What will happen to National now?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › What will happen to National now?

1 | ... | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | ... | 111

13779 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2907093 26-Apr-2022 21:00

Ge0rge:
quickymart:

The Wairarapa train from Masterton to Wellington does well, you can take a day trip to either destination on that one, and I think (but could be wrong) the distance is similar.

Unless you want to ride a bus over the Remutaka Hill, there are only three morning trains into Wellington and three evening trains leaving. The two off peak services in either direction have been replaced by buses since January this year and, according to Metlink, will be buses "until further notice" - apparently it could be two years!

This must be a recent change, sadly I haven't been to Wellington a few years now.

quickymart

13779 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2907096 26-Apr-2022 21:15

https://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/26-04-2022/national-is-committed-to-diversity-and-inclusion-says-luxon

I recall this being a similar issue for Judith as well.

GV27

5885 posts

Uber Geek

#2907119 27-Apr-2022 06:28

quickymart:

https://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/26-04-2022/national-is-committed-to-diversity-and-inclusion-says-luxon

I recall this being a similar issue for Judith as well.

How is the Greens' 50/50 male/female gender split working out for them at the moment? They have three men and seven women in parliament.

I love how Simon Bridges being of Maori descent counts when someone wants to ream National for diversity but didn't count for anything when he was literally the actual leader of the opposition.

Many parties fall under quotas or experience diversity issues when they have a sudden drop in the number of seats they hold due to a low party vote, and the list being the primary mechanism for addressing this once the election has taken place.

sen8or

1778 posts

Uber Geek

#2907138 27-Apr-2022 08:31

GV27:

quickymart:

https://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/26-04-2022/national-is-committed-to-diversity-and-inclusion-says-luxon

I recall this being a similar issue for Judith as well.

How is the Greens' 50/50 male/female gender split working out for them at the moment? They have three men and seven women in parliament.

I love how Simon Bridges being of Maori descent counts when someone wants to ream National for diversity but didn't count for anything when he was literally the actual leader of the opposition.

Many parties fall under quotas or experience diversity issues when they have a sudden drop in the number of seats they hold due to a low party vote, and the list being the primary mechanism for addressing this once the election has taken place.

Why is there the need to have quotas or targets? Surely this just skews the makeup and potentially weakens the end result?

I couldn't care less if a party was all male, all female, multi-cultural, gender diverse vegan or carnivores, I want the best representation / talent available that suits my ideals, that it has become necessary to pacify the woke by being able to go "look at our diverse we are" is frankly a joke. Some roles will naturally lend themselves towards diversity anyway (your maori affairs minister is hardly going to be of an ethnicity other than Maori unless they have an extreme understanding of cultural issues at the same level of someone of Maori descent), same goes for Womens Affairs minister etc, but things of more gender / ethnic neutral bias (health, education, defense, finance etc) simply have to go to the most qualified person regardless of their pronoun or race.

I heard on the radio that the greens were looking to amend their 1 man 1 woman leadership policy with a 1 woman, 1 other leadership model (so gender diverse, non binary or whatever other popular term is being bandied about). Interesting that they kept it defined as 1 woman, 1 other, not 1 man, 1 other

I look on it in a similar vein to much of the wokeness going around, when does inclusion cross over to pandering?

GV27

5885 posts

Uber Geek

#2907144 27-Apr-2022 08:45

sen8or:

Why is there the need to have quotas or targets? Surely this just skews the makeup and potentially weakens the end result?

I couldn't care less if a party was all male, all female, multi-cultural, gender diverse vegan or carnivores, I want the best representation / talent available that suits my ideals, that it has become necessary to pacify the woke by being able to go "look at our diverse we are" is frankly a joke. Some roles will naturally lend themselves towards diversity anyway (your maori affairs minister is hardly going to be of an ethnicity other than Maori unless they have an extreme understanding of cultural issues at the same level of someone of Maori descent), same goes for Womens Affairs minister etc, but things of more gender / ethnic neutral bias (health, education, defense, finance etc) simply have to go to the most qualified person regardless of their pronoun or race.

Simple - you're a far more palatable proposition if you look like the population you're claiming to be speaking for.

But in as much as you're an opposition party trying to get elected with a less-than-receptive media, it's just another thing that will be held against you if you don't live up to expectations and won't matter much when you do far better with it. At this point though, that's something that National should be realistically prepared for.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18604 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2907146 27-Apr-2022 08:51

sen8or:

I look on it in a similar vein to much of the wokeness going around, when does inclusion cross over to pandering?

I think quotas are an attempt to correct in-built imbalances. For whatever reason, simple majorities have historically tended to favour the dominant culture, in this case pale male. We see this across all levels of society. Women have been historically subjugated in western society so that is being compensated. The same with indigenous people. Without some form of artificial boost, those at the bottom tend to be kept at the bottom by the dominant group that promotes its own and excludes everyone else. Quotas are clumsy and don't work well, but they are better than nothing. The idea is that eventually they will no longer be necessary.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

quickymart

13779 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2907232 27-Apr-2022 10:49

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/04/christopher-luxon-criticises-government-s-investigation-into-top-earners-says-tax-system-is-fair.html

Backblaze

Backblaze Unlimited Backup. World’s easiest cloud backup. Get peace of mind knowing your files are backed up securely in the cloud (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32246 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2907238 27-Apr-2022 11:09

quickymart:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/04/christopher-luxon-criticises-government-s-investigation-into-top-earners-says-tax-system-is-fair.html

You know, we all have internet and access to those sites. How about rather than just posting URL's you state why you are posting them and your take on it?

quickymart

13779 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2907244 27-Apr-2022 11:29

Because I tend to get shot down by National supporters like yourself, but anyway...

I don't think Luxon's tax cuts are as "fair" as he describes them. He - already rich - would get a fairly significant cut, whereas someone at the lower level - who probably needs it the most - gets far, far less.

networkn

Networkn
32246 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2907247 27-Apr-2022 11:38

quickymart:

Because I tend to get shot down by National supporters like yourself, but anyway...

I don't think Luxon's tax cuts are as "fair" as he describes them. He - already rich - would get a fairly significant cut, whereas someone at the lower level - who probably needs it the most - gets far, far less.

Well, I could say the same about being shot down by 'Labour' supporters like yourself?

If you feel strongly enough to post about a topic, you should feel strongly enough to defend your opinion on it. Otherwise, it's just a driveby.

From what I have read the proposal is 11.5% change to tax brackets, so if you earn less you are already paying less tax.

What are you proposing as an alternative? Those who have earned more over the year get less of a bump in tax bracket? Labour already introduced a wealth tax.

GV27

5885 posts

Uber Geek

#2907252 27-Apr-2022 11:46

quickymart:

I don't think Luxon's tax cuts are as "fair" as he describes them. He - already rich - would get a fairly significant cut, whereas someone at the lower level - who probably needs it the most - gets far, far less.

People who pay more in tax will benefit more from a tax rate change at the top because that's how percentages work.

Whether people getting $180K getting a tax cut is a huge vote winner or not is a different argument. It's patently not, and they seem unprepared for the very obvious blowback on it.

Wish they'd just do it the smart way and adopt income splitting or similar, that has some tangible benefits to the middle that they're supposedly looking after.

There's lot of crappy things about the 39% tax rate but I grow increasingly concerned at National's inability to credibly argue any of them.

sen8or

1778 posts

Uber Geek

#2907263 27-Apr-2022 12:00

An oldie, but for those that struggle to understand that if you don't pay much in actual $ tax, you are never going to actually benefit that much in a tax cut -

“The Tax System Explained in Beer

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer, and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes (by taxpayer decile), it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you’re all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six? How could they divide up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

The bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to suggest the new lower amounts each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (a 29% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (a 22% saving).
The tenth now paid $50 instead of $59 (a 15% saving).

The first four continued to drink for free, and the latter six were all better off than before. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the fifth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “But he got $9!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the sixth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he saved nine times more than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $9 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next day, the tenth man didn’t show up, so the other nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important: They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is friendlier.

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek

#2907654 27-Apr-2022 18:32

That anecdote often gets posted by people who would pay more tax.... your bolded section betrays its true agenda. Tax is NOT an attack on the wealthy.

Percentages work the way percentages work , and our tax system is progressive, which is why tax relief solely in the form of tax cuts is a solution in search of a problem (ie it's the wrong solution to the problem). Although that depends what your problem is...

Had to laugh at Luxon's squirming when he got interviewed by Tova on this exact topic.

tdgeek

29642 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2907658 27-Apr-2022 18:35

antonknee:

That anecdote often gets posted by people who would pay more tax.... your bolded section betrays its true agenda. Tax is NOT an attack on the wealthy.

Percentages work the way percentages work , and our tax system is progressive, which is why tax relief solely in the form of tax cuts is a solution in search of a problem (ie it's the wrong solution to the problem). Although that depends what your problem is...

Had to laugh at Luxon's squirming when he got interviewed by Tova on this exact topic.

Its about PDI. Some have no PDI, some have a little, some have a lot.

Difficult, both economically and electorally.

gzt

16997 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2907668 27-Apr-2022 19:15

I don't know what the proposals are but there's a lot wrong with that analogy.

1 | ... | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | ... | 111