arandar - continuation of #10942:

5. Let us raise wage rates of the poorest - can be done sustainably if we can afford it individualluy, or through higher tax rates collectively - but without lowering everyone else's disposable income only, if we become more wealthy individually and collectively by raisng our earning power through higher saving and investment rates. True, or not?

6. Arandar - how would you use the tax take to stimulate the economy?National believes in using the tax take to stimulate the economy by reducing it.
You probably believe it should be raised so jobs could be created.
But if that extra tax is spent only on services (jobs) without an increase in profitable productivity, it cannot stimulate - but only stifle - the economy, because it only shifts consumption from taxpayer to new service worker, and there will be less money available for investment, and the taxes of taxpayer subsidized or employed service workers only slightly reduce, but do not eliminate, their employment costs.

But - if the extra tax is channelled into the NZSF as retirement wealth reserves, it can be invested immediately in the least inflatinary manner possible into whatever is needed in NZ, creating jobs and a genuinely (not taxpayer subsidized) higher tax take and increasing employment potential in services at higher wages rates. Isn't that clear, simple and credible? What other way do you suggest to achieve higher wages?

7. Yes, let us restore the pre 1999 tax rates - under the condition that the extra will help resumption of NZSF contributions.
For without the latter, the raised taxes of the rich will only shift consumption from the rich to the poor and possibly reduce even that (tiny?) proportion of the freely consumable high earners' tax reducutions, that might have found their way into national wealth investment. (And belong to them, but possibly having created a few jobs).

(With the NZSF, their taxes invested there are clearly for the NZ national benefit, with personal spin-offs TO ALL, not just to some at the cost of someone else.)
I hope attention to be drawn to anything dubious in those answers to arandar.

Well, wekanz - can you please expose the points you don't agree with in the answers accepted (or at least no challenged) by arandar?

I see the National Party are cosying up to the Conservative party as ACT exit stage left (or should that be stage right)

This is an interesting option, given they would have brought in a few extra MPs to support National had they been given a free seat such as Epsom at last years election.

On the other hand they oppose asset sales so wouldn't support National with that program much like the Maori Party.

Should be an interesting dilemma for them at the next general election, back the Conserative with a free seat in the hope of staying in power but lose their flagship policy of asset sales.

Cheers

With the widespread opposition to public assets privatising assets sales - and resulting danger of them (and also other assets) slipping into foreign ownership to the extent of us becoming tenants to foreign ownership, National - or at least John Key - has now a wonderful opportunity to promise a halt or change to assets sales by offering to amend his "no (negative) change on NZ Super in my terms of offic" into a permanent policy of "better NZ Super sustainability (including entitlement age at 65) forever" (and raised New Zealand productivity and personal wealth ownership) through universal NZ Super Fund savings to be built into the taxation system, and their immediate priority investment in New Zealand until excessive unemployment has been overcome.

The chances are goood, that at least the less biased among "enlightened" ideological Right -Wingers will prefer that option to losing an election and John Key as leader.

Here's a couple of questions?

Why should/should not every NZ resident be entitled to National Superannuation at Age 65?

Why should/should not every NZ resident be entitled to NS whether they are still working/earning or not?

Why should/should not the age of entitlement relate to the improved health earning capacity and longevity of senior citizens?

Why should/should not the age of entitlement be slowly pushed upwards as it is in all similar countries applying first to those under say, age 45, now?

Why should/should not today's taxpayers have to save for their own retirements, as well as pay for tomorrow's actually 2025's (likely to be much more wealthy than they ever will be) superannuants?

Just asking...

Another one of John Keys Ministers is proving to the World how much Bluff and Bluster she is.And Whats more John backed her actions or should I say Inactions You see, As of 200pm today Judith Collins had still not sued Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little for defamation she claimed defamed her.Any court would have to consider that M.Ps regularly are accused of far worse things than leaking confidential information--just tune into talkback for a few minutes. Collins is on very weak ground.It is thought her threats were to silence the media by intimidation.

Looking at John Key personally covering himself in the muck of protecting John Banks I think to myself All this from a cuppa tea. Its almost enough for me to believe in Karma.!

10951

"The Karma Sutra"

Oh Gawd help us.Here WE go again.

How disappointing. We now descend once again to the depths of stupidity.

Mona/Tahi

Great bit of humour doest thou not think.

Mona, Tahi
Sadly you are right, as we all know the Karma means action and should not be confused with the Kama which means sexual desire.

Cheers