Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

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

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | ... | 268

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2016731 16-May-2018 11:15

MikeB4:
rjt123:
MikeB4: For a large percentage of the population it's a luxury they cannot do. To save $100 if it is even possible would be to reduce food a heating expenditure which is already at a minimum.

Politically incorrect to mention this, but for those people it would be interesting to know how many smoke, drink or do drugs?

There would be a portion who genuinely are struggling to exist, and then there'll be a significant number (not necessarily a majority) who are vicitms of their own choices.

Drug and alcohol abuse is present in all sectors of society.

Poor health/lifestyle choices are a personal matter until it involves/costs the government.

If those households then need subsidies/benefits then they should be forced to reconsider their choices before further government assistance.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2016741 16-May-2018 11:23

rjt123:
MikeB4:

rjt123:
MikeB4: For a large percentage of the population it's a luxury they cannot do. To save $100 if it is even possible would be to reduce food a heating expenditure which is already at a minimum.

Politically incorrect to mention this, but for those people it would be interesting to know how many smoke, drink or do drugs?

There would be a portion who genuinely are struggling to exist, and then there'll be a significant number (not necessarily a majority) who are vicitms of their own choices.

Drug and alcohol abuse is present in all sectors of society.

Poor health/lifestyle choices are a personal matter until it involves/costs the government.

If those households then need subsidies/benefits then they should be forced to reconsider their choices before further government assistance.

So those who drink wine shouldn't qualify for help? where do you draw the line, coffee, cola ?

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2016745 16-May-2018 11:31

MikeB4:

rjt123:
MikeB4:

rjt123:
MikeB4: For a large percentage of the population it's a luxury they cannot do. To save $100 if it is even possible would be to reduce food a heating expenditure which is already at a minimum.

Politically incorrect to mention this, but for those people it would be interesting to know how many smoke, drink or do drugs?

There would be a portion who genuinely are struggling to exist, and then there'll be a significant number (not necessarily a majority) who are vicitms of their own choices.

Drug and alcohol abuse is present in all sectors of society.

Poor health/lifestyle choices are a personal matter until it involves/costs the government.

If those households then need subsidies/benefits then they should be forced to reconsider their choices before further government assistance.

So those who drink wine shouldn't qualify for help? where do you draw the line, coffee, cola ?

Any who has white toast shouldnt get a benefit either.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2016769 16-May-2018 12:18

MikeB4:
So those who drink wine shouldn't qualify for help? where do you draw the line, coffee, cola ?

Of course with smoking, drinking and drugs its pretty obvious with the governments taxation and legislative stance on these items that they don't encourage consumption. Whereas they don't specifically tax or legislate against sugar, coffee or white, whole grain, rye, selba, wheatmeal, brown, mixed grain, gluten-free, focaccia, pizza, brioche or any other type of 🍞.

My point was more that before we lay all our nation's problems at the feet of the government (past or present) let's take a look at the real picture. We don't know what the real picture is exactly, which is why I said it would be interesting to know.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2016774 16-May-2018 12:23

For example. Poor Ms Bright will be technically classified as homeless. But I can see no grounds for government assistance or for society to give one atom of pity to someone like this. Which is what I mean by the real picture. Let's get the real background, circumstances etc about the problems in society, don't just automatically give them a handout.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12052407

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2016776 16-May-2018 12:26

rjt123:
MikeB4:

So those who drink wine shouldn't qualify for help? where do you draw the line, coffee, cola ?

Of course with smoking, drinking and drugs its pretty obvious with the governments taxation and legislative stance on these items that they don't encourage consumption. Whereas they don't specifically tax or legislate against sugar, coffee or white, whole grain, rye, selba, wheatmeal, brown, mixed grain, gluten-free, focaccia, pizza, brioche or any other type of 🍞.

My point was more that before we lay all our nation's problems at the feet of the government (past or present) let's take a look at the real picture. We don't know what the real picture is exactly, which is why I said it would be interesting to know.

I will refer you to the MSD website that has mountains of information on the topic. I would also relate the experiences I have had over decades of working in the field but I have been told by many here that it is irrelevant. I think because it is inconvenient to their preconceived prejudices.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2016780 16-May-2018 12:32

MikeB4:
rjt123:
MikeB4:

So those who drink wine shouldn't qualify for help? where do you draw the line, coffee, cola ?

Of course with smoking, drinking and drugs its pretty obvious with the governments taxation and legislative stance on these items that they don't encourage consumption. Whereas they don't specifically tax or legislate against sugar, coffee or white, whole grain, rye, selba, wheatmeal, brown, mixed grain, gluten-free, focaccia, pizza, brioche or any other type of 🍞.

My point was more that before we lay all our nation's problems at the feet of the government (past or present) let's take a look at the real picture. We don't know what the real picture is exactly, which is why I said it would be interesting to know.

I will refer you to the MSD website that has mountains of information on the topic. I would also relate the experiences I have had over decades of working in the field but I have been told by many here that it is irrelevant. I think because it is inconvenient to their preconceived prejudices.

Feel free to share it with me... I may have a mis-guided idea. But do you have relevant figures? Or just anecdotal evidence? Have u been involved in budgeting with these households?

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#2016985 16-May-2018 16:24

MikeB4:

Drug and alcohol abuse is present in all sectors of society.

But the effect of a given level of consumption on the ability to provide necessities is proportional to income.

Mike

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2017274 17-May-2018 05:47

networkn:
MikeB4: For a large percentage of the population it's a luxury they cannot do. To save $100 if it is even possible would be to reduce food a heating expenditure which is already at a minimum.

I literally not only *knew* you'd post that comment, but I could've have written it for you.

Someone with less than $100 margin for error in their budget will never nor should they ever even be *considering* buying a house. The government shouldn't even be considering helping them do so, because they are making the issue so much worse.

Buying a house is expensive, but OWNING a house, as you should well know, is very expensive too. The first 5-10 years of house ownership should be relatively maintenance cost free, but there are still all sorts of additional expenses over renting that could

cost well into $100 a week on average. Our house is 12 years old and needs a 20K paint job. We spent 5K sorting paving that after only 6 years had issues that needed major corrective work. Our neighhour watched our house and accidentially knocked a tap on in the garden trying to be nice, water leaked for 4 days, cost us $440 in extra water costs in a month. All sorts of things. households who can't afford it, will neglect it, out of necessity, but this has major impact on value later.

This is yet another knee-jerk shoot from the hpi and poorly thought out policy by the Labour Government. I know it's not law yet and it may never come to be, but without a LOT of work that policy would be a tax payer burden for little to no benefit.

You’re not wrong. We are in the early stages of planning a roof job and I’d say the absolute minimum bill will be $100,000.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2017318 17-May-2018 08:40

Geektastic:
networkn:

MikeB4: For a large percentage of the population it's a luxury they cannot do. To save $100 if it is even possible would be to reduce food a heating expenditure which is already at a minimum.

I literally not only *knew* you'd post that comment, but I could've have written it for you.

Someone with less than $100 margin for error in their budget will never nor should they ever even be *considering* buying a house. The government shouldn't even be considering helping them do so, because they are making the issue so much worse.

Buying a house is expensive, but OWNING a house, as you should well know, is very expensive too. The first 5-10 years of house ownership should be relatively maintenance cost free, but there are still all sorts of additional expenses over renting that could

cost well into $100 a week on average. Our house is 12 years old and needs a 20K paint job. We spent 5K sorting paving that after only 6 years had issues that needed major corrective work. Our neighhour watched our house and accidentially knocked a tap on in the garden trying to be nice, water leaked for 4 days, cost us $440 in extra water costs in a month. All sorts of things. households who can't afford it, will neglect it, out of necessity, but this has major impact on value later.

This is yet another knee-jerk shoot from the hpi and poorly thought out policy by the Labour Government. I know it's not law yet and it may never come to be, but without a LOT of work that policy would be a tax payer burden for little to no benefit.

You’re not wrong. We are in the early stages of planning a roof job and I’d say the absolute minimum bill will be $100,000.

Maybe they should just live on the street?

In many cases it is cheaper to buy a house than rent. I remember buying my first house and it was such a huge effort.

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#2017448 17-May-2018 10:21

Pumpedd:

In many cases it is cheaper to buy a house than rent

Mortgages can be cheaper than rents but then there is rates, insurance, maintenance, a portion of the water bill in some cases and body corporate fees where applicable.

Often when you add all those in the exceed the cost of renting, for the first few years. Then typically - rentals increase, hopefully your income increases and the mortgage stays roughly the same.

Mike

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2017463 17-May-2018 10:27

A simple observation from the various stories of poverty, homelessness etc splashed across the news is that they are single parents. Not invariably, but seemingly from the anecdotes the media chooses to share, this seems to be a thread running through them.

food for thought.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2017471 17-May-2018 10:40

rjt123:

A simple observation from the various stories of poverty, homelessness etc splashed across the news is that they are single parents. Not invariably, but seemingly from the anecdotes the media chooses to share, this seems to be a thread running through them.

food for thought.

Their marital status does not matter.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2017476 17-May-2018 10:51

MikeB4:

rjt123:

A simple observation from the various stories of poverty, homelessness etc splashed across the news is that they are single parents. Not invariably, but seemingly from the anecdotes the media chooses to share, this seems to be a thread running through them.

food for thought.

Their marital status does not matter.

If you can't afford childcare costs then getting into the workforce for enough hours to make it worthwhile or study becomes impossible. It's quite relevant but I suspect not for the reason rjt123 is implying.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2017501 17-May-2018 11:16

GV27:

MikeB4:

rjt123:

A simple observation from the various stories of poverty, homelessness etc splashed across the news is that they are single parents. Not invariably, but seemingly from the anecdotes the media chooses to share, this seems to be a thread running through them.

food for thought.

Their marital status does not matter.

If you can't afford childcare costs then getting into the workforce for enough hours to make it worthwhile or study becomes impossible. It's quite relevant but I suspect not for the reason rjt123 is implying.

Childcare in my professional experience is one of the biggest hurdles for those with children to get into work. For those on Income support the reality is often that taking a job will mean a significant drop in income in real terms.

1 | ... | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | ... | 268