Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification



Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 20
Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  #1860953 8-Sep-2017 14:50
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

How do we get the tax take up by getting folks off benefits and increasing wages and salaries without fueling inflation, making us less competitive in  our export markets thus resulting in drops in production and exports meaning job losses and higher unemployment.

 

 

Never said anything about increasing wages and salaries.

 

Agreed that the consequence of doing so just increases prices, thus increases the cost of living and thereby fueling inflation.

 

We need less people on benefits and more people in jobs. This results in more income for government and the need to raise taxes.




MikeB4
18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified
Trusted

  #1860959 8-Sep-2017 15:03
Send private message

Wiggum:

 

MikeB4:

 

How do we get the tax take up by getting folks off benefits and increasing wages and salaries without fueling inflation, making us less competitive in  our export markets thus resulting in drops in production and exports meaning job losses and higher unemployment.

 

 

Never said anything about increasing wages and salaries.

 

Agreed that the consequence of doing so just increases prices, thus increases the cost of living and thereby fueling inflation.

 

We need less people on benefits and more people in jobs. This results in more income for government and the need to raise taxes.

 

 

You are assuming or appear to be assuming that all folks on benefit are on primary benefits. There are very large numbers of folks who are working and receiving income support. To move them off income support requires increases in wages and salaries this making us less competitive in our export markets. And as I said earlier this will result in job losses and increased need for benefits and income support. The least disruptive would be a tax or a clean up charge levied at those who pollute the waterways.

 

We could make it a rule that those who discharge into rivers must take their drinking water from 50 meters or less from the discharge point.


Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  #1860963 8-Sep-2017 15:17
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

You are assuming or appear to be assuming that all folks on benefit are on primary benefits. There are very large numbers of folks who are working and receiving income support. To move them off income support requires increases in wages and salaries this making us less competitive in our export markets. And as I said earlier this will result in job losses and increased need for benefits and income support. The least disruptive would be a tax or a clean up charge levied at those who pollute the waterways.

 

We could make it a rule that those who discharge into rivers must take their drinking water from 50 meters or less from the discharge point.

 

 

This is a good point. But at the end of the day, raising taxes will hit these people too. And possibly harder.

 

I can agree on tax on those responsible for polluting the waterways etc. But how do you only hit the guilty ones without taxing those that are not causing the pollution? I think we can all agree that those that make the mess need to clean it up. Taxing bottled drinking water is not getting to the core of the problem, the polluters will continue, and the taxpayers will keep paying to cleanup. The consumer suffers and pays for it in the end (all consumers), even those receiving income support.

 

Why not set up a government origination that's sole purpose is to tackle these messy industries, clean up their mess, and then invoice/or fine them for the work done. I may even be happy paying a small tax to set something like this up. At the end of the day though, the real problem here is industries, government should be dealing with the problem by tackling those responsible, not creating a tax so that each new Zealander should pay to clean up their mess.

 

I like that rule about making those who discharge, drink. Reminds me of that scene from the Erin Brockovich movie

 




MikeB4
18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified
Trusted

  #1860978 8-Sep-2017 15:29
Send private message

The boffins at organisations like Niwa are actually very good at  tracking down the culprits


tdgeek
29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1861019 8-Sep-2017 16:01
Send private message

Wiggum:

 

MikeB4:

 

You are assuming or appear to be assuming that all folks on benefit are on primary benefits. There are very large numbers of folks who are working and receiving income support. To move them off income support requires increases in wages and salaries this making us less competitive in our export markets. And as I said earlier this will result in job losses and increased need for benefits and income support. The least disruptive would be a tax or a clean up charge levied at those who pollute the waterways.

 

We could make it a rule that those who discharge into rivers must take their drinking water from 50 meters or less from the discharge point.

 

 

This is a good point. But at the end of the day, raising taxes will hit these people too. And possibly harder.

 

I can agree on tax on those responsible for polluting the waterways etc. But how do you only hit the guilty ones without taxing those that are not causing the pollution? I think we can all agree that those that make the mess need to clean it up. Taxing bottled drinking water is not getting to the core of the problem, the polluters will continue, and the taxpayers will keep paying to cleanup. The consumer suffers and pays for it in the end (all consumers), even those receiving income support.

 

Why not set up a government origination that's sole purpose is to tackle these messy industries, clean up their mess, and then invoice/or fine them for the work done. I may even be happy paying a small tax to set something like this up. At the end of the day though, the real problem here is industries, government should be dealing with the problem by tackling those responsible, not creating a tax so that each new Zealander should pay to clean up their mess.

 

I like that rule about making those who discharge, drink. Reminds me of that scene from the Erin Brockovich movie

 

 

 

Thats primarily the point. Targeting the causers. Whether you charge them via a tax or an invoice makes no difference, they pay. They can keep paying if they wish, and we will use those funds to cleanup, and no doubt there will be bylaws in place to cease further pollution, so that once the cleanup is done its done

 

Winegrowers will pay a little per bottle, thats invisble. Farmers unsure. Bottlers, well they are taking whats left of our clean water they can pay in Chinese yuan as well. Ideally, if any one cleans up their act, they can avoid paying


Pumpedd
1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  #1861042 8-Sep-2017 16:57
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

Wiggum:

 

MikeB4:

 

How do we get the tax take up by getting folks off benefits and increasing wages and salaries without fueling inflation, making us less competitive in  our export markets thus resulting in drops in production and exports meaning job losses and higher unemployment.

 

 

Never said anything about increasing wages and salaries.

 

Agreed that the consequence of doing so just increases prices, thus increases the cost of living and thereby fueling inflation.

 

We need less people on benefits and more people in jobs. This results in more income for government and the need to raise taxes.

 

 

You are assuming or appear to be assuming that all folks on benefit are on primary benefits. There are very large numbers of folks who are working and receiving income support. To move them off income support requires increases in wages and salaries this making us less competitive in our export markets. And as I said earlier this will result in job losses and increased need for benefits and income support. The least disruptive would be a tax or a clean up charge levied at those who pollute the waterways.

 

We could make it a rule that those who discharge into rivers must take their drinking water from 50 meters or less from the discharge point.

 

 

I understand that the majority of the money goes to working people on income support. It is these people who are getting increases. 


MikeB4
18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified
Trusted

  #1861052 8-Sep-2017 17:23
Send private message

One area that I would like the next Government to look at but probably wont is subsidies on power and heating for the elderly and or disabled/chronically ill. These of course should be means tested. I have dealt with many people who have medical conditions exacerbated or get ill because they are unable to heat their homes sufficiently. I have also dealt with folk who stay in be all day to try and keep warm unfortunately being less active makes one colder and exacerbates illness and disabilities. I believe that providing heating subsidies would reduce medical cost and reduce hospitalisations. 


 
 
 

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.
tdgeek
29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1861056 8-Sep-2017 17:32
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

One area that I would like the next Government to look at but probably wont is subsidies on power and heating for the elderly and or disabled/chronically ill. These of course should be means tested. I have dealt with many people who have medical conditions exacerbated or get ill because they are unable to heat their homes sufficiently. I have also dealt with folk who stay in be all day to try and keep warm unfortunately being less active makes one colder and exacerbates illness and disabilities. I believe that providing heating subsidies would reduce medical cost and reduce hospitalisations. 

 

 

That rings a bell, maybe Labour, but could be National


allio
885 posts

Ultimate Geek


  #1861083 8-Sep-2017 20:46
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

One area that I would like the next Government to look at but probably wont is subsidies on power and heating for the elderly and or disabled/chronically ill. These of course should be means tested. I have dealt with many people who have medical conditions exacerbated or get ill because they are unable to heat their homes sufficiently. I have also dealt with folk who stay in be all day to try and keep warm unfortunately being less active makes one colder and exacerbates illness and disabilities. I believe that providing heating subsidies would reduce medical cost and reduce hospitalisations. 

 

 

http://www.labour.org.nz/labour_helps_older_new_zealanders_and_low_income_families_with_winter_heating_bills


Geektastic
17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1861108 8-Sep-2017 22:51
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

The boffins at organisations like Niwa are actually very good at  tracking down the culprits

 

 

 

 

Some of the most regular can be easy to spot: They have 4 legs and are often black and white.






Geektastic
17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1861109 8-Sep-2017 22:57
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

How do we get the tax take up by getting folks off benefits and increasing wages and salaries without fueling inflation, making us less competitive in  our export markets thus resulting in drops in production and exports meaning job losses and higher unemployment.

 

 

 

 

I never suggested wages and salaries would get increased. I suggested benefits should go down. You have to deal with getting more income yourself by getting well paid employment. Creating a culture of reliance on the State is not, in my view, a sound basis to run a country.

 

The other side of wage levels is supply and demand: if wages are low, we might consider whether the population - or at least the number of available people in a particular area of work - is too great.






Geektastic
17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1861111 8-Sep-2017 23:02
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

Wiggum:

 

MikeB4:

 

You are assuming or appear to be assuming that all folks on benefit are on primary benefits. There are very large numbers of folks who are working and receiving income support. To move them off income support requires increases in wages and salaries this making us less competitive in our export markets. And as I said earlier this will result in job losses and increased need for benefits and income support. The least disruptive would be a tax or a clean up charge levied at those who pollute the waterways.

 

We could make it a rule that those who discharge into rivers must take their drinking water from 50 meters or less from the discharge point.

 

 

This is a good point. But at the end of the day, raising taxes will hit these people too. And possibly harder.

 

I can agree on tax on those responsible for polluting the waterways etc. But how do you only hit the guilty ones without taxing those that are not causing the pollution? I think we can all agree that those that make the mess need to clean it up. Taxing bottled drinking water is not getting to the core of the problem, the polluters will continue, and the taxpayers will keep paying to cleanup. The consumer suffers and pays for it in the end (all consumers), even those receiving income support.

 

Why not set up a government origination that's sole purpose is to tackle these messy industries, clean up their mess, and then invoice/or fine them for the work done. I may even be happy paying a small tax to set something like this up. At the end of the day though, the real problem here is industries, government should be dealing with the problem by tackling those responsible, not creating a tax so that each new Zealander should pay to clean up their mess.

 

I like that rule about making those who discharge, drink. Reminds me of that scene from the Erin Brockovich movie

 

 

 

 

Thats primarily the point. Targeting the causers. Whether you charge them via a tax or an invoice makes no difference, they pay. They can keep paying if they wish, and we will use those funds to cleanup, and no doubt there will be bylaws in place to cease further pollution, so that once the cleanup is done its done

 

Winegrowers will pay a little per bottle, thats invisble. Farmers unsure. Bottlers, well they are taking whats left of our clean water they can pay in Chinese yuan as well. Ideally, if any one cleans up their act, they can avoid paying

 

 

 

 

Why a tax? Why not fines on the polluters, starting at say $500,000? Pay in 30 days or it's 5 years in prison.

 

If you want to discourage pollution, surely penalising polluters is better than taxing people? And slapping them with wet bus ticket fines is not going to achieve anything.

 

If you want a good base for looking at government body, this one might be worth considering.






MikeB4
18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified
Trusted

  #1861127 9-Sep-2017 07:04
Send private message

Geektastic:

MikeB4:


How do we get the tax take up by getting folks off benefits and increasing wages and salaries without fueling inflation, making us less competitive in  our export markets thus resulting in drops in production and exports meaning job losses and higher unemployment.



 


I never suggested wages and salaries would get increased. I suggested benefits should go down. You have to deal with getting more income yourself by getting well paid employment. Creating a culture of reliance on the State is not, in my view, a sound basis to run a country.


The other side of wage levels is supply and demand: if wages are low, we might consider whether the population - or at least the number of available people in a particular area of work - is too great.



Reducing benefits would reduce spending and create more unemployment and greater welfare spending.

Geektastic
17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1861147 9-Sep-2017 07:59
Send private message

MikeB4:
Geektastic:

 

MikeB4:

 

 

 

How do we get the tax take up by getting folks off benefits and increasing wages and salaries without fueling inflation, making us less competitive in  our export markets thus resulting in drops in production and exports meaning job losses and higher unemployment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never suggested wages and salaries would get increased. I suggested benefits should go down. You have to deal with getting more income yourself by getting well paid employment. Creating a culture of reliance on the State is not, in my view, a sound basis to run a country.

 

 

 

The other side of wage levels is supply and demand: if wages are low, we might consider whether the population - or at least the number of available people in a particular area of work - is too great.

 



Reducing benefits would reduce spending and create more unemployment and greater welfare spending.

 

 

 

Maybe. If you carry on carrying the unemployed, which I wouldn't.






MikeB4
18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified
Trusted

  #1861148 9-Sep-2017 08:01
Send private message

You are assuming that those on Welfare are doing it by choice, a mistake a lot of people make.

1 | ... | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 20
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic





News and reviews »

Air New Zealand Starts AI adoption with OpenAI
Posted 24-Jul-2025 16:00


eero Pro 7 Review
Posted 23-Jul-2025 12:07


BeeStation Plus Review
Posted 21-Jul-2025 14:21


eero Unveils New Wi-Fi 7 Products in New Zealand
Posted 21-Jul-2025 00:01


WiZ Introduces HDMI Sync Box and other Light Devices
Posted 20-Jul-2025 17:32


RedShield Enhances DDoS and Bot Attack Protection
Posted 20-Jul-2025 17:26


Seagate Ships 30TB Drives
Posted 17-Jul-2025 11:24


Oclean AirPump A10 Water Flosser Review
Posted 13-Jul-2025 11:05


Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7: Raising the Bar for Smartphones
Posted 10-Jul-2025 02:01


Samsung Galaxy Z Flip7 Brings New Edge-To-Edge FlexWindow
Posted 10-Jul-2025 02:01


Epson Launches New AM-C550Z WorkForce Enterprise printer
Posted 9-Jul-2025 18:22


Samsung Releases Smart Monitor M9
Posted 9-Jul-2025 17:46


Nearly Half of Older Kiwis Still Write their Passwords on Paper
Posted 9-Jul-2025 08:42


D-Link 4G+ Cat6 Wi-Fi 6 DWR-933M Mobile Hotspot Review
Posted 1-Jul-2025 11:34


Oppo A5 Series Launches With New Levels of Durability
Posted 30-Jun-2025 10:15









Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.