This year the Taxpayers’ Union is campaigning to keep Labour out of government while helping supply the news through which voters understand the election.
I always smirk when I read about "wasteful public spending". In local government this is a frequent cry. "Experts" spout on about the millions wasted. When challenged about what they would cut, the answer is I seldom heard an answer that at the Council table wasn't already under scrutiny. The key issue is we need more taxes. How many people need to die in A & E waiting rooms? How many people have to wait to see their local doctor for an unnecessarily long period? How long before Roads of National ( Party) significance continue to remain unscrutinized by hand wringers like Simeon Brown? When will lobbyists and party funders be scrutinized properly? While we allow the TPU to continue stirring the pot major questions will remain unasked, and unanswered; because they don't want us ordinary voters to look at them and their funders.
I see wasteful local and central government spending all the time. Merely between duplication and the use of open cheque book expensive consultant/experts (who are not experts and recreate the wheel....and charge for it) to contract out liability and expensive consultation for the sake of consultation, last year would have been over 50 million for the small part I am exposed to. The government employee's do not value tax dollars it would appear. One very recent example is a positive sign that someone in there is starting to think as a large consulting company quoted 9 people 4 - 6 weeks to do up some drawings. These fully engineered drawings were completed in 38.5 hours by a single (very well industry qualified and experienced) person. This is the first time this has happened in 20 years.....
Where can we save the money you ask.....if you extrapolate out what I see there are literally hundreds of millions (if not billions) a year in savings available without getting rid of a single competent government employee. I fear that what I personally witness is only the tip of the iceberg.
The MSM became lobbyists the moment they accessed the PIJF as they signed up to receive money with conditions on how or what they could and couldn't report. I take it you were not happy with them signing up to that as well?
We do not need more taxes - we need better standards and accountability of our Public Service employee's and the management of the public service need to spend less time on pastoral care and more on acceptable performance standards and accountability.
As Jarrod has not replied to my query above, I agree that in any organization it is possible to find unnecessary expenditure. I also agree that the expenditure on supposed independent consultants. This is often caused by public servants wanting to not be done over by elected reps and so relying on the cushion of "we-didn't-write-this". I suspect the most disgusting over-expenditure in the public arena would have to be on IT.
On the day MBIE admits it didn’t just spend $30 million, or $40 million on an IT project that delivered absolutely nothing, but $50.7 million, while lying to Parliament about it, I think that qualifies as wasted spending and then some, don’t you Garry?
Yes it does qualify as a dreadful waste of money. But I also would expect the head of MBIE and the staff member responsible for this project to resign, I think the State Services Commissioner should join them. To not do so demonstrates a total loss of ethics in the public service, in my opinion.
Good scrutiny, Bryce. I'd add the myth sitting under their whole operation, the one in the name.
"Taxpayers' money" isn't quite the thing they claim. A currency issuer spends first and taxes after. Tax doesn't fund the spending, it manages demand. So the premise that the government is spending "your money," and that cutting it hands you a refund, is the household myth they keep promulgating in all their propaganda.
And that $35bn "waste" cut? Government spending is someone's income. Remove $35bn and you haven't saved taxpayers a cent. You've deleted $35bn of private-sector income, wages and contracts that get spent in the shops.
The trick is the word "taxpayer." Everyone's cast as a taxpayer being robbed, never as the patient or pensioner who relies on the spending. Same person, both sides of the ledger. Name one side, hide the other.
Furthermore, cutting government expenditure takes money out of the private sector rather than 'leaving people with more to choose what they do with'. To maintain a given size of economy, that shortfall in government expenditure=private earnings must be made up by loans from banks. Therein lies the rub of who truly wins from public sector spending cuts. If people decline to borrow, the economy goes into recession. So, for the public, it's a lose-lose situation- unless you happen to be a bank shareholder.
Every dollar spent by central and local government is on the behalf of the tax payer. Therefore taxpayer money.
Every dollar borrowed by central and local government is paid back by the tax payer.
Someone has to create wealth and be productive to contribute to the government coffers via taxes......so it is all tax payer money whether spent before or after it is recieved.
You will be shocked to learn the Aotearoa New Zealand is a sovereign currency issuer and that someone has sold you a myth "it is all tax payer money whether spent before or after it is received".
The Union is a voluntary membership outfit with a stated agenda. Nobody has to join, fund it, or agree with it. Members join because they want lower taxes and less waste, and they can leave any time. That's the accountability mechanism for a private advocacy group. Party-style donor disclosure exists because parties contest elections as institutions and form governments. It surely doesn't follow that every campaign group has to operate like one.
On the wealth tax figure, if the Union's working is wrong, show where. That's a fair challenge and TPU should be prepared to respond.
I'm often critical of the Union myself. Typically they reply to such comments, no need for OIA requests. No need to be a member even, and of course voters can judge the arguments on their merits.
They are comparable certainly, though I would argue that they are not specifically lobbying to change the result of the election if they are arguing for the same values as they have always done and against policies that don't appear to satisfy those values regardless of who is in power.
Unions certainly are out to change the government.
The other organisations have moved further left (good old Rusty's work) and gone away from advocating for their purpose and now have a political edge. Once you start down the political line, organising protests etc, you are involved.
Hagar is a gotcha expose writer who only ever writes about one side and is as bias as they come.
The Taxpayer Union resembles these organisations aside from the honest statement of intent they made. The TU's sole purpose is not the election.
The report is that in this election the Taxpayer Union’s aim is to make sure Labour does not get into power - that seems to me to be lobbying for a particular election result. To be fair there are other organisations campaigning to make this coalition government a one term government. All should be subject to disclosure of donors on the same terms as political parties are required to.
The TPU is offering opinion on policies, not acting as a party proxy. The fact that its opinions align with what some voters might choose to do on election day doesn't make it a party promoter. It makes it an advocacy group doing exactly what advocacy groups do.
It is an advocacy group that can legally spend over $400,000 trying to influence the election. It is only reasonable that it should be required to reveal its donors to the same extent that any political party is required to.
The TPU describes itself as a 'union' of New Zealanders, and its mission is framed as representing 'the common interests of all taxpayers'. Calling it an 'advocacy group' is a way of slotting it into a category that fits the donor-disclosure argument, but it's not the category the TPU claims for itself. It has been especially tough on National's spending policies, and would no doubt engage in similar critique with respect to any party's tax policies. That's not the behaviour of a party proxy. It's the behaviour of a membership organisation with a consistent position.
I always smirk when I read about "wasteful public spending". In local government this is a frequent cry. "Experts" spout on about the millions wasted. When challenged about what they would cut, the answer is I seldom heard an answer that at the Council table wasn't already under scrutiny. The key issue is we need more taxes. How many people need to die in A & E waiting rooms? How many people have to wait to see their local doctor for an unnecessarily long period? How long before Roads of National ( Party) significance continue to remain unscrutinized by hand wringers like Simeon Brown? When will lobbyists and party funders be scrutinized properly? While we allow the TPU to continue stirring the pot major questions will remain unasked, and unanswered; because they don't want us ordinary voters to look at them and their funders.
I see wasteful local and central government spending all the time. Merely between duplication and the use of open cheque book expensive consultant/experts (who are not experts and recreate the wheel....and charge for it) to contract out liability and expensive consultation for the sake of consultation, last year would have been over 50 million for the small part I am exposed to. The government employee's do not value tax dollars it would appear. One very recent example is a positive sign that someone in there is starting to think as a large consulting company quoted 9 people 4 - 6 weeks to do up some drawings. These fully engineered drawings were completed in 38.5 hours by a single (very well industry qualified and experienced) person. This is the first time this has happened in 20 years.....
Where can we save the money you ask.....if you extrapolate out what I see there are literally hundreds of millions (if not billions) a year in savings available without getting rid of a single competent government employee. I fear that what I personally witness is only the tip of the iceberg.
The MSM became lobbyists the moment they accessed the PIJF as they signed up to receive money with conditions on how or what they could and couldn't report. I take it you were not happy with them signing up to that as well?
We do not need more taxes - we need better standards and accountability of our Public Service employee's and the management of the public service need to spend less time on pastoral care and more on acceptable performance standards and accountability.
Before I reply could you flesh out who MSM is and what PIJF is?
As Jarrod has not replied to my query above, I agree that in any organization it is possible to find unnecessary expenditure. I also agree that the expenditure on supposed independent consultants. This is often caused by public servants wanting to not be done over by elected reps and so relying on the cushion of "we-didn't-write-this". I suspect the most disgusting over-expenditure in the public arena would have to be on IT.
On the day MBIE admits it didn’t just spend $30 million, or $40 million on an IT project that delivered absolutely nothing, but $50.7 million, while lying to Parliament about it, I think that qualifies as wasted spending and then some, don’t you Garry?
Yes it does qualify as a dreadful waste of money. But I also would expect the head of MBIE and the staff member responsible for this project to resign, I think the State Services Commissioner should join them. To not do so demonstrates a total loss of ethics in the public service, in my opinion.
Good scrutiny, Bryce. I'd add the myth sitting under their whole operation, the one in the name.
"Taxpayers' money" isn't quite the thing they claim. A currency issuer spends first and taxes after. Tax doesn't fund the spending, it manages demand. So the premise that the government is spending "your money," and that cutting it hands you a refund, is the household myth they keep promulgating in all their propaganda.
And that $35bn "waste" cut? Government spending is someone's income. Remove $35bn and you haven't saved taxpayers a cent. You've deleted $35bn of private-sector income, wages and contracts that get spent in the shops.
The trick is the word "taxpayer." Everyone's cast as a taxpayer being robbed, never as the patient or pensioner who relies on the spending. Same person, both sides of the ledger. Name one side, hide the other.
Furthermore, cutting government expenditure takes money out of the private sector rather than 'leaving people with more to choose what they do with'. To maintain a given size of economy, that shortfall in government expenditure=private earnings must be made up by loans from banks. Therein lies the rub of who truly wins from public sector spending cuts. If people decline to borrow, the economy goes into recession. So, for the public, it's a lose-lose situation- unless you happen to be a bank shareholder.
Every dollar spent by central and local government is on the behalf of the tax payer. Therefore taxpayer money.
Every dollar borrowed by central and local government is paid back by the tax payer.
Someone has to create wealth and be productive to contribute to the government coffers via taxes......so it is all tax payer money whether spent before or after it is recieved.
You will be shocked to learn the Aotearoa New Zealand is a sovereign currency issuer and that someone has sold you a myth "it is all tax payer money whether spent before or after it is received".
You will be shocked to learn that that is a myth or we wouldn't be paying 9 billion a year in debt servicing.
Under your logic a country would not accumulate debt for any reason because they can just print more money.
Venezuela or Zimbabwe anyone?
Sovereign currency issuing governments spend new money into existence. And have been doing so for decades. That is the reality.
So explain the difference between creating wealth and transferring wealth and why we seem to encourage the latter?
The Union is a voluntary membership outfit with a stated agenda. Nobody has to join, fund it, or agree with it. Members join because they want lower taxes and less waste, and they can leave any time. That's the accountability mechanism for a private advocacy group. Party-style donor disclosure exists because parties contest elections as institutions and form governments. It surely doesn't follow that every campaign group has to operate like one.
On the wealth tax figure, if the Union's working is wrong, show where. That's a fair challenge and TPU should be prepared to respond.
I'm often critical of the Union myself. Typically they reply to such comments, no need for OIA requests. No need to be a member even, and of course voters can judge the arguments on their merits.
Any registered party lobbying during an election campaign should be subject to the same donor declaration rules as political parties.
So that would include Forest and Bird, Greenpeace, Unions and Nicky Hagar to name a few. All are lobbying to change the result of the election.
They are comparable certainly, though I would argue that they are not specifically lobbying to change the result of the election if they are arguing for the same values as they have always done and against policies that don't appear to satisfy those values regardless of who is in power.
Unions certainly are out to change the government.
The other organisations have moved further left (good old Rusty's work) and gone away from advocating for their purpose and now have a political edge. Once you start down the political line, organising protests etc, you are involved.
Hagar is a gotcha expose writer who only ever writes about one side and is as bias as they come.
The Taxpayer Union resembles these organisations aside from the honest statement of intent they made. The TU's sole purpose is not the election.
The report is that in this election the Taxpayer Union’s aim is to make sure Labour does not get into power - that seems to me to be lobbying for a particular election result. To be fair there are other organisations campaigning to make this coalition government a one term government. All should be subject to disclosure of donors on the same terms as political parties are required to.
Yep, we agree on that, except Nicky Hager is an investigative journalist not a lobbying group.
The TPU is offering opinion on policies, not acting as a party proxy. The fact that its opinions align with what some voters might choose to do on election day doesn't make it a party promoter. It makes it an advocacy group doing exactly what advocacy groups do.
It is an advocacy group that can legally spend over $400,000 trying to influence the election. It is only reasonable that it should be required to reveal its donors to the same extent that any political party is required to.
The TPU describes itself as a 'union' of New Zealanders, and its mission is framed as representing 'the common interests of all taxpayers'. Calling it an 'advocacy group' is a way of slotting it into a category that fits the donor-disclosure argument, but it's not the category the TPU claims for itself. It has been especially tough on National's spending policies, and would no doubt engage in similar critique with respect to any party's tax policies. That's not the behaviour of a party proxy. It's the behaviour of a membership organisation with a consistent position.