ELECTION BUILD UP THE FINAL ARGUMENTS

These comments from THE STANDARD sum up the points voters should consider in making their choice on Saturday.

Closing arguments

Published by Steve Pierson on November 2, 2008

Six days to go. Here are the five big issues that I am finding can turn swing to the Left. There are others as well (see our Standard line series) but these have been effective points in my experience. Over the next few days, you’re bound to find yourself talking to people who are planning to vote National or ACT. Try out these arguments on them

ACC. The fact that ACC is so widely used, there are a million claims a year, makes it an important issue. Despite its faults, ACC is a world-leading system and people depend on it. Private insurers can collapse and have every incentive to avoid payouts. National wants to privatise it, Labour wants to cut its cost, reducing car registration by $80 and employer levies by 20%. Nobody wants ACC privatised, not business, not the medical profession, not legal experts, and, most importantly, not ordinary people. Nowadays, when I hear someone is going to vote National or ACT, I just mention they want to privatise ACC and it’s usually enough to switch them to the Left. Why Labour hasn’t made more of this, I don’t know.

Kiwisaver. 850,000 people have joined Kiwisaver so far, and that number will soon reach one million. Chances are good a swinger voter you talk to is either in Kiwisaver, close to someone who is, or planning to join. If National gets into government, every Kiwisaver would be worse-off, even after you count National’s tax-cuts, because they’re going to cut Kiwisaver in half. Rather than your employer putting in the equivalent of an extra 4% of your income into your Kiwisaver, National would reduce that to 2%. That will cost every Kiwisaver hundreds of thousands of dollars over their career. By cutting Kiwisaver, National would also cut domestic saving, meaning we have to borrow more from overseas.

Tax. National’s tax cuts are less than $10 a week more than Labour’s for most people. Many people actually get smaller cuts from National - if your income is less than $24,000 or $44,000 if you get Working for Families, you get larger cuts from Labour. The only people who get big cuts from National are people like John Key on really large incomes.

Trust. After all these years, the only ‘trust’ issues they have on Clark is that she once signed a picture for charity that she hadn’t painted, her drivers drove really fast one time, and her billboard picture is ‘too nice’. These are not substantive issues, they have no bearing on whether someone can be trusted to govern. National tries to hide its policies and its senior MPs have broken Parliaments rules. They have a track record in government of low growth, high unemployment, lower wages, higher crime, and running down public services like health and education. National always has been and remains the party of the wealthy; they cannot be trusted to act in the interests of ordinary Kiwis.

Experience. Key’s business experience is not an asset in the current economic conditions. He has no experience running an economy. In fact, his economic experience is making money doing exactly the kind of deals that have led to this financial meltdown in the first place. One of the guys who got us into this mess is not the kind of person to lead us out of it. In Clark, Cullen, and the other senior ministers, we have a very experienced team with a record of low unemployment, high wages, high growth, and stable government.

Lies. Lies and more Lies as Debate heats up

This analysis of the Key positions taken by John Key demonstrate the tenuousness of his logic. It's worth sharing.

Live fact-checking of the debate.

Key: The unions supported National’s position on Kiwisaver.
Lie: The unions do not support National’s plan and never have. “We have supported 2+2 arrangements as a starting point but under the current scheme, this attracts the full value of member tax credits and employer tax credits. Under the National Party proposal there would be enormous pressure on workers to pay for the employer contribution by forgoing a wage increase. And for those who joined expecting a 4 per cent employer contribution, this is a major reduction”

Key: Productivity has halved under Labour
Lie: Productivity is up 15% under Labour

Key: Labour has got unemployment beneficiary numbers down by moving people to the sickness and invalid benefits.
Lie: Total benefit numbers are down 100,000. The sickness and invalid number growth has been in line with a growing, aging population. Unemployment is down 120,000.

Key: We should be slower on the ETS, our Kyoto liability is so big
Contradiction: If we go slower on reducing our carbon emissions through the ETS our Kyoto liability will be higher. Our Kyoto liability is forfeit for not meeting our commitments to reduce emissions; the ETS is a scheme for reducing emissions.

Key: interest rates have doubled up Labour
Lie: 2-year fixed mortgage rate in December 1999 - 8.3%. 2-year fixed mortgage rate today - 9.0%

Key: carbon emissions from coal have doubled under Labour
Lie: electricity emissions have increased 20%, more electricity is generated per unit of emissions, there is a ban on new baseload thermal generation, and Huntly will be replaced by renewable generation.

Key: power prices have increased 50% under Labour
Lie: power prices are up 18% after-inflation (source 1,2). Incomes are up 25% after-inflation (source 1,2)

Key: we’ve had an explosion in the number of bureaucrats from 26,000 to 36,000
Misleading: Key is talking about people employed by the core public service. That includes the Police, corrections staff, customs, social workers. Key has promised policies that wold require at least a 1000 new people in those departments.

Key: 322 workers at Carter Holt Harvey lost their jobs today because of Labour’s economic mismanagement.
Lie: according to Carter Holt, the jobs were lost due to oversupply of timber in the international market. As Key should know, the timber industry is going through a major correction at the moment having overexpanded during the global housing bubble, which has now collapsed.

The Axe Falls on Kiwisaver - Key untrustworthy yet again.

This cartoon says it all. Here is the first wedge of the workers' benefits to be axed under a Key lead government. Remember a gambler prefers to gamble with other peoples' money while ensuring the house retains its share!

Underwhelming Policy Release- Tax Cuts - Tax Schmucks

Over the years New Zealand experiences a sense of deja vu with each release of "new" policy from the National Party policy think tank.

When John Key released the much hyped tax cut policy yesterday one was immediately reminded of Robert Muldoon in 1975 - same smirking smile, same short sighted thinking, surrounded by acolytes from past National administrations all congratulating themselves on regenerating failed past policies and supported by happy memories of dancing cossacks leaping through their collective minds. Here was history repeating itself.

In 1975 Muldoon dismantled the New Zealand Superannuation scheme - a programme designed to encourage savings and investment in industry and the N.Z. economy - arguing that this was the first step towards a communist state and appealing to the mirage of a short term individual gain by returning the contributions to the taxpayer and promising a tax based superannuation payment.

Interestingly, a later National Government, with Ruth Richardson as finance minister, took the axe to the Muldoon scheme and reduced the promised retirement payments as well as abusing the taxpayer for not saving and investing in the economy.

In 2008 John Key took the script from the ghost of Muldoon and began the proposed dismantling of Kiwi-Saver by raiding it to pay for the promised tax-cuts - if this isn't a good example of a john robbing the peter one doesn't know what else is.

Points echoed by Brian Fallow, in the National Party's advertising pamphlet, The Herald, commented on the Tax Cut policies as - "You can't have your cake and eat it too" policies. He said that the Kiwisaver was an essential shift in attitude to an investment in the economy of the country and that the policy released by Key was reminiscent of the 1975 National Party assault on the NZ Super Scheme.

It is interesting to note that the Herald's editorial writer suggests that at a later date National should, would , take the knife to other social investments like free childcare and other universal benefits as there is no point in providing welfare... if it "cripples" the economy.

The revitalised 1975 anti-investment policies of John Key, in his muldoonist incarnation, is also directed at disenfranchising the worker when it comes to negotiating better employment conditions and pay increases by providing the opportunity for employers to argue that those who are Kiwisavers cannot get a pay rise because they're already receiving it through the, under National minimal 2% employer contribution to the employee's superannuation savings scheme.

Here, too, is the policy of encouraging selfishness that is the underpinning of the Key theory of economics.

The prospect of a reincarnation of muldoonist economics and social policies even under the smirking smiles of John Key is not an attractive prospect for NZ to consider. The Tax Cuts - Social programme slashing policies being presented are not attractive for either the individual or the country as a whole.

Tax Cuts??? John robs the peter to gamble again.

National leader John Key today revealed his plans to destroy KiwiSaver and its long-term benefits for New Zealand for the sake of his own pursuit of power, Finance Minister Michael Cullen said today.

"John Key's announcement today that National would slash by half employer contributions to New Zealanders' personal savings, and cut into many employees' contributions, exposes National's short-term agenda and proves how hollow National's so-called economic growth plan really is.

"National's first instinct is to destroy a programme that will help promote growth and to remove important employment rights that protect employees in KiwiSaver.

"If implemented, this would gut KiwiSaver and sells the 800,000 plus members down the river. It would mean the sell-out of many Kiwis' hopes of buying their first home. It would mean the sell-out of many New Zealanders' opportunity to having a little bit more in retirement," Dr Cullen said.

"The past 18 months of major stress in international financial markets has highlighted very clearly that New Zealand needs to strengthen its savings culture and needs to strengthen its savings and investment record. This is why KiwiSaver is so important.

"The short-sightedness of National's proposed attack on savings is matched only by its attack on investment in research and development and in infrastructure. John Key proposes to axe the R&D tax credit that is a fundamental ingredient in raising the nation's productivity and non-inflationary growth rate over time. John Key also proposes no offsetting increase in public sector research and development," he said.

"All for what? A poorly-designed tax package that delivers nothing to 370,000 New Zealand households that receive Working for Families, reduces legislated tax rates and thresholds for the lowest and highest earners and claws back as much as it gives in tax cuts – and more – for current KiwiSavers.

Note: Impact of National's proposals on modest income KiwiSavers

A person earning $30,000 in Kiwisaver under Labour would save $750 a year themselves, receive a $750 contribution from the government and a $750 contribution from their employer: That is $2,250 a year in their account. Labour has protected workers against employers clawing back their (employers') contribution.

But under National's anti-savings plan, the same person would pay in 2%, that is $375, receive $375 from the government but the $375 from their employer would be paid by the employee because of reduced wages: In other words, that worker would still have to pay $750, but their return would only be $1,125 in their account after a year.

Because these people would not get any additional tax relief under National's plan, they would end up losing $1,125 a year from their savings account in order to pay for National's tax cut package which, by design, mostly benefits those already on high incomes, without children and who do not have a personal savings plan.