish. Happy now?

I am extremely happy that the government is in a position to provide an
encouraging budget that fulfills the two objectives of a luttle bribe (they >>all
do that) and spend some of the surplus we have all helped to amass.

Did their vote against change anything that New Zealanders will
receive from next April?

Translation please!

Did the vote by Labour against the budget change any decisions
embodied in the budget? And did their vote change for example any of
the tax changes outlined in the selective quotes above, that if
National were to be re-elected will take effect from 1 April 2018.

No but why should it? And your point is?
Tony

A government buying votes and time in a hopeless attempt to distract attention >from the real truth: that the economy remains stolidly stagnant and will >remain so until there is a vision and a plan to achieve a real-terms lift in >productivity, wages and exports.

But, in fact, a small surplus - brought about not by any real increase in the >nation's earnings but largely by an engineered decline in per-capita investment
in core provisions like health and education - is now to be squandered on >further increased benefits, even for those who, allegedly, are skilled and >"well-paid" but whose incomes won't support them and their families and now, in
a stagnant economy, never can.

Joyce's budget is patently a continuation of the featherbedding of National's >support base, i.e. the pampering of employers and zero-productivity landlords >who have now come to expect government largesse, even going as far as the >government borrowing from overseas financiers, to keep them in business and >line their pockets.

Again, any declaration of a rise in GDP mostly reflects an 'empty-calories' >money-go-round economy based on one Kiwi taking in another Kiwi's washing.

A sham 'envy of the world' economy if ever there were.

As ever: no Vision; no Strategy; no Plan.

Oh, and come to think of it, just how much government debt has been repaid >**prior** to the 2017 budget?

Anyone?