Wednesday June 22nd, 2005. 10:28 am by frog
It seems that no-one’s immune from culture-jamming on National’s billboards. Now that Act has jumped on the bandwagon, it’s open season. A Green has sent me in the above idea. There are lots of words that could go in the place of “health” up there. “Education” would work. So would “public transport”.
Posted in Campaign | Media | by frog | Wed, June 22nd, 2005 |
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, June 22nd, 2005 at 10:28 am and is filed under Campaign, Media.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can email this article to a friend. Printable version of this article.
You can leave a response, but trackbacks are not allowed.
June 22nd, 2005 at 11:19 am
I must say if you’re going to do something like this, it should be a high quality image, can you get someone who knows how to use Photoshop to do stuff like this and not just knock it up in Microsoft Photoeditor because it shows and it stinks. Also, its not funny and its three weeks too late - we should have been before Act in the bandwagon not after.
June 22nd, 2005 at 12:01 pm
And just like everyone from the left has jumped up and down saying that Nationals billboards were incorrect - I will join the chorus that says this is factually incorrect. I actually don’t expect you to be able to understand economics frog so saying that tax cuts are possible without cutting spending would not likely get though to you.
Watch out for that sky - it’s falling faster than you think.
June 22nd, 2005 at 12:11 pm
oh go on, have a go at explaining how it is possible to reduce the overall tax burden (as opposed to simply redistributing it) without reducing overall government spending. There are others here besides frog listening!
Does it involve borrowing money and getting into debt? that’s not very fiscally responsible is it?
June 22nd, 2005 at 12:32 pm
Brighter people than Green Party supporters know that lower taxes mean INCREASES in tax revenue in the long term, thanks to increased economic growth.
Reagan slashed taxes massively during his time in office, yet tax revenue doubled.
June 22nd, 2005 at 1:10 pm
I guess ‘Hip-hop tours’ would fit too.
June 22nd, 2005 at 2:34 pm
and then, of course, Clinton raised taxes in hist first year in office and sparked a seven year boom in the economy. lalalala
June 22nd, 2005 at 2:48 pm
Sorry froggy, ACT doesn’t propose Health Cuts.
Mike is right, cuts in spending are not necessary to provide tax cuts to hard working kiwis.
June 22nd, 2005 at 3:03 pm
Before you folks go off on how Reagan’s Tax cuts helped the US economy I think you’d better take a MUCH closer look at what they actually did and why. The “trickle down” economy was really a giant sucking up as the middle-class got positively raped by the debt expansion. He borrowed from the SS trust fund and he stole from our children to make it “work” and the benefits accrued to the wealthiest sector of the wealthiest society on the planet. No surprise.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that’s my former country , and the “Voodoo Economics” is still just that. Voodoo.
You want to cut taxes you have to cut spending. You can’t count on “economic expansion” to fill the coffers of government, particularly not in a minor economy… any effect of our productivity would pale in comparison to the Chinese revaluing the Renminbi by 10 cents, or the US leading the world economy into global recession. If you don’t realize that that is what is on its way you haven’t really been watching.
So PARTICULARLY for this country and this economy, conservative economics must be the rule. Don’t borrow too much, don’t count on any help from the outside. That means balancing the budget and borrowing only for proper capital/infrastructure improvements that have real benefits to the society. Labour is hoist on its own petard regarding the budget. We ought to try to look MORE responsible than they are. It would gratify our friends and confuse our enemies. It probably means higher APPARENT taxes because conservative accounting means paying for stuff instead of borrowing to pay for it… but when (not if) the excrement impacts the blades of the rotating ventilation device, we may still come up smelling like roses.
To which I am allergic… ah well.
respectfully
BJ
June 22nd, 2005 at 3:05 pm
Please note that cutting spending is not necessarily related to cutting services based on what I’ve seen of the efficiency of this government.
respectfully
BJ
June 22nd, 2005 at 7:54 pm
yo frog know what .. jeanette looks the best .. jeez frog send yo stuff over to me i fix in shop .. correct text too, thinking also ..
neat day frog sunshine .. we winning elections .. sack red rod frog
June 22nd, 2005 at 8:54 pm
ha! I can just imagine what frog’s text would look like if peterquixote got to “correct” it before it was published! big fat lol to that one
what is he on?
sorry, I must be really dim, but I don’t get it, how come “lower taxes mean INCREASES in tax revenue in the long term, thanks to increased economic growth.” please someone explain.
but whatever mechanism supposedly causes this effect, surely you have to admit that it means going into debt and betting that you will be able to create more wealth with money you have borrowed. Hmm is that wise? What if you don’t make enough extra money so that you can’t afford the debt repayments, what then?
would NZ end up like Argentina? or any country where the IMF/world bank came in and said “OK so you can’t afford your debt repayments, well we’ll let you off with some of it if you restructure your economy and privatise all your essential services etc”.
Way I see it, I would rather that the government conservatively reduced debt and did some saving just in case times get tough, rather that spurge it all away in the short term with no thought to the future.
June 22nd, 2005 at 11:10 pm
Stuey - Check out the Laffer Curve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
Presumably they’re arguing that we’re on the right hand side of the revenue maximising position.
June 22nd, 2005 at 11:53 pm
oh stop hasseling the graphics - that’s not the point!
June 23rd, 2005 at 12:11 am
oops *hassling
lower taxes = more disposable income = more spending = more revenue for businesses = able to invest = more workers with income = more spending…
Money typically gets spent about 7 times before it sits in savings (go the neoclassical economic models!) so the impact on the economy of the funds ends up a whole lot more than the initial extra injection.
However when the tax cuts mean lower spending on health more example they get sick more/ stay sick longer due to having to pay more for health services then that’s less disposable income
When infrastructure spending gets cut that’s less money that goes into the community to circulate…. (this bit doesn’t tend to enter into the model)
Tax cuts are not what this country needs at the moment, particularly with pretty much all the public services being underfunded in one way or another. Everyone is crying “stop underfunding our services…we want tax cuts” Sorry people, can’t have both right now.
I’m sure the billboard was just a joke, and mildly amusing for us but Greens: please please stay away from stooping to the level of marketing by ‘we’re better than them’. Just market policies, don’t make it personal. (That’s why politicians are so often prats with no integrity)
June 23rd, 2005 at 10:51 am
zowey zoe ..
” the impact on the economy .. ends up a whole lot more then the initial injection ”
but as well we get more Americans investing in NZ because of lower tax rates
now Stuey this works .. it worked in Ireland and now there’s no more Irish in Ireland
Sorry to tell you Green but the Nation wants less tax and they will get it, but we can make special provisions for Green to pay special funds for the Maori aristiocracy
June 23rd, 2005 at 10:59 am
to those who take offence at ” maori aristocracy” it is a phrase coined by
Chris Trotter
June 23rd, 2005 at 2:34 pm
Zoe, Bren
Laffer is about a lot of things, but what happened in the Reagan “boom” was a recovery from the preceding several year bust. If you have a cold and you’re sneezing and have had the cold for 5 days and some shaman does a dance outside your house and two days later you’re better, that DOESN’T mean that the evil spirits got chased away. You look at the oil prices and the Iran-Iraq war and the recession that was going on going into that period, and ALSO look at the interest rates on short term borrowing that were being used by the Volker Fed at the time and the remarkable thing about the results is that there was so small an increase in revenue. Look at it another way. The money for that tax cut was entirely borrowed. It DID go into the economy, but it worked in the exact same way that any direct government stimulus would have worked. You had interest rates AND borrowed money acting as stimuli, you had oil prices plummet… but it is attributed to the tax cut and that’s all anyone sees or hears.
I want a tax cut myself, but the tax cut I’d llke to see is more specific. I want to be able to deduct the interest payment on the home I live in, rather than having to buy a second house and rent it out in order to deduct interest payments. That would have follow-on effects of:
#Making the first home purchase more affordable
#Making the maintenance and improvement of energy efficiency more common
#Making the “fake” economic activity associated with tax avoidance by becoming a Landlord less prevalent.
I am particularly incensed by the situation in housing maintenance and energy efficiency here in NZ. I am currently renting. I have seen exactly one double-glazed window in the 2 years I am here and that was on a new-construction show home. Insulation is an option for the landlord to put in… and some do, but the seals on the doors and windows are shocking.
I had 30 CM of insulation in my ceiling in So. Cal., double glazed windows , storm doors and insulation in the walls. The house was slab on grade but it had an insulation layer under a wood floor… and gas central heat and a/c. That’s typical, not exceptional… but electricity in So.Cal cost 3x what it costs here.
However, tax manipulations are something to be very wary of. Simple tax systems and specific support mechanisms for desireable behaviours is more sensible IMHO. It makes it much easier to get the specific things right and keeps the tax system from becoming perversely complex… and vulnerable to abuse.
respectfully
BJ
June 25th, 2005 at 1:14 am
Yea I’m a cynic when it comes to economic models, especially neoclassical ones. I don’t suppose that came across much in my post. If I’d tried to add in all the “also this”es to my post I’d still be typing. There are also issues with inflation which can negate positive effects of tax cuts
Thanks for the addons tho