OPINION: Robbing the paper boys to pay the Bills

Print

Fri, 25 May 2012 1:20p.m.

It's an underwhelming budget from a largely underwhelming Finance Minister - and that's just how he wants it

It's an underwhelming budget from a largely underwhelming Finance Minister - and that's just how he wants it

By Political Editor Duncan Garner

It's the penny-pinching, paper boy Budget.

A million here, a million there. No one walks away from this budget without getting hit in some way.

No matter how small - we've all gone backwards. Even the fancy guys with the planes get hit. All two of them. I bet Sir Peter Jackson is struggling to cope.

But it's the removal of the tax rebate for the paper boys and girls that looks particularly nasty.

Bill English saves about $16 million from cutting the rebate from the 68,000 paper boys and girls around the country. It's a pittance. It's mean-spirited. We need to teach our kids the value of work and the value of money.

Already some of these kids have been in touch with us. They are seriously peeved. As one said to me, when the cheque arrived it was the best day of his life. We need to encourage these kids - not smack them.

Apart from letting the air out of the tyres of the paper boys, it's an underwhelming budget from a largely underwhelming Finance Minister - and that's just how he wants it.

There's nothing big and bold from English - unless you count the $160 million for a new science and innovation institute at some stage in the future.

He doesn't want people talking about this Budget next week - I bet Labour will not shut up about it.

He's promised 154,000 jobs over the next four years, most economists wonder if that will really happen. It's bullish to say the least. Economic growth for the next year is expected to be 2.6 percent.

But last year they said it would 4 percent. It's been pegged back. The world is melting down. To get to 2.6 percent we will need Christchurch being rebuilt at a faster pace than last year.

Activity there is not what the Government had hoped. It's why the deficit is smaller at $8.4 billion - money set aside to rebuild Christchurch hasn't been spent.

So that's the best-case scenario really. The downside scenario is uglier and very possible given Europe. Then we'd face a $25 billion hole in the economy, $8 billion less revenue, higher interest rates and high unemployment.

So Budget 2012 is over - a mean little document that takes a bit from all of us - without hurting any of us in a terminal way. No one will need medication and thank god for that because don't forget the trip to the chemist will cost more too.

It's not slash and burn. It's not big. It's not bold. It's not creative. But it is perhaps quite cunning and clever. Because National is trimming and inching its way to a tiny little surplus which is entirely vulnerable and means absolutely zero.

And that's symbolic of this budget. A zero.

3 News

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

19/06/2012 1:49:20 p.m.

Joronda wrote:

Most people get enough income in New Zealand, but their wish list is too long.

If you have an arrangement that your Bank Manager puts 10% of your income into an investment account you can't touch, the day will come when he will ring you up and say that you are now a millionaire.

Any Kiwi can become a millionaire - spend a year's income in 14 months. Your friend "compound interest" will look after you.

Learn the difference between "needs" and "wants".....and don't try to keep up with the Jones.

Do you need to get drunk every week, or will once a month be better?

31/05/2012 3:55:05 p.m.

john wrote:

Very Good comment from DAN.

its more to do with private debt rather than govt debt.

30/05/2012 6:32:32 p.m.

Mike wrote:

@Dan Educate yourself.

How much did Labour benefit from finders fees/dinners when it directed ACC/Kiwisaver to invest in Maddoff? This was the biggest theft in NZ history, and it was under Labours direction. Will Labour Apologise to NZ for their part in helping Maddoff steal from NZ? $29 billion lost in Maddoff type investments - its not like it was a major loss?

How many lives were lost with Labour/Greens choice to sweep Sanlu under the carpet? We have Shearer asking Keys to apologise to the families of Pike River for what he wasn't at fault for. The same could not be said about the senior Labour/Greens who were briefed in the cabinet, but chose to sweep Sanlu under the carpet - as it was only Chinese Babies at risk and dying. There is more at-fault by the Labour Party there and more need for an apology for that than for Keys to apologise.

NZ has too much social welfare, and it is growing faster than our economy can possibly keep up. Doesn't matter what modelling used, its not sustainable - ie too many bludgers and not enough earners. In the short term only some pyramid type scheme can manage the welfare growth, and when that falls over it will have people starving in the streets.

All forcasts show the welfare spending growing faster than NZ can pay for it, so the left says, give more to the non-working, and encourage more not to work.

NZ has a lot more public debt than is publicly declared. We had the 9 years of creative accounting by Labour where what was public debt, was redistributed as state owned debt, so off the government books. That wasn't repaying debt, it was a book transaction moving debt from 'Public' to 'Private' and claiming the reduction was debt repaid without re-paying a cent. Now why would Labour have done such a thing. They talk about National being about privatisation, yet they sold state assets in their 9 years, and their moving debt from 'Public' to 'Private' was also a hidden agenda towards privatisation.

29/05/2012 8:43:07 p.m.

Dan wrote:

@ Mike: Your argument is based on the premise that New Zealand has a public debt problem. We don't. The reason there is an obsession in government for getting back to surplus is because of the reporting requirements in the Public Finance Act 1999. Whilst Greece is indeed suffering the effects of public debt, if we look at the financial collapse in 08 that was private debt. So before you go blaming bludgers for our financial woes you might want to educate yourself with all the relevant facts.

29/05/2012 6:15:49 p.m.

bOb wrote:

Mike your a redneck if you think every person on the benefit is a bludger, only a small percentage of them are bludgers the rest are quite happy to get a job and make more money. Even if we cut them off it would only make a small dent, given they dont want to work what chance is there they will turn to crime?, last time i checked its a hell of a lot more expensive to keep people in jail. Besides even if they do get a job someone else more deserving would miss out on a job. Your just as bad as the extreme far left, well worse really they are generally well meaning but loopy in the head where as you are..

26/05/2012 12:03:47 p.m.

Mike wrote:

They need to learn that excessive social spending has to come from somewhere, and it will be those same go-getters who got jobs as kids expected to pay for the bludgers of NZ who wont get off their backsides to help themselves, let alone NZ.

If its so much better overseas for those on welfare, why dont they move? Greece looks like a good place with higher social policy than NZ - Oh wait, they need bailing out as excesses need to be paid by someone!

The Lefts suggestions would just make us follow Greece faster to bankruptcy as a nation. Have not seen even one policy from the left to address the excessive social spending in NZ.

25/05/2012 7:18:04 p.m.

cindy wrote:

key English and the national party ,robbing the children so they and their rich mates can have a tax cut . disgusting , plus the interest we pay on the loans for those mental tax cuts .we need manufacturing in new zealand not a do nothing government . manufacturing and exports equal real wealth and growth and lower unemployment . manufacturing lead growth . but they closed all the plants and factories down over the last 25 years .

25/05/2012 3:19:09 p.m.

Greg wrote:

Someones gotta pay Johns in the other ex PMs in office 6 years a life time benifit for the position. If that little gem doesnt show how self corrupting our politics are what can, and why they have a lkower standing than used car salepeople, honourable, i think not.