0 Labour can only spend it once

We blogged last week about Bill English's insight to Parliament during Tuesday's Question Time. That insight was that Labour had factored in the proceeds of the partial asset sales it opposed so vehemently into the party's alternative budget, and the money was going to be spent. Here's what Mr English said to Parliament:

Hon BILL ENGLISH : I have seen reports from an unlikely source: an alternative budget that was issued in the last week or two. The reports indicate that this alternative approach to the Government’s finances will continue the current Government’s approach of using proceeds from the share offer programme. The Opposition budget includes the $4.7 billion proceeds from the asset sales being spent on public assets, which was rather a surprise given that they had spent 4 years vigorously opposing the policy.

Now we realise with Labour policy, the final policy bears little resemblance to what is first released. And this is no exception; TVNZ reports:

Labour would look at buying back state assets on a "case-by-case" basis, says the party's leader David Cunliffe.
"We may well, and we would like to," Mr Cunliffe told TVNZ's Q+A this morning.
"And we will take opportunities as they arise and there'll be more to say about that issue between now and the election I promise you," he added.

Is it any wonder that David Cunliffe is being mocked for his "yeah,  nah" pronouncements on policy issues?  He can only spend the money in the Future Investment Fund established by National once. And Labour's alternative budget has already accounted for that.

Does David Cunliffe not realise that he can only spend that money once? Either it is part of spending which Labour has already committed to in its alternative budget, or it is available to buy back the minority shareholding in SOE's. But it cannot be both.

It looks as though David Cunliffe is heading towards a similar moment to that which sunk Phil Goff in 2011, whilst Labour continues to promise to spend up large like drunken sailors:

0 Why $150,000?

The Labour Party has put out its alternative budget today. And as Stuff reports, higher income earners are in for a rude shock:

Labour confirms that high earners will pay a new top tax band, although it is lower than it proposed in 2011.
In its alternative Budget presented today, the party said that if elected it would charge those who earned over $150,000 a year 36 cents in the dollar. Currently the top tax bracket is 33c in the dollar for income over $70,000 dollars a year.
In 2011 it proposed charging top earners 39c in the dollar. Based on Treasury figures, the difference between this year's policy and that of 2011 is that it would raise $246.6 million less in income tax for the Treasury. 

Excuse our cynicism, but we don't reckon that Labour's choice of the cut-in point of the new tax rate is any accident. You see, back-bench MP's earn a base salary of $147,800, so Labour's policy would purposefully exclude them.

You may remember back to January when Labour unveiled its baby bribe bonus. The threshold for that was $150,000 too, so what Labour is effectively saying is that if you are a back-bench MP you'll get welfare under Labour, but you won't have to pay any extra tax. $150,000 per annum is clearly the new rich; dare to earn above that, and Labour wants a cut of the action.

Once again, Labour seems to be looking after its own; its own MP's that is. Thank goodness that, on current polling, Labour's chances of winning the Treasury Benches this year are on a par with England's chances of winning the FIFA World Cup!


Disclaimer: For those who think this may be personal, we don't earn anywhere near $150,000 per annum; chance would be a fine thing.