The Act Party ends the year on 9.6% in an average of the last public polls, a moderate gain on its 2023 election result of 8.64% but still a strong result considering the poor track record of minor parties in MMP, and a testimony to the high profile enjoyed by its leader David Seymour and his Treaty Principles Bill.
The long neoliberal con: The Regulatory Standards Bill is another attempt by Act leader David Seymour to prioritise corporations over the collective rights and good of the public
I abhor the antics of Act, and all they stand for! I see my country as under serious threat from an unprincipled greedy minority ! The majority of the populace seem unable to discern the threat Act is establishing to our basic way of life, and to the people the taonga, and our mana! Thank you for enlightening us so far….Bryce, we need you!👍🌟
Oh no! Help! If their bills pass and become law, we might just be prosperous, have a society based on solid liberal principles, and be less reliant on the government! Yikes!
I am not being sarcastic. I am expressing a legitimate opinion based on study of political science and philosophy (to the bachelor's level) and economics (to the PhD level)
Firstly "political science" is an oxymoron. Politics is an art form. Science plays little part in it. Secondly if your PhD is in neo-liberal economics then your comments are understandable. This economic theory is slowly destroying the world's financial systems.
I noticed you said that ACT policies support business and industry. Is that a bad thing ? and are you anti business and anti industry ? We are seeing businesses and industries shutting around the country, and I thought it was the govts job to support that kind of employment. Arent all those people voters Bryce, just like you ?
Andrew Hoggard was the President of Federated Farmers and a farmer. He represented farming interests. If that’s your definition of a lobbyist then we’re in Alice Land. And Act is led by professional politicians? Compared to Labour’s amateurs, is that what you mean?
"The full cost of the policy is estimated at $2.9 billion over a four-year period, and this amount has haunted National all year, as they made cuts to public spending, healthcare and Dunedin hospital, the opposition repeatedly confronted them with the high cost of Act’s interest deductibility policy. Christopher Luxon argued that this change would increase downward pressure on rents, but rental costs have continued to increase this year."
As an economist, there is much more to this than will ever be in the public eye.
The first, and most important thing, is that it was never credible that Labour's policy would last the change of government, and the government was highly likely to change when the policy went in.
Investors are forward looking, so they barely, if at all, changed their behaviour in response to Labour's policy.
Most investors simply ate the losses while waiting patiently for the law to change back. It was getting phased in for existing properties anyway, and is now getting phased out.
It should be clear however, that if Labour had won the election two things would have happened:
1) rents would have risen sharply, to cover the costs of the policy that can no longer be temporarily looked through,
2) construction of new builds would have fallen as investors leave the market*,
3) rental shortages would have increased sharply, as investors left the market,
4) accommodation that tends to be purchased as either FHB or rentals would have experienced a slight fall in price, though not much as owner-occupiers tend to outbid investors.
The net result would have been an absolute catastrophe for renters, and a small win for FHBs. Throw the poor under the bus to help out the YOPROs. Pretty classic 21st century labour policy... Built on vibes for the middle class.
Tbh I think they put it in place knowing it was a terrible policy, knowing it would be removed, and knowing in doing so they would have had 'tax cuts for landlords' ammunition for at least a term. It's pretty genius to be honest, if the market thinks its going to be almost certainly removed, then you don't even suffer the consequences!
*I know the policy didn't apply to new builds directly, but the price you can sell something for in the primary market is directly related to the price the person you sell it to can then onsell it for in the secondary market. That price has fallen with removal of interest deductibility.
"rental shortages would have increased sharply, as investors left the market" - how does that work? If a house is no longer a rental wouldn't it be sold and become a former renter's house?
I'm reading a book on Hitler and the Nazi Party. ACT's behavior models that of, and the sort of individuals and business interests, attracted to the Nazi Party.
The long neoliberal con: The Regulatory Standards Bill is another attempt by Act leader David Seymour to prioritise corporations over the collective rights and good of the public
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/12/18/the-long-neoliberal-con/
https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/the-dangerous-bill-flying-under-the-radar/
https://melanienelson.substack.com/p/regulatory-bill-emeritus-professor
I abhor the antics of Act, and all they stand for! I see my country as under serious threat from an unprincipled greedy minority ! The majority of the populace seem unable to discern the threat Act is establishing to our basic way of life, and to the people the taonga, and our mana! Thank you for enlightening us so far….Bryce, we need you!👍🌟
Oh no! Help! If their bills pass and become law, we might just be prosperous, have a society based on solid liberal principles, and be less reliant on the government! Yikes!
such delusion
Thank you for your insightful and constructive comment /s
Now who's being sarcastic? I despair at the rise of rotten libertarianism.
I am not being sarcastic. I am expressing a legitimate opinion based on study of political science and philosophy (to the bachelor's level) and economics (to the PhD level)
Firstly "political science" is an oxymoron. Politics is an art form. Science plays little part in it. Secondly if your PhD is in neo-liberal economics then your comments are understandable. This economic theory is slowly destroying the world's financial systems.
The unprincipled greedy minority is represented by the Maori Party quite well.
I noticed you said that ACT policies support business and industry. Is that a bad thing ? and are you anti business and anti industry ? We are seeing businesses and industries shutting around the country, and I thought it was the govts job to support that kind of employment. Arent all those people voters Bryce, just like you ?
It is a bad thing when it is supporting businesses to lower wages and conditions and to rape and pillage our resources and natural environment.
No comment on the Regulatory Standards Bill?
Gosh I am excited for this. If it sticks we've got the foundation for a prosperous society.
That's the one to watch. Quietly under the radar!
Andrew Hoggard was the President of Federated Farmers and a farmer. He represented farming interests. If that’s your definition of a lobbyist then we’re in Alice Land. And Act is led by professional politicians? Compared to Labour’s amateurs, is that what you mean?
"The full cost of the policy is estimated at $2.9 billion over a four-year period, and this amount has haunted National all year, as they made cuts to public spending, healthcare and Dunedin hospital, the opposition repeatedly confronted them with the high cost of Act’s interest deductibility policy. Christopher Luxon argued that this change would increase downward pressure on rents, but rental costs have continued to increase this year."
As an economist, there is much more to this than will ever be in the public eye.
The first, and most important thing, is that it was never credible that Labour's policy would last the change of government, and the government was highly likely to change when the policy went in.
Investors are forward looking, so they barely, if at all, changed their behaviour in response to Labour's policy.
Most investors simply ate the losses while waiting patiently for the law to change back. It was getting phased in for existing properties anyway, and is now getting phased out.
It should be clear however, that if Labour had won the election two things would have happened:
1) rents would have risen sharply, to cover the costs of the policy that can no longer be temporarily looked through,
2) construction of new builds would have fallen as investors leave the market*,
3) rental shortages would have increased sharply, as investors left the market,
4) accommodation that tends to be purchased as either FHB or rentals would have experienced a slight fall in price, though not much as owner-occupiers tend to outbid investors.
The net result would have been an absolute catastrophe for renters, and a small win for FHBs. Throw the poor under the bus to help out the YOPROs. Pretty classic 21st century labour policy... Built on vibes for the middle class.
Tbh I think they put it in place knowing it was a terrible policy, knowing it would be removed, and knowing in doing so they would have had 'tax cuts for landlords' ammunition for at least a term. It's pretty genius to be honest, if the market thinks its going to be almost certainly removed, then you don't even suffer the consequences!
*I know the policy didn't apply to new builds directly, but the price you can sell something for in the primary market is directly related to the price the person you sell it to can then onsell it for in the secondary market. That price has fallen with removal of interest deductibility.
"rental shortages would have increased sharply, as investors left the market" - how does that work? If a house is no longer a rental wouldn't it be sold and become a former renter's house?
Bryce, your column seems to have been captured by a bunch of rabid libertarians.
I'm reading a book on Hitler and the Nazi Party. ACT's behavior models that of, and the sort of individuals and business interests, attracted to the Nazi Party.