by frog
Ok, here’s the facts on the home insulation fund. It’s effectively a bigger, faster programme than the one the Greens negotiated last year with Labour.
It’s $323 million over four years. Clever readers have deduced that $323m does not equal $1billion, but as Russel explained in the House this afternoon:
there is only enough money in the Budget for the first four years, but that is how the Budget process works. You will see that “out years” beyond year four are specifically referred to in the appropriation.
The point is that, had Labour, been in power and writing the budget, they would have only been able to budget forward four years – and their annual spend would have been smaller than what National has committed to today.
The billion bucks was to spent over 15 years in the old plan. The new plan’s rate of spending is a billion over about 10 years.
Citius Altius Fortius.
Well done Jeanette. Common sense prevails…eventually.
And a doff of the cap to National who in this instance put good policy ahead of politics.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare by frog on Thu, May 28th, 2009
Tags: Budget, healthy homes, home insulation fund
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
323 million that we cannot afford and 323 million that would be far better off spent on tax cuts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bro – I absolutely understand your frustration! John Key has screwed you royally with this budget and Rodney Hide and Roger Douglas have been patheticly ineffectual in delivering what you wanted. They are a disgrace! I know you’ll be wanting to cash in your Act membership. They are delivering nothing but failure after failure!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fly
It the long game, the more that Neville Key appeases the racist party and the Greens the more he drives voters toward the ACT party.
Yes Rodney has been a disappointment, it seems he is blinded by the baubles of office (a bit like Russ) but at least Sir Roger is the only one who has made sense in the house today.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How much of this has been taken from Vote Health, and existing EECA funding for projects? Charles Chauvel says $100m and $80m respectively.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Vote health did not need any more money at all, what “health” needs is the wholesale sacking of the hundreds of paper pushers and move that money to front line services.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Funny how the “pure evil” National government are delivering more green initiatives than Labour ever did….
A very sensible budget in uncertain times.
>>the more he drives voters toward the ACT party
And the problem with that is, what Big Bro? Under MMP, you need to position one party to the left of you, and one to the right. Key understands MMP. Clark understood MMP.
Labour will be out in the cold for many years, and we can all be thankful for that…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB I’m surprised that you of all people would be a fan of the factory pig farmer Roger Douglas. I thought he would be first in your sights for your Hummer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
Labour may as well be in power, things have not changed, we still have a gutless govt and a country that will remain a backward little nation teetering on third world status and paying third world wages.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That’s what MMP does, BB.
National are being sensible. They need to spend the first term not scaring the horses. Softly softly, catchee monkey.
Remember, we’ve got an electorate that needs to be weaned off socialism so they can grow and prosper, and that is best done slowly. Do it quickly, and they’ll take fright, and run back to nanny.
I would like a more radical economic agenda, too, but the electorate needs to grow into that position. That will take time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB – BP assures you/placates you with That will take time but you know that it will never happen with this government, any more than it would with Labour in power. Roger’s too, too old to be effective, despite his rhetoric in the house. Rodney’s a sad washout. We’re stuck with socialism and no matter how much it irks you, it’s the way of the future.
BP – the National party aren’t ‘pure evil’ as you claim. They wisely allowed the Greens to design the very best (and most popular) aspect of the budget (thanks Jeanette) thereby giving us and the country a huge win. The more often the Nats do that (hand the tiller over to the Greens) the better it will be for every one. The scathing comments from many Actoids et al following the election of National and the ‘loss’ of the greens, sound rather foolish, in light of the significant success the Greens are having now. Eh! For us it’s been, ‘softly, softly, catchee Tory
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly, for NZ to prosper, if must grow the economic pie. The way it does that is make investment easier, remove red-tape, support rather than impede business, all of which National is doing. Both Labour and National continued the good work of Douglas, and hopefully we’ll see flat tax rates, which will happen once we get some decent growth.
>>BP – the National party aren’t ‘pure evil’ as you claim.
Why must you keep misrepresenting me?
I look forward to seeing the insulation criteria.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What’s in the insulation package for tenants?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
hey..bb..!
..why haven’t you answered kiores’ question about your support fort the animal torturer/(former)pig concentration camp owner..
roger douglas..?
btw frog..russel did a little ripper of a speech in response to the budget..
..you should put it up on here..
..and then i can do a story/link to it..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Charles Chauvel says $100m and $80m respectively.
Chauvel wouldn’t know WTF he is talking about half the time. And the other half of the time he is talking rubbish.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter – the “growing the economic pie” is not really a useful concept to have as a goal for humanity. The reality is, natural resources are finite. We could manipulate the economy to increase the total number of hours people work, or to could increase the amount of money associated with the same resources (more commonly known as inflation), or we could try to exploit the natural resources faster (in which case they will run out faster, and environmental damage will catch up with us faster).
The economy is important; it is the way that we ensure that resources are divided up fairly. However, it is ultimately a means, and not an ends. It is quite disappointing to see most of the governments around the world, including the NACT government, focusing on increasing things like GDP or the credit rating given to the government.
Instead, we should be looking at how well wealth is distributed (low unemployment, less of a gap between rich and poor, and less tendency for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer). We should be looking at how well we are planning for the future as we run out of resources, and minimising excessive dependence on external factors .
Insulating homes is a good first step, but we should be spending public money on public good sustainability research, building walking and cycling infrastructure (harbour bridge anyone?). We could reduce interdependence with other countries, and make the New Zealand economy more stable, by stopping the companies that sell in NZ from shopping around for the country where they can be the most exploitative, by introducing higher tariffs and reversing free trading agreements with countries with poor human rights or distribution of wealth standards. Any remaining shortfall in New Zealand jobs could be covered by funding scientific, artistic, and cultural development.
The tariffs would pay for themselves (it will no longer make sense to exploit workers overseas, so NZ workers will get their jobs back). This might slightly raise prices, but the poor would be paid fairly and so could afford it. The increased costs of the other plans could easily be met by introducing another higher tax rate. Our current top tax rate is 38% of income above $70,000. For example, we could apply a higher tax rate (say 80%) on income to households over $100,000. This would mean that the rich would be worse off financially, but there would be much less unemployment, and better conditions for workers (due to less of a surplus of employees, and so less opportunity for victimisation by those who might otherwise have the power to do so).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter’s pie is in the sky.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You’re young, huh.
>>The reality is, natural resources are finite.
Once, it took a forest to keep a small village warm in winter. Today, the water over a damn keeps an entire city warm. We get more efficient at using the resources we have.
>>Instead, we should be looking at how well wealth is distributed
Socialism. Doesn’t work. Distribute your own money to others if you want. Oh, that’s right – you want to redistribute mine!
No.
Instead, ask what service you can provide me that I will pay you to do.
>>less of a gap between rich and poor
Politics of envy. If five workers work the field, don’t they deserve more than the two layabouts who sit in the sun? Why would I work the field if I got the same return as sitting in the sun?
>>introducing higher tariffs and reversing free trading agreements
We tried that under Muldoon. It almost killed the economy. Were you alive then? It was sh** Your income relied on not what you knew, but who. Suggest you read up on comparative advantage.
>>so NZ workers will get their jobs back).
We’ve had record low unemployment levels for the last ten years, in case you hadn’t noticed.
>>another higher tax rate.
Pi** off. Go make a voluntary payment to IRD at the higher tax rate you desire tomorrow. Go on. Bet you don’t.
>>(say 80%) on income to households over $100,000
Hahahahahahaha. They tried that in the UK before Thatcher. Didn’t work. Suddenly, you’d have everyone earning 99,999 and accountants would be overworked. You’d also lose most of your high earners overseas. Where are you going to get your Doctors?
>>This would mean that the rich would be worse off financially, but there would be much less unemployment,
Dear God. Suggest you take a basic course in Economics. The country would be bankrupt within a year.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’ve been saying (for what it’s worth) the same as BP – National will try to show that they are competent, careful managers of the economy for the next three years, and bring the same characteristics to their reforms of ACC, health etc. If they can do that, they’ll be sharpening the knives with *some* confidence come next election.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have the odd issue with the other stuff, but that’s a great way to make people inside and outside NZ poor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
-er
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
> Once, it took a forest to keep a small village warm in winter. Today, the water over a
> damn keeps an entire city warm. We get more efficient at using the resources we have.
It is true that we can develop to use the resources we have more effectively, but that takes research. Private business rarely think that far ahead, so this research and infrastructure development will ultimately be the responsibility of the public sector. It also requires that the externalities – the true costs to society of things like carbon emissions and pollution to the environment – be internalised, so that the finite resources are fairly divided up, and the private sector is actually incentivised to do so.
> Socialism. Doesn’t work. Distribute your own money to others if you want. Oh, that’s
> right – you want to redistribute mine!
It is only ‘your money’ once all costs used to get it are paid off. Unless you have produced something with no help whatsoever from anyone else, then some of what you produced fairly belongs to the others who helped you produce it. The state, as representative of all people, has the mandate to say how the income that you made from the exploitation of others is divided up.
> Politics of envy. If five workers work the field, don’t they deserve more than the two
> layabouts who sit in the sun? Why would I work the field if I got the same return as
> sitting in the sun?
It is usually the workers in the field who get paid almost nothing, while another ‘class’ of people use the money they already have, and exploit the influence they gain from being the ‘bigger’ party to start with. For example, there are far more supermarket shoppers than supermarkets, and so supermarkets exploit the fact that they can set the prices to make big profits, and that people will come because they are the only supermarket close.
So perhaps the question should be, why should someone get paid more to exploit people than to actually do the frontline work?
>>introducing higher tariffs and reversing free trading agreements
> We tried that under Muldoon. It almost killed the economy. Were you alive then? It
> was sh** Your income relied on not what you knew, but who. Suggest you read up on
> comparative advantage.
I think everyone agrees that Muldoon did not manage the economy well; the failure of Think Big has more to do with debt than anything else.
I’m only suggesting that tariffs be in place for actual foreign policy reasons, not protectionism of employment.
Lets say it takes 1/2 hour of relatively unskilled labour to make an item. A company could choose to manufacture their products in China, and pay $1 in labour and $4 in tariffs. Or it could choose to manufacture it in New Zealand and pay $5 in labour. When, say, $0.20 in shipping is added, it makes sense to manufacture in NZ. As long as the tariff rates are appropriate, comparative advantages are taken into account.
Say that the climate in part of China is better suited to production, and so it can be made in 1/4 of an hour there instead. Then it costs $0.50, plus $2 in tariffs, plus $0.20 in shipping, so $2.70.
However, by far the most common reason things are manufactured overseas is not comparative advantage, but the fact that some countries allow employers to exploit workers and the environment more.
> We’ve had record low unemployment levels for the last ten years, in case you hadn’t
> noticed.
And now they are rising again; the budget is only adding to unemployment.
>> another higher tax rate.
> Pi** off. Go make a voluntary payment to IRD at the higher tax rate you desire
> tomorrow. Go on. Bet you don’t.
I would gladly do so if everyone else did. Psychological research has shown that people generally don’t put coins into empty donation jars (even though they may support the cause). This is because people don’t want to be a martyr even for causes the believe for. So people want to end poverty, they just don’t want to be the only one fighting the battle. When the people agree that something should be done, it makes sense to force the stragglers to do the same.
> Hahahahahahaha. They tried that in the UK before Thatcher. Didn’t work. Suddenly,
> you’d have everyone earning 99,999 and accountants would be overworked.
If your before tax income is greater, you get more after tax. If you get $100000 before tax, then you take home what you would have earned if you got $99999, plus $0.20.
But you are right, it would shift the focus from earning huge salaries to instead doing the right thing for society (by imposing a cap before the high tax rates), and so lots of businesses might give up trying to exploit every last penny out of their workers if they didn’t get to keep as much.
> You’d also lose most of your high earners overseas. Where are you going to get
> your Doctors?
Believe it or not, there is more to life than money, and educated people know that. If the quality of life in NZ is better, because we don’t pollute our environment as much, build strong communities, and look after our people better, then people will stay. Plus, if we make education better (and free or heavily subsidised for the students), we can train enough doctors here to supply overseas nations that want them – with an obligation to pay the country back for their education if they go overseas.
> Dear God. Suggest you take a basic course in Economics. The country would be
> bankrupt within a year.
No it wouldn’t. If we increase government revenues, and government costs, by the same proportion, the government balance sheet won’t move, it will merely be scaled up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP,
I think I will let you take this one; You will hardley need my assistance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Communisim sits next to the old economy,
tearing, tearing, tearing at the wise and the free.
Laugh, wise ones, laugh
while they play in their stool;
how they wish they were we.
Not such a good adaption but meh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>I think I will let you take this one
Who can be bothered
I’ll simply suggest the guy moves to North Korea and sees how well it is working there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yer ‘bother’ is the cause of a lot of illness…socialism props up Capitalism – without Socialism, 90% of NZ businesses would close tomorrow. Howzat! Betchya not even allowed to teach that one!
We used to have a saying in Business.
“If you’re in Business and Paying Tax, Sack your Accountant!”
We ‘quite legally’ never paid any.
Or More correctly, got it all refunded.
Anyway – I’m all in favour of having a warm home – winter is a dead set killer.
When some US friends came to stay – I lit the Klondike chippie –
“Look son”, says Dad,”This is the way people Used to live”
Well har har.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A1kmm, the new “dear leader” of our glorious Peoples Republic of Aotearoa!
All Hail, Kmm Gon Ill.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
*Haaaail*
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
YOu cannot sell a car without a warrant of fitness unless you make this clear by selling it as “as is where is.”
A landlord (who after all runs a business” should not be able to let a house without a warrant of fitness and that should include being up to current standards of insulation.
If you like this would be a benign form of “capital gains tax”.
If it proved necessary the govt could lend the money out of the fund and the landlord could pay it back out of rentals.
I resent subsidies like this which spend my money to do things I have always done and paid for myself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen
Anybody who sells a motor car without a WOF issued within the last 28 days is effectively breaking the law.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bro – Today, Rodney Hide’s wearing his ‘post-budget jacket’ – it’s shrunk to just a yellow strip down his spine.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro
They can sell it as junk. But his doesn’t invalidate my argument.
I just thought that if I said “you cannot sell a car without a warrant of fitness” someone would come back and say “”yes you can”.
So I shall re-post:
You cannot sell a car without a current warrant of fitness.
A landlord (who after all runs a business” should not be able to let a house without a warrant of fitness and that should include being up to current standards of insulation.
If you like this would be a benign form of “capital gains tax”.
If it proved necessary the govt could lend the money out of the fund and the landlord could pay it back out of rentals.
I resent subsidies like this which spend my money to do things I have always done and paid for myself.
So what is the objection now?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
$100 million of this package comes from Vote Health. That’s an annual cut of $100 million from the $750 million increase to health.
Now, it might be that this improves health incomes and reduces costs elsewhere in the system. I’m sure of that. But it would be nice if this was all new funding, rather than only $143 million of new funding over four years.
Still, this is a lot better than nothing.
@DaveC, I’ve now seen this from independent sources, and am certain it is reliable information.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen
No objection from me at all.
I detest paying to insulate the homes of people who do not know how to budget or spend their money (probably the dole or DPB) wisely.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Common sense rarely prevails on politics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bring it on! Our house is freezing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB how about we get all those health dept administrators redeployed to lying on their backs fitting underfloor insulation? You’d like that now, wouldn’t you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is there any teeth in this thing to get landlords of slum Edwardian villas to bring them up to liveable standards with subsidised insulation?
‘Cos there’s a lot of landlords profiting from cold, starving students who pay a huge power bill to keep alive, on the margins of every campus in the country.
Just a thought …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
katie,
- “landlords profiting from cold, starving students who pay a huge power bill to keep alive,”
How much rental student accomodation do you supply, katie?
What? None at all?
So you don’t provide any student accomodation at any price, yet you have the nerve to critisize those who do.
In the same way that a well-appointed house commands higher rent than a run-down one, so a well-insulated house commands a higher rent than a poorly insulated one.
So, no, landlords aren’t “profiting from cold, starving students who pay a huge power bill to keep alive.” They are providing a lower-quality product at a cheaper price to willing tenants.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“…what “health” needs is the wholesale sacking of the hundreds of paper pushers and move that money to front line services.”
Thats both right and so so wrong at the same time.
Sacking paper-pushers is popular but when done the normal way is counter-productive. Sack the paper-pushers and the front line staff have to push the paper. The front line staff are a more valuable resource, can (when they’re not pushing paper) deliver front line benefits, and are harder to find than paper pushers.
You can sack paper pushers and call it progress. But before sacking paper-pushers you need to reduce the amount of paper that needs to be pushed, which means doing less administration. Once you do less administratively, you can sack paper-pushers with no loss to the service.
The vast majority of paper that is pushed inside health services (he says as a (very) ex health service employee) is patient related. Unless anyone thinks that having less patient notes is a good idea (and no medical professional will agree with that) or someone thinks that consultants should write up their own notes (that way lies cost inefficiency and a organisational disaster) then most paper pushers are safe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>‘Cos there’s a lot of landlords profiting from cold, starving students
We call it providing a needed service.
You want higher quality?
Not a problem.
Pay higher rent. Rent charged is the sum total of the expenses, plus a small profit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
They should have spent this money on tax cuts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)