Did Gareth really say that, disappointing and verging on disgusting .. only because used to respect his sensationalist intellect. Hates cats as well ( I love my cats). Probably is why I won't be voting for TOP and that he was a pretty hopeless economist too, always predicting a Auckland property market collapse 20 odd yrs back. I was once in same game and never predicted that, quite the opposite .... which is partly why I have a small rental portflolio and we are where we are now with unaffordable housing problem. Laise faire immigration and no provision for housing or infrastruture not a winner in my view or Winston or Jicindas. I'm rightish wing economically but with a social conscience and leaning labour this time. As one above said: financial stabiliity and fuked environment for all.... not my cup of tea either, even if I I have to vote in a tax increase. Trust a new seemingly better moraled leader .. I think I might.

I always thought Morgan was a dick, but his response to this whole thing just shows how stupid he is.  Either that or so desperate for publicity he did it to get on the news, but if that was the case then it was still stupid as it seems to have backfired.

I have entered the realm of the undecided voter.

I consider Gareth. Tax private family homes. No thanks. Dosent he realize people have already paid tax on the money they have paid into those homes.  Maybe taken to extreme we are looking at state seizure of private property. He didnt volunteer to pay C.G tax when he sold trademe.

Then National. The economy is humming along. About half the people feel wealthy,the other half poor and desperate.
We also have one of the biggest housing bubbles on the planet.

We fund this ,not on real economy but on huge spiraling debt.
We are spending more money than ever before,and it dosent work.. Like our fisheries this is not sustainable.
Iceland ,Ireland, Italy, Greece,Spain,Portugal have tried this.
Since 2009 the central banks have injected over 15 Trillion into the world economy,much into emerging nations. Most of these are now in recession. The new markets Bill english talks about involve such countries.
So where does that leave Nationals dream in the real economy where growth is slowing,heading towards stagnation as it is world wide
Do we wait until wages catch up,or does the artificial economy fall back to match the real economy. That would mean much hardship,and a stagnant or downward spiraling housing market. No wonder the banks have tightened their lending.
Some call the endless borrowing "Financial Botox. " Cheap ,easy and very toxic.
And labour. All i have heard is about new taxes. Tax and spend until the money,inovation and desire to work runs out. Then what. Socialism is a great idea and a noble concept provided we have capitalism to pay for it.
Right now with the real economy we have neither.
So how will these parties actually bring their policies to fruition .
N.Z is but a tiny segment of the global economy,and global trends will have the ultimate financial say,way above the local policies. So labour where is the new vision.? We have generation X pounding at the door with a vibrant new leader. Yet behind that door we have the same old tired policy that the previous salesman couldnt sell.

I would like to see a party that wants to strongly promote innovation and real wealth  production , and  away from non value added commodities, and environmental decline. Do we have such a party.
And if we want real socialism then maybe drop a nice fish over to your neighbour ,who you may have never spoken to and be their friend. Far better than taxes that always make it harder for the poorer people

Rocksteady wrote: One of the biggest problems I see is that for too long too many have considered that the environment and the economy are two separate issues and one can only prosper at the expense of the other. We need to start considering that the environment is critical to a prosperous NZ economy. Our clean, green image abroad is our point of difference. Once we lose that, then we are just another milk factory like any other country in the world. Our product looses it's added value. Dairy farmers have been hit hard in recent years by falling prices and must only be too aware of the dangers and instability of global commodity trading. We must maintain our point of difference to protect our economy! Same goes for fisheries... and this time I'm not talking about the value of dead fish packed into boxes for export. The value of having an abundant fishery in a beautiful environment could potentially draw billions of offshore dollars through tourism. Deplete the fishery or spoil the environment and these dollars are lost. This National government has no long term vision for this country and is void of imagination and leadership. All they care about is destructively exploiting and extracting as much short term "value" from our resources as possible with little regard to the long term effects to our future generations. We desperately need change.

MacSkipper wrote: Wasn't impressed by Gareth Morgan and his lipstick on a pig comment about labours new leader!

No again you are missing the political term being used as the reason which is "safe swimmable rivers" http://rivers.greens.org.nz/ which is a misleading. There is no such thing as a safe river swim the last place I would ever swim is a river and if more people use them drownings will go up. The Greens should know better frankly.

Increase the minimum (living) wage to the point where it doesn't need any subsidies and you will slow down economic development and provide a barrier to workforce entry as employers can't see how they will get a reasonable return on the new employees taken on at higher wage rates. The subsidies concept better supports economic growth as it better encourages employment. Subsidies always distort the market, but if the distortion is planned to be a positive impact then they aren't always a bad thing. Shifting to a lower subsidy arrangement would have to be a very long term thing so that the employment market could develop and adapt without any sudden shocks.

Tagit, I see/ agree with you point on employment and slowing the market..
I still dont understand the basic principle of why the polies.. and RB dont see unaffordable.. (rents new home owners etc) is not unaffordable but rather a lack of a far proportion of our economic good times, getting to middle and lower income ppl.
Rather than keeping on increasing subsidies .. by both major parties, as you rightly suggest .. maybe remove the "very"

"Shifting to a lower subsidy arrangement would have to be a( very )long term thing so that the employment market could develop and adapt without any sudden shocks."

Note: Im only referring to Those employed.
Benefits.. , eg widows, unemployment befits etc, they are actually .. when put back to basics 100% subsidies that are simply to not allow starvation, basic housing etc. The government has a responsibility to tax payers and citizen how these monies are spent. Therefore I do see the basics, like rent, maybe food, education etc remaining.
Better control on these would mean better control on how this tax payer money is spent..  ie remove such choices as smokes or children breakfast and lunches

 I still dont understand not recognising its not "unaffordable" but rather lack of income from a buoyant economy.
 

Got the 17yr son a part time employment at my place of work on Saturdays,(last yr of school) starts 6.00am finishes 2.30pm minimum wage,no biggy. Bugger me if hes not waking me up at 4.30am to get ready,he is happy with $100 he gets and saves as he wants to go to varsity next year,he has already made enquirers as to holiday work, but I put this down to me having work ethics,so many out there with nil or lack of enthusiasm.