Gerrit

If you read the article you’d see that he was providing a sliding scale on the tax, applying it to the sharemarket and that it would go to zero within 5 years. Basically he was pushing the idea out to accomplish a reduction in speculative trading behaviour, to force people to examine underlying market fundamentals and corporate fundamentals rather than the market short term psychology.

I just put it that way to get your attention.

OTOH, I WOULD support a Capital Gains tax, not applying to the family home and/or a ring-fencing of the LAQC with the tax being made revenue neutral by a reduction in the base income tax rates.

The idea that some would “never sell” is not really going to hold true. The market velocity would decrease, and the speculative buyer would be less common, but the prices would decline in the longer term and people who are NOT speculating would be able to buy houses.

The fact is that the “market” is not setting the value of property now. It is being set by speculation. It has been set by speculation for several years and the speculators are only now seeing that it CANNOT GO UP IN DOUBLE DIGITS FOREVER and a correction is setting in. The speculative bubble in property was created by speculation in currencies as well as simply bizarre interest rates for foreign investors to take advantage of our wide-open system. Easy money. Interest paid to foreign banks, and behind it all, the interest being deductible on that rental property.

That little subsidy for the speculator at the expense of the taxpayer with no countervailing tax or offset to the ordinary taxpayer made it easy for people to pay more for a property than an ordinary owner-occupier could afford.

No Gerrit. We are quite happy for the MARKET to set the prices. We just would like the state to fix the tax regime so that the actual market is doing so.

There are some in the “social-justice” wing who might reckon that the tax recipients are somehow entitled to everything, but I don’t think you can point to the party as a whole and make that sort of broad assertion.

On the whole the party seems to favor more equality than ACT or LabNats, but it doesn’t AS A PARTY stand for complete overthrow of the idea that people should earn their keep.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“The comments you found ‘not his most profound’ were nonetheless, his and seemed to me a fair comment covering his view of the work he and the ‘team’ had done.”

I wonder if he was to take parents experiences in a myriad of different situations could he show that there was a better way on each occasion?

In addition does “work he and the ‘team’ had done” contradict the findings of the Otago Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study (or is it undermining his professoriality)?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“Study members in the ‘smacking only’ category of punishment appeared to be particularly high-functioning and achieving members of society,” [Dr Millichamp]

I suppose the reason is that these kids are the boundary pushers, unlike (for instance) the Greens, who (apparently) are too timid to have their own opinions since all (must?) agree with Sue Bradford?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Jh – I’d like to but I was quoting from the “Otago” magazine, sent to past students. The comments you found ‘not his most profound’ were nonetheless, his and seemed to me a fair comment covering his view of the work he and the ‘team’ had done. Guess you’ll have to get hold of a copy, sorry. Those comments did cast claims about the study that I had heard on this blog, into a different light. Nice to hear personal comment from someone actually involved at such a high level with the work.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Frogblog readers might like to know more about the Otago Multidisciplinary Health and development Study so they can confidently reject Sue Bradfords authority on the matter:

http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3532/features/10321/show_me_the_child.html
http://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/news/childhd.html
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

greenfly Says:
June 24th, 2009 at 8:11 am

Does smacking a child inevitably cause long-term harm?
Probably not.
Is that a reason to do it?
No.
…………………
this doesn’t sound like the Professors most profound piece of reasoning to me, is he saying that there is never a good reason to smack (i.e. does he think that there is always a better way given that a smack is just one tool parents have available to them but one which stands out as quick and convenient). Those who argue that smacking shouldn’t be illegal are probably overwhelmingly occasional smackers who may have only smacked a few times but don’t feel that they should , or needed to go down some convoluted behavioural regime so they can say they never smack.

paste more of the article if you can Greenfly

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BJ,

Over our late friday dinner we discussed what the 80% sales tax would do.

Conclusion was very little. Reason, the people with the capital gaining asset would never sell. Simply hand the asset over to the next generation.

Only thing that would stop that would be a death duty tax. But even that is easily overcome by having the asset in a trust or a company.

Then you get the prickly situation of having to value each and every transaction. More unproductive state workers, each one requiring four tax payers to support.

Not to mention the court cases when one sells an asset at what the IRD might consider “below valuation”.

As a member of a party that does not support market setting the value of property, would you see any problems with not having a market to set the value? If the market is not allowed to set the capital gains taxable sales value, what will?

Another consideration is the huge increase in cost for new housing (presuming that the capital gains tax was not confined to housing units alone but on every transaction). Every bit of raw material used to say build a house would have an 80% capital gaisn tax component.

Take wood for example, the tree grower makes a capital gains so pays the tax, the saw miller makes a capital gain so pays the tax, the trucking company that delivers the timber to the supply yard makes a capital gains so pays the tax, the builder who buys the timber makes a capital gain so pays the tax. How much do you think the price of housing will increase?

And you want to make it more afforable? Nah.

Problem in New Zelaand remains to many tax recpeint, not enough tax payers. Increasing the volume of taxation from the productive sector will do just one thing. Make people ask why get out of bed for such a little return.

The denial of the Greens to reckonise that the New Zealand economy cannot afford to carry the tax recipeint any more is quite staggering.

Lets see some sensible policies that get people being tax payers and less on how to increase taxation to carry an over stretched economy.

While the Greens label any climate change skeptic a “denier”, the same must be said for the Greens in regards the New Zealand economy. They are in denial that a major economic revamp is required.

Unfortunately they join the National and Labour parties in that regard.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

ahem..i borrowed/purloined yr link..bj

..it fitted over at kiwiblog..

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Certainly interesting, dont know if its very practical though. Unless it was implimented on a global scale one would think that exchange opperations would just take place from foreign locations, in foreign currencies, or on foreign markets rather than the location with the high tax.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

How about an 80% Capital Gains tax ?

http://www.kitco.com/ind/nadler/jun252009A.html

It appears to have been suggested by that notable socialist Louis Gerstner, the former CEO of IBM.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Philip

I do not doubt that you found ways to punish them… you simply avoided using physical pain. That it is possible to do I have no doubt. I simply doubt that it works as well as my methods.

Moreover, you admit that the people you see ARE already in trouble “Most have been very ordinary people like you and me, who were having a wide range of life problems”. . You have a self-selected sample of people with problems and some worse, and from this experience base you are offering us that you know how NORMAL people which is to say, the billions of people on the planet who are raised with appropriately timed spankings rather than life-threatening beatings or naughty-steps, function.

Then of course, you exaggerate the point. “those who are our most violent criminals is that they have already received harsher treatment than any of us can imagine” when all we argue for is the right to spank a child’s bottom or slap his hand when he reaches for the electrical plug, and when examining the class of criminals tells you nothing about the class of normals.

I argued before (internally in the party) for an EXPLICIT law that made clear what abuse actually was… this was rejected. The reasoning was that we weren’t going to tell parents HOW to beat their kids. Note the changed description. Suddenly it is a beating. No. That wasn’t what was going on, and that was a clear signal that illogic would follow. It did.

they are essentially little demons whose wills need to be forced away from their essential depravity. I know because I was raised in that culture, and members of my family are still there.

This explains your objections with using pain to teach your kids.

I earned my occasional spanking and I wasn’t demonized, just given the “what-for” and I always knew what it was for and I (pretty much) always deserved it and KNEW I deserved it. It wasn’t done in a fit of temper, it was judicious.

This explains my lack of objection to using the same tool.

Operant conditioning works on the smallest children… it is not the first choice of tool when you are talking about a 10 year old. I pointed out the need to establish limits… including age limits. The current law has NO limits. I can claim that it was reasonable to whack my 14 year old with a baseball bat to keep him from doing something disruptive. The law is mute. An explicit law would be better… AND easier to inform people about.

Do you want to argue the law or whether there is any reason not to use limited force to teach kids? Is imprisonment force? This is a very fuzzy subject.

If you wonder, I have my own degree in Psychology (never used until now), earned at the University of Rochester.

respectfully
B J

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Paula Bennett has a new partner.

David Garrett keeps digging.

Help save Enviroschools.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

philip – in your examples of why smacking is bad, you talk of “harsh treatment” and “harsher treatment that any of us can imagine”.

No one would disagree with you that this is bad, and leads to problems.

But where are all your examples that any of these problems were caused by an occasional and mild smack?

You also say that the milllions of people who have expericenced physical punishment, and seem to be reasonably functioning adults, but that’s really only on the face of it. That’s a rediculous statement.

As has been said many times, including by experts – if you lump in mild physical discipline with harsh beatings you are going to come to wrong conclusions.

In fact they went further and said it is “unethical” to do this.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“I know what the Otago research says. I do not agree that the researchers controlled (and nor could they)for all the myriad of factors which influence how people turn out and would mitigate the effects of ’smacking’. So I don’t give much credence to their findings.”

Of coarse you don’t, it dosen’t fit your preconcieved agenda.

If I tell my child “if you continue to do that you will get a smacked bottom”
there is a predetermined outcome that the child is aware of. You let the child know the rules, then you enact them.
When people like you put this method down to ” hurt them and they’ll behave” you imply some random unpredicatable lashing out at bad behaviour, this is not what is happening at all.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Nicely put Philip.

I too will retire (for the night).

I live in a pineapple under the sea …

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Greenfly is in a no nonsense mood tonight.
Spongefly serious pants

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

photo – Of course if you playfight with your kids – that’s going to be more serious offence than a light smack.

Nonsense.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I hestitate to interrupt this ongoing argument between this small group of people (who appear to keep arguing their entrenched positions, to what end I can’t fathom), but I thought I would respond to the challenges and questions put to me by photonz1 and bjchip, before leaving you to it.

Yes, I do have three adult children all successfully raised without “physical discipline”, but loving firmness and the experience of natural consequences. They’re now raising their own children the same way. That isn’t to say that we and they haven’t had problems. We simply saw that causing pain to our children wasn’t a useful way to help them learn.

A small proportion of the hundreds of clients I have worked with during my career have belonged to the highly disturbed or criminal group. Most have been very ordinary people like you and me, who were having a wide range of life problems – like how to raise their children, and how to deal with the legacy of their own parenting! I have worked with a wide age range, from tiny children through to very old people.

Yes, I understand about operant conditioning, bj. I learned that over 30yrs. ago in Psych.101. I’ve also learned that behaviourists don’t have the last word on human development (although many of them think they have). Neuro-science is currently adding much to our collective wisdom about it, as does narrative theory. By the way I have tertiary level qualifications in social work, counselling and psychotherapy. I have attended countless workshops and seminars, and have received and conducted training in several other countries. And the best training of all? – twenty years doing my own therapy.

Of course there are millions of people who have experienced ‘physical discipline’ and have become reasonably functioning adults…at least on the face of it! However, my experience with hundreds of adults who function adequately in the world, is that they also suffer from conditions like depression and anxiety, which are often rooted in the harsh treatment they received as children – from ordinary parents doing their best within their limitations.

I know what the Otago research says. I do not agree that the researchers controlled (and nor could they)for all the myriad of factors which influence how people turn out and would mitigate the effects of ‘smacking’. So I don’t give much credence to their findings.

You can argue all you like for the naturalness of pain as a ‘teacher’, bj. There are plenty of people who will enthusiastically agree with you. Humans have been using it in the grossest ways for thousands of years, and many will argue that we should return to it. “We’ve gone too soft and should return to more severe punishments”. My knowledge of most of those who are our most violent criminals is that they have already received harsher treatment than any of us can imagine. This was meted out by parents who believed that what they were doing was right. It was based on exactly the premise that you propose – hurt them and they’ll behave.

I prefer to stay with the experience of my many years in practice, which is that the vast majority of people want to learn ways to be more loving, more effective and happier parents and human beings. And they can. It is my daily experience. It’s also the experience of many practitioners like me. I have never heard from any of my colleagues that they believe people (including children) need more physical punishment. It isn’t surprising that none of the child advocate organisations in the country want a return to Sec.59. The only ones who do are those who hold a particular belief about children, that they are essentially little demons whose wills need to be forced away from their essential depravity. I know because I was raised in that culture, and members of my family are still there.

So I’m standing on my experience not on theory.

One final thing…..you said I was in for a hard time here, bj! I suspect that you want to give me a hard time – which says more about you than it does me.

‘Bye.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Shunda – Non smacked kids are always more likely to be violent in my experience.

Nonsense.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Sapient – you seem narrowly focused on reactive methods to be employed after ‘bad behaviour’ in children and have made no mention at all of preventative measures put in place to reduce or eliminate those behaviours. Why is this?

btw – your ‘Child A, B, C, D’ example has me thinking, on reflection and instinctively, that child A has been raised under a regime of smacking.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)