Open mike 24/07/2024

Written By: notices and features - Date published: - 24 comments
Categories: open mike


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

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

Step up to the mike …

24 comments on “Open mike 24/07/2024”

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

  1. 1

    China has a declining population and growing numbers in retirement and so

    China will gradually raise its statutory retirement age in the next five years to try to cope with its ageing population and buckling pension system.

    Life expectancy in the country has now risen above the United States, to 78 years. But China's retirement age remains one of the lowest in the world – at 60 for men, 55 for women in white-collar jobs and 50 for working-class women.

    The public response shows some awareness of the western world reality

    "Those who wish to retire early are burnt out from their laborious jobs, but those who are in comfortable, lucrative roles will not choose to retire.

    What kind of jobs will the younger generation end up with?" one user wrote on Weibo, an X-like platform.

    Some said a delayed retirement would only mean delayed access to their pensions. "There is no guarantee that you would still have a job before the statutory retirement age," one user wrote.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpd9v48yn8ro

    1. 1.1

      NZ's core working population will also shrink while at the same time older people requiring huge volumes more healthcare and welfare will need to be funded.

      https://businessnz.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/The-future-of-workforce-supply-Sense-Partners-PDF.pdf

      Also the current-and-future workforce will be working predominantly in low-paid industries like hospitality and horticulture, often as imported labour, so we will continue to be a dumb low wage economy seeking to sustain massive elder welfare.

      1. 1.1.1

        Thats what the multi billion Cullen fund was established.

        I think its something like 3x what was paid in has grown by compound interest – and become the biggest taxpayer in NZ

        Fonterra the largest revenue business ($24 bill pa) pays no tax whatsoever- as its a Coop.

        Plus it gets a $200 mill tax refund (GST) for the fun of it.

        1. 1.1.1.1

          Cullen fund doesn't help NZSuper much. Susan St John is worth looking up on this.

          Fonterra is a national drag.

          1. 1.1.1.1.1

            She was of the Bill English school and opposed setting up the Fund.

            This explains their thinking at the time.

            They and Rod Donald were completely wrong.

            https://www.goodreturns.co.nz/article/976486989/greens-want-to-dismantle-the-cullen-fund.html

            The impact of the neglect of the 2008-2017 period.

            https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/a-super-future-are-we-on-track-to-pay-for-our-pensions/ONSO7XD7U47EUASDWQCZLUJTTY/

            Where we are now.

            https://www.interest.co.nz/personal-finance/122651/eric-frykberg-goes-search-solutions-superannuation-affordability-and-looks

            The critic.

            https://www.auckland.ac.nz/assets/business/about/our-research/research-institutes-and-centres/RPRC/PensionBriefing/PC%202021-2%20New-Zealand-SuperFund.pdf

          2. 1.1.1.1.2

            "Based on current Treasury projections,, capital withdrawals from the Fund will be meeting 10% of the net cost of Super by 2066, peaking at 12.8% in 2078, and averaging 11.2% for the 50 years from 2060-2110

            https://fallback.nzsuperfund.nz/assets/Disclosures/Submissions/CFFC_retirement_policy_review_NZSF_submission.pdf

            Plus the tax paid by NZSF every year [$9.47 bill since inception] 2023

            ". At the Fund’s peak in the 2070s, the capital withdrawals and tax payments combined total 21% of the total net cost of pensions, and more than 40% of the incremental cost increase due to the rising proportion of retirees in the population."

            The whole point of the Fund is to smooth out baby boomer rise in numbers of retirees and who live longer costing more and paying it forward (now) rather than later

        2. 1.1.1.2

          Re the comment that Fonterra pays no tax.

          As I understand it, the coop may pay no tax but can rebate profits to its members, who are taxable on that income. So the income stream is taxed at one point (assuming the farmer shareholders don't juggle their numbers so they have no taxable gains).

          However, Fonterra's annual report for 2023 states " … normalised profit after tax was $1,329 million." so it paid something.

          I'm not defending Fonterra, whose members have trashed our waterways while hiding behind a smokescreen of greenwash.

          Interesting to note also that some irrigation companies are cooperatives. Perhaps the taxpayer is subsidising environmental destruction?

          1. 1.1.1.2.1

            Looking deeper into cash flows

            https://view.publitas.com/fonterra/2023-financial-statements/page/12

            They list tax expense twice

            Theres seems to be $118 mill tax paid on divestments.

            Its like the major banks who very cunningly proclaim Profit after tax too. The only business that I know, every one else used the headlines of gross profit.

            Banks have used structured tax breaks before as well as they have a plethora of holding companies the money passes through

            eg ANZ Bank NZ Ltd is 90% owned by ANZ Holdings NZ Ltd who is owned by ANZ Funds Pty Ltd (Australia) which has 10 separate share allocations -probably in tax havens

    2. 1.2

      In the West the issue is complicated by resort to immigration

      If mass immigration remains unacceptable, but becomes essential, then something more acceptable must be found.

      The only likely solution is temporary contracts. Few will embrace this option. But it would be better than the alternatives. Its time will come.

      His rationalisation

      First, the combination of ageing with low historic fertility will generate such large increases in the ratio of the old to those of working age that support for the former will become unaffordable without immigration.

      Second, many essential jobs are unskilled, but the workers have to be present. Care of the old is one example.

      Third, people in rich countries will start to realise that there is another option — temporary contract work, without either family reunification or the possibility of citizenship.

      Fourth, an industry will then be created to organise movement of people on temporary contracts, to and from rich countries. These businesses will take responsibility for meeting the required terms.

      He (Martin Wolf FT) seems to be influenced by the thinking of the National Rally party in France.

      https://www.france24.com/en/france/20240620-how-france-s-far-right-changed-the-debate-on-immigration

      https://archive.li/V7izW#selection-1883.0-2088.0

      1. 1.2.1

        Second, many essential jobs are unskilled..

        I'm off on a tangent here admittedly, but this sentence is so striking for the odd and self-contradictory understanding of what constitutes value. If some piece of work is 'essential', then by definition it must create a lot of value – we can't do without it. But the skills required to do it are "low" and not valuable to the individual who possesses them. Low value therefore mysteriously produces high value, as if by some kind of alchemy.

        The truth is not that these are "low" skills, because every human gets very good at what they do over time. Rather, the truth is that these skills are simply common, and that if you have a market in labour they command a lower price (wage) irrespective of how much objective value they create. Markets have a subjective notion of value, where value is discovered through price. And it's bizarrely divorced from actual life.

  3. 3

    Is it just me or have the Tory wankers given up even pretending they working for anyone but the renter class these days? Now they want to follow the Poms and destroy the heath care system, so their mates can make more money.

    Video the labour spokesperson gives a good account of the Tory wankers shitfuckery.

    1. 4.1

      oh that is excellent. I've never understood why we didn't do this in NZ. Tiny homes too, esp mobile ones.

    2. 4.2

      Brilliant indeed. Why shouldn't he disadvantaged have beach views/access for change. Probably just what they need for wellbeing.

  5. 5

    Some comparison numbers from the primaries for both Obamas and Bidens re-election bid

    Siting Presidents usually do very well in their total votes gained when the states run their primarys

    But Biden was way way ahead of Obama for the grass roots registered democrats

    2024 Biden all votes 14,465 million

    2012 Obama all votes 8,044 mill

  6. 6

    The just released Abuse in Care report estimates 200,000 people were abused.

    RNZ just said that Chris Finlayson and Bill "social investment" English said that there was no need for a Royal Commission of Inquiry. Says a lot about English's social investment blather.

    1. 6.1

      Well Bill "social investment" English would say that.

      I'm unsure why Finlayson would.

      The final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care finds that a successive list of senior ministers and public servants were at fault for allowing, or failing to stop, an epidemic of abuse in foster homes, borstals, boot camps and other state-run institutions.

      The list of people found at fault includes successive ministers of education, health and social development, commissioners of police, directors-general of health, directors of mental health and the chief executives of several ministries. The Royal Commission report does not list individual names of people at fault, only the job titles.

      The Spinoff has been able to verify 112 people who served in those roles from 1950 to 1999. Much of the harm started before 1950 and has continued to present day, but this list is limited to those years to match the Royal Commission’s period of inquiry.

      https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/24-07-2024/a-long-list-of-ministers-and-leaders-found-at-fault-for-failing-to-stop-abuse-in-care

      1. 6.1.1

        Why on earth did the period examined stop in 1999? And why did it take 20 years to produce a report?

        From comments on RNZ this morning nothing improved after 1999 and the problems continued into this century.

        Is it a coincidence that the Government who finally were forced to set up this inquiry took office in 1999?

  7. 7

    With the Tories, Reform and the Lib Dems to his right and the Greens and a good chunk of his own party and voters to his left, Starmer is showing what his leadership is once more.

    Speaking on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, she said: “When you’ve got anti-poverty campaigners, thinktanks, trade unions saying that the key driver for child poverty in this country – which is the sixth largest economy in the world – is the Tories’ two-child benefit cap, then it is a moral imperative on the Labour party to scrap that and do everything that they can to make sure that not a single child has to live in unnecessary hardship and poverty.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/series/politics-live-with-andrew-sparrow

    Starmer’s response to this victimising children based on where they are born in a family and this 19th C ‘worthy/unworthy poor’ attitude is to suspend his own MPs.

    But let’s be honest and looking to New Zealand too: Labour is at its best when it faces strong critiques from its left and strong and politically irritating campaigns to fix problems that have been ignored. With the Alliance and the Greens pushing them, Labour did things such as creating Kiwibank.

    The cost of dentistry was next on Jim Anderton’s hit list. It occasionally occurs to Labour a moment or two before they’re voted out as well.

    This attitude of Starmer’s wouldn’t work here and his campaign can’t work here. With MMP Labour in Britain would gain fewer seats, the right lose fewer seats and the Greens would be a more significant and growing force in electoral politics than they currently are.

    The attack his own side doesn’t work here as the electorate have the expectation that the left will work together to form a government and fix what the Tories are breaking. Proportional representation and the less virulent schism in NZ Labour (they’re all in ACT) means this idea of a tough ‘3rd way’ Labour leader doesn’t have an electoral runway.

Comments are closed.