What is the Real Economy?
The ‘Real Economy’ is made up of the farmers, manufacturers, tourist operators and service providers that sell to the world and generate New Zealand’s external income. As Angus Tait once said, “There are three ways to generate wealth; you farm things, you make things or you dig things up.” That is the essence of the real economy.
[ read more ]



mist Posted:
Perhaps IMF formulas are not accurate for this area.
(view article + comment)
mist Posted:
" tax increases in one area supports decreases in another is correct" it can only be correct if it is true. Observation and repeated sampling has proven that the hypothesis is faulty. Tax increases in one area are not causally linked to decreases elsewhere - not "possibly", not "it adds up". "Philosophically" it _might_ but testing proves it does not. One could even say "it should" but we both know an equivalent term for "it should" is "doesn't" What drives taxes down is political advantage. If a political party has an agenda they don't want the public to look at too closely, then sweeters (aka "bait") is put forwards. Tax decreases is a classic. This can be achieved because the tax increases and tax decreases are not linked. They're not zero sum nor do they have causal or proportional connection. This is because the "buffer solution" in the middle is that endless hole. tax increase means more spending. tax decrease means more government borrowing. The in/out relationship is decoupled, through size and power in the marketplace (financial economy). The abysmal productivity is because of the massive overheads from doing business in NZ. personal taxes double the rates of the US, huge taxes on goods and services, massive levies on critical imports, price gouging in the energy and communications markets, interest rates 300 to 500 times that of the US!, and not nearly the number of cost writeoffs either (subscriptions, training, vehicle rebates). Nor would get the 401k option either, of rebuying into the same market and not having to pay CGT. Oh and horrendous ever inflating local rates, again much much higher, for less, than our foreign counterparts (excepting Scandinavian countries). Our "abysmal production" is a result of this overtaxation being sand in the gears of the economy, wearing it down and rubbing out real growth. Putting CGT makes that problem worse!! And to sum up... your last comment.... O.M.G. You think that improving our situation, of people not wanting to save or invest in government buggered industry is to bugger up the ability to accumulate equity in useful assets??????? Where do you think people are going to get savings or capital to do anything??? (including retiring when their earning ability is severely reduced!) Put it in finance companies???????????? Buy the oh-so-excellently-performing NZX? In the few companies squeaking by?
(view article + comment)
John Walley Posted:
I think we agree on the lending without security issue. It might well be that the intent to change the source of tax and not increase government spending is fictitious, however given the provision that government spending does not change the statement that tax increases in one area supports decreases in another is correct. The broader point is demonstrated by the Romney situation where he pays tax at half the rate of his salaried staff - and in the USA capital gains carry a 15% tax rate - it will be interesting to see how that one pans out. For New Zealand the economic distortions supported by the complete absence of capital gains tax are clear from our abysmal productivity record. Why save, why invest in production (taxed interest paid or via the income statement) when money can be made without tax from passive asset appreciation.
(view article + comment)
carl Posted:
"a Capital Gains Tax means less tax in other areas or lower borrowing for the same amount of government spending. " Only in your wildest dreams, mate. a drip or a bucketful does not change an infinite hole. The only reduction in tax you would see is short-term, and done to create a perception. Once the elephant was sold it'll be put back up, often with extra claw-back clauses to catch more cash. And Banks do lend for shares - but at lower rates of coverage. 50% for business assets is rule of thumb, 80% for first mortgages, 20-25% for basic unencumbered share parcels. with additional security and reasonable ability to cover debt servicing compliance. That's the ball. So why's the man (original poster) running with such blatantly obvious fouls????
(view article + comment)
DGS Posted:
SEE ABOVE
(view article + comment)


Recent News

BusinessDesk: "US economy remains vulnerable to shocks from Europe" - Interest, 3 Feb 2012 Tweet It's been a great start to the year and investors found little reason to change much today, ahead of January's US jobs report due tomorrow. While Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told lawmakers there were signs of improvement in the...

Oi! You’ve missed a bit... - Economist - Babbage, 3 Feb 2012 HOW much easier it would be to locate and repair damage to bridges, wind turbines and other dumb objects if those objects could tell you what the problem was. Researchers at the University of Strathclyde, in Britain, led by Mohamed Saafi, are therefore trying to give them a voice, by devising a...

Survey of Banks Shows a Sharp Cut in Lending in Europe - New York Times, 3 Feb 2012 The figures raise concern that Europe is on the verge of a credit crunch that would cause a deeper recession than had been expected.

TYSON: America’s Three Deficits - Project Syndicate, 3 Feb 2012 TYSON: America’s Three Deficits The US faces painful choices about how to close its long-run fiscal gap, and a credible plan should be decided now and implemented promptly – but only after the economy has recovered. For the next few years, the priorities of fiscal policy should be jobs,...

Dollar hampers 'knowledge intensive' exports - Stuff, 2 Feb 2012 The strong kiwi has stymied growth of high value exports in "knowledge intensive manufacturing", according to briefing papers from MED.


MED report highlights problems for high value exporters http://t.co/VoLBDWMv
3/02/2012 12:37 p.m.
Sales bounce at year end http://t.co/VtI5uuSq
3/02/2012 9:56 a.m.
Monetary policy matters http://t.co/45wTSnWd
2/02/2012 1:25 p.m.
New RBNZ Governor and prospects for policy change http://t.co/TiVh9HQY
31/01/2012 2:25 p.m.







14/07

Kiwi Jobs Bill


Print-friendly 0 comment(s) Posted in: In the media

The New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporter support the efforts from Claire Curran on the Kiwi Jobs bill.

“The jobs bill is a good idea but we need to go much further,” says John Walley CEO NZMEA, “this is really all about local spill-over benefits from Crown spending that are not achieved when the Crown buys imports.”

“The make-up of the proposed Kiwi Jobs Commission is interesting, we really need to avoid lawyers, bureaucrats and the like, and focus on appointing more practical down to earth representatives who can bring operational experience into play.  Exporters who have been there and done that are needed in this sort of work.”  Says Walley.

“I recall the first Obama stimulus package (page 189) in the USA. Local purchases were required if the price was within 25% of an imported alternative.  The US put a number on the spill-over benefit, clearly indicating what they saw as necessary to eliminate bias.”

“For the US, government spending begins at home; it should be case for New Zealand.  Clearly this is not an issue for the WTO. It is reasonable and sensible to quantify spill-over benefits and require those benefits to be taken into account when making purchase decisions.”

“Spill-over needs to be clearly quantified, to ensure the subtle and pervasive policy differences elsewhere do not disadvantage local suppliers.  For example if other countries run low interest rates, low exchange rate policies, has supportive interventions for manufacturing industry (loans, grants, tax credits, depreciation rates, skills training and export incentives), and as a result they can make things, say, trains, cheaper than New Zealand manufacturers who have none of these advantages – who wins in the long term?  Unless the spill-over is defined by pragmatists who have been there and fought such problems, the policy makers will miss the mark yet again.” 

“This is mostly an attitude of mind, and the collective mind here is that of a cargo cult; all the good stuff comes from elsewhere – wrong-headed, yes; ill-informed, yes; short sighted, yes; unsustainable, yes – but that is the evident bias in thinking.”

“A Kiwi Jobs Commission would make a contribution; given the right skills, and the right brief to define the spill-over benefit and the determination to really implement those considerations across Crown procurement policy.”

 



tags: jobs commission, kiwi jobs bill, stimulus package, crown spending, us

comments

0 Comment(s)



No comments have been posted yet

Name:
Email:
Website URL:
Comment:
Remember Me:
Email Replies:
Please play the ball not the man.