Daily review 14/02/2024

Written By: notices and features - Date published: - 18 comments
Categories: Daily review

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

18 comments on “Daily review 14/02/2024”

Comment numbers have changed to permanent references. Older quoted numbers may no longer identify the same comment.

  1. 1

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/government-to-reverse-indexing-of-benefits-to-wage-growth-will-move-up-in-line-with-inflation.html

    The reversal would be undertaken under urgency on Wednesday, the same day Parliament also repealed Labour's Three Waters legislation.

    Time to organise protests and a sustained movement to fight this latest appalling move that will starve and harm us on the benefits.

    This will impact upon the most vulnerable of Kiwis.

    Time to stand up for your values!

    Time to fight back!

    Time to stop all this inhuman assault on our country!

    1. 1.1

      There are two ways to preserve benefit levels – tie them to wages, as super is, or otherwise assess an inflation adjustment based on living costs of those on such incomes.

      The CPI is an average figure that often moves at a slower rate than basic living costs (resulting in a real decline in value over years).

      The purpose of the three headed hydra confabulation is to reduce the cost of welfare and transfer income, via tax cuts, to those working.

      They rationalise it by claiming they are saving people from dependence on welfare by making it hard (to access, the indignity of the accountability process, a perpetual threat of loss of income and being portrayed negatively in the media).

      1. 1.1.1

        can you make sense of this? (RoG's link)

        Upston on Wednesday morning announced the minimum family tax credit threshold would also align with inflation, saying the changes would "protect the real incomes of benefit recipients and low-income working families for years to come".

        "This change will ensure low-income working families remain better off financially in full-time work and receiving the minimum family tax credit than they would be on a main benefit," she said in a statement.

        "The cost-of-living crisis that the previous Government left us is hard on beneficiaries and this change will mean their purchasing power is protected."

        1. 1.1.1.1

          They expect to save a lot of money by returning to a CPI increase to benefit levels each year – a pittance of the money saved will go to make regular inflation adjustments to minimum family tax credit threshold.

          The Government is changing how benefits increase, tying them to inflation rather than rising wages, meaning over time they'll get less. The Government says it will save $670 million over four years.

          "We want people who are receiving a main benefit to continue to have enough income to meet their basic needs but also to ensure that the best way to get ahead is to get a job," said Upston

          https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/government-warned-benefit-changes-could-see-7000-more-children-in-poverty.html

          "This change will ensure low-income working families remain better off financially in full-time work and receiving the minimum family tax credit than they would be on a main benefit," she said in a statement.

          The purpose is to reduce in real value the benefit to incentivise people to work

          "The cost-of-living crisis that the previous Government left us is hard on beneficiaries and this change will mean their purchasing power is protected."

          An outright lie, one of the biggest told by a Minister so far. It's trying to use past high inflation as an excuse to return to the less costly to government inflation adjustment.

          The higher living costs were just as hard on those working and paying rent and or mortgage. And the 25 cent adjustment to the MW in 2024 was the equal lowest this century.

          https://www.employment.govt.nz/hours-and-wages/pay/minimum-wage/previous-rates/

          They are suppressing wages (no FPA) risibly small MW increase and reducing benefits in real terms to encourage work.

          It’s a class war regime.

      2. 1.1.2

        NZ Super is indexed to CPI.

        It also has a corridor (max & min) related to the average wage. Which means that usually the minimum bites and so NZ super in practice rises at the same rate as wages. But not always – the big rise in CPI a recently was more than the rise in average wage so there was no uplift.

        So they are moving other benefits to CPI indexing the same as NZ super. But will they remove the wage link from NZ super, that is one to watch for.

        Refer to: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0084/latest/whole.html#DLM114207 section 15 is CPI increase, section 16 the min/max

        1. 1.1.2.1

          Sure atm, Super remains connected to 66% of the net average wage or above (if the CPI is higher than the wage change).

          The risk of adjusting by CPI regardless of a decline towards 60% net average wage or lower is a known – National have done this already.

          https://www.beehive.govt.nz/feature/superannuation-key-facts

          The 1990-1999 National government retained the surtax they said they would end then ended relativity to the net average wage

          As per the age of access to super

          In 1989 the government announced that this prospective rise in pension costs would be addressed by gradually raising the age of eligibility from 60 to 65 between the years 2006 and 2025. This timing was chosen to coincide with the period of rapid growth in the number of older New Zealanders (Caygill, 1989).

          However, following the change of government in 1991, the incoming administration decided to compress and bring forward the timing of this change as part of a comprehensive package of social policy changes aimed at fiscal consolidation.

          The age of eligibility for NZS was to be raised progressively from 60 to 65 over the relatively brief timeframe of nine years, 1992 to 2001

          https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2007-09/twp05-09.pdf

    1. 2.1

      Simeon Brown out of one side of his mouth claims it is the end of a regressive tax and out of the other is demanding councils apply user pays on water use.

      The petrol tax is not regressive – it is a means to gather revenue from those who use roads to fund alternatives to needing to use a car – bus and bicycle lanes etc. And also helps lower our Paris Accord (reduce carbon or pay) costs.

      Brown seems determined to require as much car and petrol use as possible (end of assistance to EV's).

      PS It is government strategy to push up rates to drive demand for sale of council assets – especially the ones set up to manage water (user pays regime).

    2. 2.2

      I listened to Wayne Brown being interviewed by Corin Dann on RNZ this morning. I don't like him but I think he's coming to see the realpolitik of a extremist right wing coalition government that is no friend of Auckland. He did OK (surprisingly) but true to form said some transport bureaucrats would be in his office later to be "barked at".

      He was going so well and then: Fail.

    1. 3.1

      Likewise. But he's not simple. Brown is an extremist/fanatical pro-motor vehicle/anti-alternative transport choices ideologue and is dangerous. Totally unfit to be Minister of Transport, unless his party is in the pocket of big oil and the transport industry, in which case it's all good.

    2. 3.2

      He's an arrogant, bigoted, small-minded, twerp. If he had a brain-cell it would be lonely. How's that for starters.

      And what Grey says above.

    3. 3.3

      Simeon Brown has not even done the most damage. That falls to Willis and Luxton. At least Brown has one brain cell unlike the other two.

      Look at the problems track provider Kiwirail is having in Auckland. This is because of decades of underinvestment and now to embedded this crap behaviour Willis just gutted any future proofing of the Cook Straight.

      The cost now of rescoping the existing project to a lesser capacity project will already be more than the cost of the existing project, and we’ll end up with a smaller, crappier service, which will cost more. This so rich pricks can buy another house or go to Bali yearly as well as Europe.

      That or they’ll kick the can and we’ll have ships hitting the rocks in five years.

  4. 4

    The government plans go beyond allowing sensitive lands (high country farms/along waterways/coastal land off farms/beachfront land and fisheries) to be sold to offshore investors (locking it away from New Zealanders).

    They want to also allow foreign investors to buy any land here, if it is to build rentals on. To bid up the price of land and force more of the next generation not part of the existing homeowning gated community to be their tenants of foreign or domestic landlords for life).

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/leaked-cabinet-paper-reveals-government-considering-allowing-potential-influx-of-overseas-landlords.html

    More class warfare.

    The previous government was incentivising the domestic landlord class to move their money into new builds (by ending the deduction of interest cost against rent income for existing property), this government is looking to get this done by foreigners.

Comments are closed.