5 ms·

Sadly predictable that Jacinda Ardern, the moronic do-gooder architect of this, is also leaving NZ for Australia. She's yet another trendy lefty who has now di

Sadly predictable that Jacinda Ardern, the moronic do-gooder architect of this, is also leaving NZ for Australia. She's yet another trendy lefty who has now discovered that fucking up your country's economy to "do good" does nobody any good. From 2019: " New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern criticized the tendency among countries to measure success by economic growth and gross domestic product at the 2019 Goalkeepers event on Wednesday, hosted by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Ardern said that governments should instead focus on the general welfare of citizens and make investments in areas that unlock human potential. She pointed to New Zealand's new well-being budget that seeks to expand mental health services, reduce child poverty and homelessness, promote Indigenous rights, fight climate change, and expand opportunities. "Economic growth accompanied by worsening social outcomes is not success," Ardern said. "It is failure." " https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/jacinda-ardern-goalkeepers-unga-2019/ https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/jacinda-ardern-goal...

lostlogin 7mo ago
We have a right wing government now and we are going backwards even quicker. Is this Ardern’s fault too?
- mvdtnz 7mo ago
  Most of what is happening in NZ is Ardern's fault, yes. Most economic, demographic and crime indicators have a lag time.
  - lostlogin 7mo ago
    Is this a joke? I love it.
smt88 7mo ago
Since you criticize Ardern's left-wing management, what countries and time periods can you point to in which a right-wing government massively improved quality of life? This would primarily mean higher wages, lower inflation, and general social well-being.
- cturner 7mo ago
  Howard/Costello era in Australia. Reagan 80s. Pinochet - fits your criteria. Arden is indefensible. She increased the size of government, decreased social cohesion via critical theory, housing promises went nowhere. Worse balance sheet, worse outcomes, across the board.
  - fud101 7mo ago
    >Howard/Costello era in Australia. Reagan 80s. Pinochet - fits your criteria. Ok, no one really needed NBN and Howard didn't destroy the housing market completely to name just two lasting legacies of the Howard era. Lets not leave out GST either.
    - cturner 7mo ago
      If not a GST, what do you think was the appropriate reform to the indirect tax system?
      - cam_l 7mo ago
        Well for a start, he outright lied about the introduction of the GST. Not once, but twice. First that he would never introduce one, second that it would replace other sales taxes to simplify the system. Well, neither of those were true, and gst we got was used to cut taxes to the wealthy and as a bargaining chip to reduce the power of the states. It is inherently regressive, the implementation increases the tax burden on businesses, and it did't even raise enough revenue to allow them to simplify the tax system.
        cturner 7mo ago
        For all your words, you have dodged the only question of my last post. By the late 80s, the wholesale sales tax was creaking at the seams. Toys were taxed at 24% but luxury goods at 0%. Also it was complex and expensive to administer. The wholesales sales tax was awful public policy. Keating knew the GST was good policy, but lacked the conviction to stand up to “jellyback” Hawke (Walsh’s characterisation) and his caucus for it. Keating had taken it to the Tax Summit as his preferred policy “Option C”. Lacking meaningful policies of his own, Keating won the 93 election on a platform of opposing the GST and could not engage in reform as a result. In the aftermath of the 93 election, Howard said never ever to a GST. Then, during government, cabinet and treasury looked at the indirect taxation mess and concluded that the GST was the optimal policy. They could have done several things at this point. They could have done nothing, and focused on holding onto power, as Keating had done. They could have dressed it up as a VAT. Or they could have just introduced it with their majority. Instead, Howard gave a speech where he plainly recognised that he had said never, and said he had made a mistake, and his conviction was it was the right policy. He then called an early election, in full knowledge that he was bad in the polls, and made the GST cause the centrepiece of that campaign. This was the greatest act of political courage and decency of our lifetime. They risked everything on that conviction. Costello then ran a meticulous publicity campaign in which he made not a single mistake to open ground to the rerun of the ALP scare campaign. Against those odds, the Coalition won the election and made the reform, which now has bipartisan support. But if you think there was a better reform to the indirect tax system available, let’s hear it.
unethical_ban 7mo ago
Everything in paragraph 3 onward is sensible.
fud101 7mo ago
I find this quite interesting. Am left leaning myself but I am aware you can do left right (eg current Australian govt) and left wrong (NZ always) - why is that?
sys_64738 7mo ago
She's shown herself to be the biggest hypocrite of them all by fleeing the very country's policies she enacted.

lostlogin 7mo ago

We have a right wing government now and we are going backwards even quicker. Is this Ardern’s fault too?

mvdtnz 7mo ago
Most of what is happening in NZ is Ardern's fault, yes. Most economic, demographic and crime indicators have a lag time.
- lostlogin 7mo ago
  Is this a joke? I love it.

smt88 7mo ago

Since you criticize Ardern's left-wing management, what countries and time periods can you point to in which a right-wing government massively improved quality of life? This would primarily mean higher wages, lower inflation, and general social well-being.

cturner 7mo ago
Howard/Costello era in Australia. Reagan 80s. Pinochet - fits your criteria. Arden is indefensible. She increased the size of government, decreased social cohesion via critical theory, housing promises went nowhere. Worse balance sheet, worse outcomes, across the board.
- fud101 7mo ago
  >Howard/Costello era in Australia. Reagan 80s. Pinochet - fits your criteria. Ok, no one really needed NBN and Howard didn't destroy the housing market completely to name just two lasting legacies of the Howard era. Lets not leave out GST either.
  - cturner 7mo ago
    If not a GST, what do you think was the appropriate reform to the indirect tax system?
    - cam_l 7mo ago
      Well for a start, he outright lied about the introduction of the GST. Not once, but twice. First that he would never introduce one, second that it would replace other sales taxes to simplify the system. Well, neither of those were true, and gst we got was used to cut taxes to the wealthy and as a bargaining chip to reduce the power of the states. It is inherently regressive, the implementation increases the tax burden on businesses, and it did't even raise enough revenue to allow them to simplify the tax system.
      - cturner 7mo ago
        For all your words, you have dodged the only question of my last post. By the late 80s, the wholesale sales tax was creaking at the seams. Toys were taxed at 24% but luxury goods at 0%. Also it was complex and expensive to administer. The wholesales sales tax was awful public policy. Keating knew the GST was good policy, but lacked the conviction to stand up to “jellyback” Hawke (Walsh’s characterisation) and his caucus for it. Keating had taken it to the Tax Summit as his preferred policy “Option C”. Lacking meaningful policies of his own, Keating won the 93 election on a platform of opposing the GST and could not engage in reform as a result. In the aftermath of the 93 election, Howard said never ever to a GST. Then, during government, cabinet and treasury looked at the indirect taxation mess and concluded that the GST was the optimal policy. They could have done several things at this point. They could have done nothing, and focused on holding onto power, as Keating had done. They could have dressed it up as a VAT. Or they could have just introduced it with their majority. Instead, Howard gave a speech where he plainly recognised that he had said never, and said he had made a mistake, and his conviction was it was the right policy. He then called an early election, in full knowledge that he was bad in the polls, and made the GST cause the centrepiece of that campaign. This was the greatest act of political courage and decency of our lifetime. They risked everything on that conviction. Costello then ran a meticulous publicity campaign in which he made not a single mistake to open ground to the rerun of the ALP scare campaign. Against those odds, the Coalition won the election and made the reform, which now has bipartisan support. But if you think there was a better reform to the indirect tax system available, let’s hear it.

unethical_ban 7mo ago

Everything in paragraph 3 onward is sensible.

fud101 7mo ago

I find this quite interesting. Am left leaning myself but I am aware you can do left right (eg current Australian govt) and left wrong (NZ always) - why is that?

sys_64738 7mo ago

She's shown herself to be the biggest hypocrite of them all by fleeing the very country's policies she enacted.