Whaleoil Submitted by : Whaleoil on Jul 30, 2005

[Imported from Whale Oil Beef Hooked on Blogger]

I was read­ing DPF’s blog on trans­parency when I came across this post by Zen Tiger. It is superb, so superb that I have decided to post it here for all to read. Whilst not an ACT sup­porter myself, I have refused to edit it. Thank you Zen for putting it such an easy to under­stand way. Unfor­tu­nately the left are so enam­oured with their own voice and utterly bereft of any con­science or ideas that they will fail to see the logic.

I believe stu­dents need to take respon­si­bil­ity for the money they bor­row, which is given by all work­ing peo­ple through taxation.

I also believe there is good cause to fund stu­dents and edu­ca­tional insti­tu­tions to keep the costs down, espe­cially if the stu­dents ben­e­fit our econ­omy down the line.

How­ever, pro­vid­ing inter­est free loans on the last 30% of the fees plus what­ever else the stu­dent can bor­row (and they do – I’ve seen reports of debts up to $60,000) is the wrong way to go.

It’s also unfair to all of the stu­dents that have worked hard to pay their loans off early, and fore­gone other lux­u­ries. There is no reward for those peo­ple, in fact the assump­tion appears to be if you man­age to work your way through uni­ver­sity, you are a rich bas­tard. If you owe thou­sands you are a poor under-privileged per­son requir­ing even more help. That stereo­type is unfair.

It is also unfair to imply that non-students are not a ben­e­fit to the econ­omy. All efforts of the thou­sands of non-degree qual­i­fied peo­ple that have pro­vided excel­lent work­ing input into this coun­try sim­ply see them shoul­der a big­ger tax­a­tion bur­den to put some-one else through uni­ver­sity. That is not nec­es­sar­ily begrudged by peo­ple, but they have to pay inter­est on their per­sonal invest­ments but stu­dents don’t. That is very elitist.

There are many other ways to fairly help stu­dents FURTHER than the present sys­tem. The inter­est free loan scheme has more loop­holes and neg­a­tive side effects to be happy with the one pos­i­tive of help­ing stu­dents reduce long term debt. And even that pos­i­tive is tem­pered with the like­li­hood that stu­dents will seek to min­imise repay­ments of the loan in favour of pur­chas­ing a nicer car with their new high paid job.

Logix – you made the point that so what if it costs a bil­lion dol­lars instead of Labour’s esti­mated 300 million.

That is the same logic that says “so what if Te Wananga spent 7 mil­lion tax­payer dol­lars on a Cuban Lit­er­acy pro­gram? So what if TVNZ spent $52,000 on a party? So what if we funded 20 mil­lion dol­lars on a Poly­ne­sian Radio sta­tion reach­ing under 1% of NZ? So what if it cost 9 mil­lion dol­lars for a Maori sing along programme?

The point is tax pay­ers are enti­tled to get value for money. NINE MILLION DOLLARS is a lot of money to teach peo­ple to sing, com­pared to those that can’t get more than a taxi drive by when their life is on the line. Maybe there is a way to reach those peo­ple for 4 mil­lion dollars?

I notice when­ever peo­ple point out the cost, the reac­tion is extreme: Oh, so you want to pay NO TAX? Oh, so you want only RICH STUDENTS to study? Oh, so you want to let peo­ple die on wait­ing lists when we cut health spending?

NO NO NO. Labour added 3.5 bil­lion to Health, and the wait­ing lists are longer.

In this dis­cus­sion, it is very rel­e­vant to ques­tion the ben­e­fit to the tax pay­ers as a whole to use THIS SCHEME to help students.

It might be a good idea at 200 mil­lion. It becomes sus­pect at 600 mil­lion. It is scan­dalous at 1 bil­lion. It becomes crim­i­nal at 1.5 billion.

Tax­pay­ers have to bud­get and make choices over expen­di­ture for their fam­i­lies. So too should gov­ern­ment. That is what Cullen tried to set the bud­get on, and by his own rules, he shows his hypocrisy.

The ACT party have pro­moted sig­nif­i­cant Tax Cuts as a method to stim­u­late growth, increase spend­ing and there­fore improve tax take via the money cir­cu­la­tion. It was costed by the RBNZ, and found to gen­er­ate growth by an extra 1%. That was big enough to make it afford­able with­out any cuts to present ser­vices. Any work­ing stu­dent would have found MORE money in their pock­ets to off­set debt. This Gov­ern­ment doesn’t want to enter the cost­ing game, because they know this will not help with eco­nomic growth. Ulti­mately, I am not even sure it will help stu­dents in the col­lec­tive sense.

Posted by ZenTiger at July 30, 2005 02:03 PM

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Whaleoil Submitted by : Whaleoil on Jul 29, 2005

[Imported from Whale Oil Beef Hooked on Blogger]

The eru­dite David Far­rar has refused to buckle in the face of lefist lies and spin.

Mal­lard has attacked Westpac’s analy­sis as “extrem­ist and scaremongering”.

Well, Mr Mal­lard as least they both­ered to do some actual sums, not pull fig­ures out of their ass.

As I have said before Labour has more spin­ners than an Indian cricket team and defi­nately more cheek than a fat mans bum.

Show us the fig­ures!!!! or F R O

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Whaleoil Submitted by : Whaleoil on Jul 29, 2005

[Imported from Whale Oil Beef Hooked on Blogger]

Prime Min­is­ter Mrs Peter Davis has risen to num­ber 24 on a list of the world’s most pow­er­ful women, above Hillary Clin­ton, Laura Bush and the Queen, but behind impris­oned Myan­mar politi­cian Aung San Suu Kyi.

And who com­piled this list….none other than Forbes magazine….Who is the pocket of the Amer­i­cans now???

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Whaleoil Submitted by : Whaleoil on Jul 28, 2005

[Imported from Whale Oil Beef Hooked on Blogger]

Mal­lard has today found evi­dence of Nation­als financ­ing and at the same time has also dis­cov­ered the cost­ing esti­mates for the Stu­dent Loans BRIBE.

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Whaleoil Submitted by : Whaleoil on Jul 28, 2005

[Imported from Whale Oil Beef Hooked on Blogger]

In an highly unusual move today West­pac Chief econ­o­mist Bren­don O’Donovan has slayed the Labour Party Stu­dent Loans Bribe.

They have cal­cu­lated that this BRIBE would cost not $100 mil­lion – $300 mil­lion as Labour has fibbed. In actual fact it will cost over $1,100 Mil­lion or ONE POINT ONE BILLION DOLLARS each and every year.

Labour has sim­ply devel­oped this pol­icy on the hoof and it is so bad that a major bank has seen fit to enter the fray. This is almost unprecedented.

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Whaleoil Submitted by : Whaleoil on Jul 28, 2005

[Imported from Whale Oil Beef Hooked on Blogger]

The Her­ald poll this morn­ing shows Labour ahead by 6%, largely as a result of it’s scur­rilous spin attack. Cer­tainly it can­not be based on any­thing of substance.

Per­ti­nent results are;

Labour 43.9
National 37.5
NZ First 7.1

Now to the but wait, theres more sec­tion.

The Her­ald also ran a poll
that found 53.1 per cent of peo­ple believed the cost of vis­it­ing a GP had increased and only 12 per cent believed it had decreased. A quar­ter of the peo­ple polled found no change.

Fur­ther, Forty-nine per cent said elec­tive surgery had become harder to get and 27 per cent said access remained the same.

Watch for a vicious spin attack on Health closer to the next poll.

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Whaleoil Submitted by : Whaleoil on Jul 28, 2005

[Imported from Whale Oil Beef Hooked on Blogger]

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Whaleoil Submitted by : Whaleoil on Jul 28, 2005

[Imported from Whale Oil Beef Hooked on Blogger]

Tv3 has a new poll out. Result are as follows;

Labour is down 1 to 39 from the poll in June. (49 seats)
National is up 3 to 39. (49 seats)
NZ First is down 4 to 7 (9 seats)
Greens are steady on 6 (7 seats)
ACT on 1.6% – no seats
United on 1.4% (2 seats)
Maori Party on 2.2% (4 seats)

This poll con­tin­ues the trend for Labour of down and the trend for National of up. Lets see what tomor­row brings with a new Her­ald poll.

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Whaleoil Submitted by : Whaleoil on Jul 28, 2005

[Imported from Whale Oil Beef Hooked on Blogger]

In the face of clever blog­ging evi­dence and the over­whelm­ing assault of the truth Mal­lard has had to admit that it has exag­ger­ated the sav­ings to stu­dents from its interest-free loans policy.

I think he means lied, fibbed, rorted and deceived, but hey!! lets accept “exaggerated”

I sup­posed he “exag­ger­ated” his scur­rilous accu­sa­tions about National’s funding….still wait­ing for the evi­dence Trev.

I sup­pose Kyotos ben­e­fits were “exaggerated”.

I bet the Mrs Peter Davis will now say she “exag­ger­ated” her actual input into the paint­ing and her pho­tos are only a slight “exag­ger­a­tion” to the essen­tial Mrs Peter Davis.

I also won­der if per­haps the Sur­plus that isn’t there was “exag­ger­ated” as well.

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Whaleoil Submitted by : Whaleoil on Jul 27, 2005

[Imported from Whale Oil Beef Hooked on Blogger]

One won­ders how blun­ders like Kyoto occur…the answer is now before us if you hadn’t already guessed.

Peo­ple who have never run a busi­ness, employed peo­ple from their own pocket, and have only ever been to school or in a Union should never, ever, ever be given con­trol of the gov­ern­ment. Espe­cially if you are a failed His­tory professor.

David Far­rar has shown the stu­dent loan pol­icy of Labour to be what most of us sus­pected all along…..based on lies, sup­po­si­tion and deceit.

Labour must go they shown again why they can­npt be trusted with the economy.

Lets do some math;

Kyoto $1,000,000,000 – $3,000,000,000
Loans scam $1,000,000,000

Total cock-ups thus far $2,000,000,000 – $4,000,000,000.

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Whaleoil Submitted by : Whaleoil on Jul 27, 2005

[Imported from Whale Oil Beef Hooked on Blogger]

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Whaleoil Submitted by : Whaleoil on Jul 27, 2005

[Imported from Whale Oil Beef Hooked on Blogger]

The Her­ald edi­to­r­ial this morn­ing shows that the MSM may have woken up to Labours BS express train.

I am gob-smacked by their brutality.


Cyn­i­cism and des­per­a­tion abound in equal mea­sure in the Labour Party’s $300 million-a-year pledge to abol­ish inter­est on stu­dent loans. This is polit­i­cal bribery at its most base. It bodes ill for what is to come dur­ing this elec­tion campaign.

Only two months ago, New Zealan­ders were told that, despite a higher-than-expected sur­plus of $7.4 bil­lion, eco­nomic cir­cum­stance did not per­mit the lav­ish­ness of across-the-board tax cuts and the like. “The mes­sage of Bud­get 2005,” said Michael Cullen, “is that such large one-off pack­ages [as Work­ing for Fam­i­lies] will be rare over the fore­see­able future unless accom­pa­nied by expen­di­ture cuts or effi­ciency gains else­where within the state sector.”

Bribes are, of course, part of the land­scape of every elec­tion cam­paign. Few, how­ever, are so obvi­ously cal­cu­lated to buy votes, or deliv­ered so early in the piece. Democ­racy will be poorly served if this is a har­bin­ger of poli­cies to come.

One won­ders if Labour has bro­ken the Fis­cal Respon­si­bil­ity Act and cooked the books, just like they did in 1990.

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Whaleoil Submitted by : Whaleoil on Jul 27, 2005

[Imported from Whale Oil Beef Hooked on Blogger]

Labour clearly has not thought through the total impact of their stu­dent loans BRIBE.

In their des­per­ate bid to retain the keys to the Trea­sury benches they have sim­ply imple­mented pol­icy on the hoof with lit­tle thought or research, if any, into the impact.

Stuff who have an arti­cle ques­tion­ing the numbers.

Labour claims the pol­icy will cost $100m in its first year and will rise to $300m a year from 2008–2009.

National yes­ter­day said the true cost of the scheme was between $500m and $600m a year, while ACT put it at $1.1b.

Labour’s cost­ings appear to be largely based on lost income from the inter­est that grad­u­ates will no longer pay to Inland Rev­enue each year. The inter­est rate is 7 per­cent, and last year this earned the Crown $245m.

How­ever, Labour does not appear to have fac­tored in the poten­tial for a rapid uptake in loans once they become interest-free.

National finance spokesman John Key said the for­gone rev­enue from mov­ing to a zero inter­est rate on stu­dent loans would start at about $350m.

After four years, the tax­payer will have had to find another $3b to $4b to act as the banker offer­ing zero-interest loans to stu­dents. After 10 years, that will be around $6b to $7b higher,” he said.

And what does the Duck­man have to say about this all?

All our cost­ings are based on fore­casts and assump­tions of behaviour”

I hope and pray that the same peo­ple who based our Kyoto lia­bil­i­ties on Assump­tions and Fore­casts are not the same as the ones doing the fore­cast­ing on Stu­dent Loans.

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Whaleoil Submitted by : Whaleoil on Jul 26, 2005

[Imported from Whale Oil Beef Hooked on Blogger]

A spokes­woman for Cullen said that Labour, if re-elected, would ini­tially take the money from a $1.9b con­tin­gency fund Cullen had allowed for new spend­ing promises.

What!!!

Where was that in the bud­get?
Where is this com­ing from if there is no room for tax cuts?
Is this the BNZ all over again?

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Whaleoil Submitted by : Whaleoil on Jul 26, 2005

[Imported from Whale Oil Beef Hooked on Blogger]

Fran O’Sullivan lashes Labour in this morn­ings Her­ald call­ing their fund­ing attack a “big lie” and pre­dict­ing that more vic­tims will be lined up before the cam­paign is fin­ished.

In real­ity, Clark con­trols Labour’s game and it is clear she will trade off any short-term dam­age to this country’s rela­tion­ship with the US to stay in power.


How­ever, the big lie has helped Clark rein­vent her­self as the poster-girl against US bullying.


Clark needs to show she can put New Zealand’s wider inter­ests above her own.

I pre­dict we will see more lies, more bribes and more dirt before this cam­paign is out.

Labour has more cheek than a fat ladies bum to pre­tend the elec­tion is all about integrity and honesty.

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Register Login