y'knowthatguy

y'knowthatguy

@yknowthatguy.bsky.social

Social Democrat | NZ Politics | Graphic Design | TTRPGs | Choir | Mostly interested in the welfare state and universalism

119 followers203 following233 posts

y'knowthatguy reposted

#nzpol National's latest scare tactic has been claiming 'Labour will tax households an additional $2,263.' Read my article to find out why they're either completely dishonest or stupid. Labour’s ‘Hidden Tax Bill’ is 1% of what National claims it is yknowthatjournalist.substack.com/p/labours-hi...

yknowthatjournalist.substack.comLabour’s ‘Hidden Tax Bill’ is 1% of what National claims it isNational’s $2,263 Claim is Full of Holes

y'knowthatguy reposted

In 2025 (less than 30 days away), PayPal will start selling your transaction history for targeted advertising. I very highly recommend logging into your account and going to Settings > Data & Privacy > Personalized Shopping. If you're reading this, turn that off RIGHT NOW before you forget.

Some thing I would add to the Greens' new plan (including their other policies)? #nzpol -Free/Further Discounted Public Transport -A plan to further reduce free carbon credits -Reconsider moving from the ETS to a border-adjusted carbon tax -Consider a carbon dividend -Expand Warming-Up-Homes

How can the policies in the Greens' new plan improve? #nzpol -Return agricultural ETS revenue to regions/provide double credits to methane reducing activities -Be more open to or at least about GE R&D -Consider a different tax mechanism for the Clean Car Discount -Reconsider the Jobs Guarantee

-Green infrastructure plan:✅ -Agriculture in the ETS:✅, though an idea I might push is to use the revenue to provide additional credits for agricultural emissions reduction -Clean Car Discount:✅, but the revenue mechanism could be more elegant -Green Jobs Guarantee:❔, highly highly skeptical #nzpol

On the jobs guarantee, there are nearly 150,000 unemployed and rising, so I'm just skeptical how even a Green government will be able to fund close to that much well-paying, green, and productive labour, especially since their infrastructure promises clearly won't come 100% from the unemployed.

Let's say half (~75,000) get a green job at a cost of ~$100,000 each (including all costs, which is quite generous). That's roughly ~$7.5b that mostly won't go into infrastructure, health, education, etc, because of the lack of those particular skills; half of their tax plan revenue gone.

-Green infrastructure plan:✅ -Agriculture in the ETS:✅, though an idea I might push is to use the revenue to provide additional credits for agricultural emissions reduction -Clean Car Discount:✅, but the revenue mechanism could be more elegant -Green Jobs Guarantee:❔, highly highly skeptical #nzpol

Targeting the Kiwisaver Tax Credit: ❌ You know me, I don't like means-testing, and this is basically another 3% tax on income above $48,000, but it's even worse because it deducts from people's retirement savings, but it's worse again because it's not actually a tax and is therefore less efficient

Abolishing the R&D Tax Credit: ❌ Call it 'corporate welfare' if you'd like but if we're of the belief that welfare is a good thing, that R&D is a risky but potentially incredibly economically beneficial activity in the long-term, and that we want more of it, then this just isn't the right policy

Restoring Interest Deductibility: ❌ As with National, this shouldn't be a priority given the current conditions and policies around housing, and while it would likely put a bit of downward pressure on rents, it wouldn't incentivize building because new builds could still otherwise deduct interest.

Carbon Tax Refund: ❔ As with National's climate dividend, I'd need to know more about ETS economics to see whether it would have a real impact on net emissions. I tend towards 'good policy' though since refunding taxes on carbon to everyone seems to improve support for the program.

Low-And-Middle-Income Tax Credit: ❌ They don't show how this works right now, but it works like an EITC, which sucks. Further, it's not shown on the graph, but because the LMITC is deducted at 8%, the marginal rate for between $48000 and $58000 increases to 25.5% only with taxes, which also sucks.

GST-Sharing on New Builds with Local Councils: ✅ Very underrated policy I wish other parties would pick up. Basically, half of the GST collected on new housing builds would go to councils, incentivizing them to consent more housing, which is great, and also deals with ongoing council budget issues.

Flattening the Income Tax Scale: ❌ Y'know I'm actually in favor of this in theory, but only insofar as it raises MORE revenue and insofar as that revenue is distributed out in the form of transfers, making it actually more progressive overall. Of course, this isn't the case for ACT's policy.

Some Republicans will call this or that social program socialist and other Republicans will deny that the Nordics are socialist simply based on their social programs but rather are 'market economies.' (2/3)

And on the other hand, some Democrats will deny that this or that social program is socialist, and other Democrats will praise the Nordics as being paragons of socialism simply based on their social programs.

View full thread

GST of Fresh and Frozen Fruit and Veg: ❌ If you've ever heard an economist on the news talking about this, you probably know why this isn't a great policy. Complex, not super progressive, and there are many higher quality proposals both for cost of living and for incentivizing healthy eating.

I think people too often emphasis, 'it just benefits the supermarkets/corporates.' First, I prefer using more neutral language (it won't be fully passed on). Second, study econ for a day and you'll find that any policy that supports the consumption of a good benefits both the supplier and consumer.

Working for Families Increases: ✅ Not much to talk about with the new Labour party. The increases to Working for Families they proposed without increasing phase-out rates were fairly good, progressive proposals. Similar reasoning to National's WFF proposals

#nzpol Any of you ever heard of the parabole of the blind men and the elephant? I'm considering making a political cartoon about that, but with politicians (or party voters?) as the blindmen and the issue of housing as the elephant.

View full thread

National ditched the MDRS (cringe) and emphasises greenfields development. I'm concerned about the urban limit of all the cities, but the NPS-UD ultimately delivers very little on density, and I find that density really needs to be the major focus if we want a more egalitarian housing solution.

GST-Sharing on new builds to local councils is actually a really underrated policy of ACT, I hope they suggest expanding it to other consents, but their insistence on expanding the power of neighborhoods to block development (and as such, their opposition to the MDRS) I find distasteful.

#nzpol Any of you ever heard of the parabole of the blind men and the elephant? I'm considering making a political cartoon about that, but with politicians (or party voters?) as the blindmen and the issue of housing as the elephant.

Labour's all about social housing, which National criticizes as 'the small sliver of housing at the top.' Of course, social housing is very important, we could consider the homeless as that 'sliver,' and the MDRS is an A+ change, but I think that Labour misses it on NZ's core consenting structure.