Comments on: When you’re worried, go ballistic

By: bjchip

bjchip — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 02:09:32 +0000

Opportunity cost? I am not registerd with hidesight, and I expect that this will not hit the archive section for another week. I will see the computation he’s doing eventually. At the moment I don’t believe anyone except the guy who says this is likely to be a winner for labour. What it will COST will depend a lot on how it is really done when it IS done. No way to know, or even guess.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d rather fund education with a bit less reliance on borrowing. Putting loan interest at zero tends to distort any economy. I will look at Member Hide’s analysis and guesswork too… but guesswork is all ANYONE can do until the end of a few years with the policy when real numbers are available.

respectfully
BJ

By: ntddevsys

ntddevsys — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 01:37:06 +0000

Then respectfully bjchip the computer between your ears needs to analyse the situation.

WIB has the fiscal annual cost of $705m. Rodney has calculated the opportunity cost = close to a billion a year.

By: bjchip

bjchip — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:22:39 +0000

The computer between my ears responds that if Student debt goes up 6 billion in 3 years and the cost of the move is 1 billion a year, simply by cutting off interest, that the putative interest that we’re forgiving runs in the 50 % range.

In other words SOMEONE has a reasonable estimate of what will happen, but it apparently is not Rodney.

The only tax problem in this country is that the tax/benefit calculation results in a 90% effective marginal rate for a chunk of the middle class. A marginal rate that DROPS as income rises over 70k. Top marginal effective rate is the thing that Rodney gets the most mileage from and he has a GOOD point when he points there, but it doesn’t indicate that there’s money to give back, or tax is too high.

With a government debt in the 60-80 billion range and the need to fund pensions with real money and the need to leave less debt to our kids and the government borrowing still, you can’t call the oberac number a surplus with any accuracy.

Peter however, has a good point again.

respectfully
BJ

By: Craig Ranapia

Craig Ranapia — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:46:06 +0000

Or as Damien Christie suggested over on Public Address (hardly a National Party echo chamber), try using a calculator not programmed by the Labour Party. I’d recommend the organic one between your ears that’s fully loaded with complete data about your actual circumstances.

By: ntddevsys

ntddevsys — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:12:24 +0000

The Labour party have not used proper disclosure for their online calculator - and nor has the IRD.

As Rodney has over on hidesight this new Labour vote buying exercise will cost the country almost a billion dollars a year and will see the student debt ballon to $16b by 2009 - unlike the current prediction of $10b.

The only way to move forward is tax cuts for every working New Zealander, which can easily be afforded by the $1.9b slush fund, $2b in Contributions to the Cullen Fund and $1.4b working for familes.

By: peterquixote

peterquixote — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 07:47:46 +0000

don’t know about electoral fraud fwwog, but electoral stupidity must be Green putting up signs written in Maori.
It says “SPLIT YOUR VOTES”votes, I’ll say fwwog, only peoples like me get lots of votes, it wouldn’t make sense even without Maori party,
HINT fwog, NEW ZEALAND IS AN ENGLISH SPEAKING NATION, even though you dont want to believe it, but then the preacher know best, all things to all people, mebe he want a job back in trade aid learning about fwee trade no pay workers again, it sad, fwwog, we need Green but yous need Rod like a misguided fissile, he just dont cut it fwog,