Predict the outcomes of these policies

[Elrohir]

Two policies have been promoted by parties in the run-up to New Zealand elections. The fact that its in New Zealand doesn't matter - I am interested in seeing what the forward-thinking of you believe will happen to any society that introduces these.

Policy 1:
Interest on student loans dropped from 7% to 0%, for anyone who, on graduating, remains in the country (the interest kicks-in again if they leave).

Policy 2:
Substantial welfare payments to families (and solo parents) who are working and have children. The more children you have, the more you get. Even people earning well-above the average wage qualify for these hand-outs. People with no children get nothing.


So - think ahead to the economy in general, the social impacts etc.

1. Average education level will rise and your economy will experience incrased growth from a more educated workforce and increased productivity. I think this one is a good idea.

2. Your population increases dramatically as your economy stumbles and inflationion runs off the charts as your government prints more and more money to pay for all those handouts. This is a dangerous idea, and one that I do not think is a good one. Be careful if you try this, it's a gamble between increased population and productivity and the massive amounts of money you'll be handing out. (Unless, of course, it's just a little money, in which case I don't think much of anything will happen)

 

[Mountain-God]

2. Your population increases dramatically as your economy stumbles and inflationion runs off the charts as your government prints more and more money to pay for all those handouts. This is a dangerous idea, and one that I do not think is a good one. Be careful if you try this, it's a gamble between increased population and productivity and the massive amounts of money you'll be handing out. (Unless, of course, it's just a little money, in which case I don't think much of anything will happen)

New Zealand has had such a system in place for at least a decade - the new proposal increases spending by about NZ$1billion/US$500,000.

One issue often complained about is the relatively high cost of infrastructure, given the population - one reason so many government people seem so hot about immigration and increasing birth-rates.

It's my impression about 20% of the population was born outside and emmigrated in the last 10-15 years...

 

[ainwood]

AINWOOD

Regarding your sig, I wonder at the reference to election bribes - I've also wondered at NZFirst and National crying the same thing - but isn't that just par for the course? Every party has it's election 'bribes'...

I refer to them as bribes for a couple of reasons:

There was no lolly-scramble like this at the last election - and at that time Labour was a shoe-in (Nats got waht - 20%).

At the May budget, Cullen proclaimed that there was no money for tax cuts - all they could afford was $0.67 a week in 3 years time. Suddenly, Nats poll better on tax cuts and he magically finds billions - and along with it an increase in popularity.[/list]

National at least have stuck to their original policies, and not changed them within the last month since the election (although we'll wait and see what come from the tax policy announcement tomorrow).

 

[ainwood]

New Zealand has had such a system in place for at least a decade - the new proposal increases spending by about NZ$1billion/US$500,000.

...Based on the current population / family structure. Do you think its aoofrdable going-forward? Will it encourage people to have more children? If not, why not? If so, which demographics will have the children - the ones that carefully weigh the pros and cons of having children, or the ones that just look at the dollar signs on the 'tax relief'?

Whilst important, these children are a cost to the country in the short-term - and politicians only ever think 1 - 2 years ahead!

 

[Aphex_Twin]

- and politicians only ever think 1 - 2 years ahead!

You are either giving them too much credit or NZ politicians are quite far-reaching intellectuals

 

[IglooDame]

Ainwood, what is the state of population/growth/emigration/immigration in New Zealand right now? It is tough to address the second question without knowing if it is a solution looking for a problem.

 

[Mountain-God]

I refer to them as bribes for a couple of reasons:

There was no lolly-scramble like this at the last election - and at that time Labour was a shoe-in (Nats got waht - 20%).

At the May budget, Cullen proclaimed that there was no money for tax cuts - all they could afford was $0.67 a week in 3 years time. Suddenly, Nats poll better on tax cuts and he magically finds billions - and along with it an increase in popularity.[/list]

National at least have stuck to their original policies, and not changed them within the last month since the election (although we'll wait and see what come from the tax policy announcement tomorrow).

1. My impression would be that whilst previous elections people were willing to take a little discomfort, the economy is now clearly doing well - we rightly expect something for 'our sacrifice' - given the size of the surplus, it seems inevitable that this should become something of a lolly scramble.

I don't think Labour is doing less well now for any other reason that people are expecting some 'return' and are considering what they want for Christmas.

2. It's a bad time for thinking hard - I do recall that a couple of National's policies have changed, but not what they were - irritating.

3. My concern with national is what I see as particularly short-sighted policies - that in the end cost us more. Also, it seems to me they've promised tax cuts a few times in the past, but failed to deliver on those promises. Also, that they've been caught asking for US assistance toward manipulating the public...

4. My was more for the extremity - not as a 'what a dumb thing to say'. I don't think their is a huge risk of children being born for the tax relief they imply - the 'relief' is simply too small.

5. I'm not really pro-labour, as I tend to be against the seeming tendency to expand government - the suggestion of a 'bloating socialist state' - although, at this stage I think that term too extreme. Conversly, I don't think National a safe bet - as I perceive them as more an 'all for one and one for one' kind of party.

Thank goodness for multi-part politics - and no longer being shackled to the two party system - I'd be more likely to vote Act than National...

6. Recalling earlier, I would like to see the introduction of a 10%/$10,000 tax bracket, benefitting everyone, as we can afford it, but which impacts the less fortunate disproportionally.

IGLOODUDE
I think immigration is something like 40,000 per year.
The European population/birthrate is tending to reduce each year.

 

[Elrohir]

New Zealand has had such a system in place for at least a decade - the new proposal increases spending by about NZ$1billion/US$500,000.

One issue often complained about is the relatively high cost of infrastructure, given the population - one reason so many government people seem so hot about immigration and increasing birth-rates.

It's my impression about 20% of the population was born outside and emmigrated in the last 10-15 years...

(Unless, of course, it's just a little money, in which case I don't think much of anything will happen)

I don't like having to quote myself. As I said in my original post, if it is only a little bit of money (And when you're working with the government, half a million is a little bit) then it's going to be largely ineffective and will merely waste some money.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Tried to do this without reading through, so if it is the same forgive me.

Policy 1:
Interest on student loans dropped from 7% to 0%, for anyone who, on graduating, remains in the country (the interest kicks-in again if they leave).

Well, can't see it stopping people from leaving much. If they are leaving for more money it will probably cover the difference. Also, it will significantly increase student loans. It is basically a gift as one can earn a little interest in a savings account, if one were smart enough to save it.

Policy 2: Substantial welfare payments to families (and solo parents) who are working and have children. The more children you have, the more you get. Even people earning well-above the average wage qualify for these hand-outs. People with no children get nothing.

I'd have to guess this is in reaction to an aging population and reduced birth rates. However, this will not encourage the middle class to have more kids. DINKs will be DINKs and I'm sure it can't make up the difference for them. It would be nice for my family, as we took the economic hit for my wife to stay home a few years with the kids. But we made the decision anyway. This is a dumb policy. Now, paying parents who stay home to raise kids (but not those still working unless they are a single parent) may encourage some to stay home.

 

[Mountain-God]

I don't like having to quote myself. As I said in my original post, if it is only a little bit of money (And when you're working with the government, half a million is a little bit) then it's going to be largely ineffective and will merely waste some money.

No kidding - I said in an earlier post that I think the affect will be minimal – actually, I’ve said it twice.

4. My was more for the extremity - not as a 'what a dumb thing to say'. I don't think their is a huge risk of children being born for the tax relief they imply - the 'relief' is simply too small.

Relax, no hassles.

 

[Mountain-God]

... Now, paying parents who stay home to raise kids (but not those still working unless they are a single parent) may encourage some to stay home.

Fewer children spending 50+ hours p/w in childcare/education facilities - or at least greater choice for the parents, but, then given the cost of those facilities, it seems they've already made it...