why does the tax payer have to pay for the prince and princess' 6 star holiday?

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

Forums › Politics › why does the tax payer have to pay for the prince and princess' 6 star holiday?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

4631 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 874

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1025303 15-Apr-2014 07:44

surfisup1000:Because you should see the deal they got on the BMW's -- they are basically free.

Gullible indeed. Show me the proof/spreadsheet that they are FREE. Purchase price may be low, but do we know the total operating cost on yearly basis?

I suppose you could take your argument further and say they should be riding bicycles.

Seriously? That will be extremely stupid to compare car and bicycle. No, I could not take that further.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1025306 15-Apr-2014 07:57

nakedmolerat:
surfisup1000:Because you should see the deal they got on the BMW's -- they are basically free.

Gullible indeed. Show me the proof/spreadsheet that they are FREE. Purchase price may be low, but do we know the total operating cost on yearly basis?

I suppose you could take your argument further and say they should be riding bicycles.

Seriously? That will be extremely stupid to compare car and bicycle. No, I could not take that further.

I can recall the published details of the BMW deal the replaced the Fords and it was a very very good deal. You can make a request under the Freedom of information act for this information.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

trig42

5889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2094

ID Verified

#1025388 15-Apr-2014 09:10

Bah humbug!

Of all the thing the government spends money on, this royal tour at least will have some economic benefit. The coverage it will be getting in the UK (and apparently US) is priceless.

Would you rather they never came here, and the government spent the million dollars on more welfare?

And, while we're at it, I have no issue with them giving money to Team New Zealand either.

Wait to see what happens to the precious moolah if, heaven forbid, the Greens and Labour get the paws on the pursestrings. It will be a lolly scramble.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#1025396 15-Apr-2014 09:22

nakedmolerat:
surfisup1000:Because you should see the deal they got on the BMW's -- they are basically free.

Gullible indeed. Show me the proof/spreadsheet that they are FREE. Purchase price may be low, but do we know the total operating cost on yearly basis?

I suppose you could take your argument further and say they should be riding bicycles.

Seriously? That will be extremely stupid to compare car and bicycle. No, I could not take that further.

From memory, given the low purchase price, and BMW offering free operating costs , and the govt could sell the BMW's at market rate, I think the government may have even come out positive on the deal -- ie, BMW basically paid the government to use their cars and the advertising is great for BMW.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1025399 15-Apr-2014 09:24

I'd rather pay for this than rugby world cups, plastic wakas, etc etc.

Or (for example) the state visit of the King of Spain. Or extra ACC so skinflint drivers can avoid insurance. Or funding the poor instead of forcing them to work. Or keeping child abusers and murderers in jail instead of hanging them. Or all kinds of other things that we have to pay for whether we like it or not.

If John Key visits the UK (or wherever) I suspect that the government of the country he visits picks up most of the tab. That's the way it works.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1025400 15-Apr-2014 09:25

surfisup1000:
nakedmolerat:
surfisup1000:Because you should see the deal they got on the BMW's -- they are basically free.

Gullible indeed. Show me the proof/spreadsheet that they are FREE. Purchase price may be low, but do we know the total operating cost on yearly basis?

I suppose you could take your argument further and say they should be riding bicycles.

Seriously? That will be extremely stupid to compare car and bicycle. No, I could not take that further.

From memory, given the low purchase price, and BMW offering free operating costs , and the govt could sell the BMW's at market rate, I think the government may have even come out positive on the deal -- ie, BMW basically paid the government to use their cars and the advertising is great for BMW.

That is very close to what is happening

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Quic Broadband

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.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1025402 15-Apr-2014 09:29

Geektastic: I'd rather pay for this than rugby world cups, plastic wakas, etc etc.

Or (for example) the state visit of the King of Spain. Or extra ACC so skinflint drivers can avoid insurance. Or all kinds of other things that we have to pay for weather we like it or not.

If John Key visits the UK I suspect that the UK government picks up most of the tab.

I think you will find overall NZ was well into the black with the World cup. Just had to look at all the Poms in rent a box camper vans driving around the country during it as an example. As for the ACC thing beats me how this is related, ACC is an insurance and the premiums are coming down.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7827

Lifetime subscriber

#1025403 15-Apr-2014 09:31

nathan:
charsleysa:
gzt: Is anyone else sickened by the whole circus? I just find it so ridiculous.

I would mind a lot less if they were celebrities and not only because they would be paying for their own holiday.

The sad reality is they are here as representatives of New Zealand's head of state The Queen and therefore hosted at the expense of the state. The constitutional arrangements I find far less objectionable than this horrible charade. Ban it.

Good luck! Your best bet is for NZ to become a republic.

Then we get presidential politics

That could be a nightmare. Can't we just elect some celebrities for brand purposes?

But seriously I don't think we need a president. Just call the governer general the office of the supreme caretaker or something and appoint a panel of retired judges to it instead. And then get some non-voting celebrity to front the whole thing as a brand ambassador and ban that person from talking politics. Tough problem but I think I've really cracked it there : )

nakedmolerat

4631 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 874

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1025407 15-Apr-2014 09:44

KiwiNZ: Private dinner means there is no press or entourage, but it is still a working dinner between our Prime Minister and future Head of State. It should be paid for buy the Government.

And your definition based on what?

My wife has at least 2 lunches, 1 breakfast and 1 dinner per week which are working meals, these are paid by the organisation she works for are you saying these should come out of our funds?

Really?

1. Are you saying that every companies/government departments etc, employees are automatically entitled to free food at work? If yes, based on what?

2. Since you purposely mention 'organization' rather than government or private organisation, I for once have no issue with whatever private organization do. My brother was paid by his company to stay at 6 star hotel for 3 months as a CEO while waiting for his accomodation to be ready. What I always found absurd is the fact that some people with very low income struggle to pay for medication because of expensive prescription.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1025409 15-Apr-2014 09:55

gzt:
nathan:
charsleysa:
gzt: Is anyone else sickened by the whole circus? I just find it so ridiculous.

I would mind a lot less if they were celebrities and not only because they would be paying for their own holiday.

The sad reality is they are here as representatives of New Zealand's head of state The Queen and therefore hosted at the expense of the state. The constitutional arrangements I find far less objectionable than this horrible charade. Ban it.

Good luck! Your best bet is for NZ to become a republic.

Then we get presidential politics

That could be a nightmare. Can't we just elect some celebrities for brand purposes?

But seriously I don't think we need a president. Just call the governer general the office of the supreme caretaker or something and appoint a panel of retired judges to it instead. And then get some non-voting celebrity to front the whole thing as a brand ambassador and ban that person from talking politics. Tough problem but I think I've really cracked it there : )

President Dotcom or Her Majesty the Queen? Hmmmm.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1025411 15-Apr-2014 10:01

nakedmolerat:
KiwiNZ: Private dinner means there is no press or entourage, but it is still a working dinner between our Prime Minister and future Head of State. It should be paid for buy the Government.

And your definition based on what?

My wife has at least 2 lunches, 1 breakfast and 1 dinner per week which are working meals, these are paid by the organisation she works for are you saying these should come out of our funds?

Really?

1. Are you saying that every companies/government departments etc, employees are automatically entitled to free food at work? If yes, based on what?

2. Since you purposely mention 'organization' rather than government or private organisation, I for once have no issue with whatever private organization do. My brother was paid by his company to stay at 6 star hotel for 3 months as a CEO while waiting for his accomodation to be ready. What I always found absurd is the fact that some people with very low income struggle to pay for medication because of expensive prescription.

I am not going to get into explaining individual words of my post, have neither the time nor the inclination.

"1. Are you saying that every companies/government departments etc, employees are automatically entitled to free food at work? If yes, based on what? " based on 40 years of working and living. Government staff pay for their own meals either by their own funds but if business related the CEO directly or by delegation will pay for it, they are not paid for by others. When I was a public servant I had a delegated authority for $X expenditure. At private companies I generally had good expense accounts. These are working meetings not parties.

An example for my wife, she left home this morning circa 5.45am to get into town for a breakfast meeting that is paid for, she will not be home until circa 9pm tonight as she has a working dinner. These are not a perk it is work.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1025413 15-Apr-2014 10:02

Geektastic:
gzt:
nathan:
charsleysa:
gzt: Is anyone else sickened by the whole circus? I just find it so ridiculous.

I would mind a lot less if they were celebrities and not only because they would be paying for their own holiday.

The sad reality is they are here as representatives of New Zealand's head of state The Queen and therefore hosted at the expense of the state. The constitutional arrangements I find far less objectionable than this horrible charade. Ban it.

Good luck! Your best bet is for NZ to become a republic.

Then we get presidential politics

That could be a nightmare. Can't we just elect some celebrities for brand purposes?

But seriously I don't think we need a president. Just call the governer general the office of the supreme caretaker or something and appoint a panel of retired judges to it instead. And then get some non-voting celebrity to front the whole thing as a brand ambassador and ban that person from talking politics. Tough problem but I think I've really cracked it there : )

President Dotcom or Her Majesty the Queen? Hmmmm.

President Richie McCaw for the win

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1025415 15-Apr-2014 10:02

KiwiNZ:
Geektastic: I'd rather pay for this than rugby world cups, plastic wakas, etc etc.

Or (for example) the state visit of the King of Spain. Or extra ACC so skinflint drivers can avoid insurance. Or all kinds of other things that we have to pay for weather we like it or not.

If John Key visits the UK I suspect that the UK government picks up most of the tab.

I think you will find overall NZ was well into the black with the World cup. Just had to look at all the Poms in rent a box camper vans driving around the country during it as an example. As for the ACC thing beats me how this is related, ACC is an insurance and the premiums are coming down.

Fairly simple. If we made people insure themselves for driving (especially when young and inexperienced), we'd pay less for ACC and those who cause accidents would suffer penalties for bad driving, something they presently don't.

I think you'll find that NZ is equally well into the black with this Royal Visit too. This is from One News and is not a bad return on $1 million to be honest.

"With around 130 international media coming to New Zealand to follow the couple's visit, New Zealand businesses have the opportunity to get the brands out across to hundreds of millions around the world says Tourism New Zealand Chief Executive Kevin Bowler

"The opportunity for the media coverage we're going to get from this visit is something we couldn't possibly afford ourselves," says Mr Bowler.

Many brands are hoping to capitalise on the Royal tour with New Zealand designers wanting to add their name to the list of brands the Duchess of Cambridge wears.

Auckland University's Senior Marketing Lecturer Dr Mike Lee says businesses that are involved in the royal visit have a lot to gain.

"If you've been picked to be part of the royal visit then you're probably the top brand, top company or top business in that country and you're a business of national importance," he says.

And Mr Lee believes that the royal tour will also put the spotlight on New Zealand as a possible future tourist destination.

"Hopefully by being here and enjoying their time in New Zealand we're sort of introducing this idea of coming to New Zealand to a whole new generation of people," says Mr Lee."

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7827

Lifetime subscriber

#1025421 15-Apr-2014 10:06

Geektastic:
gzt:
nathan:
charsleysa:
gzt: Is anyone else sickened by the whole circus? I just find it so ridiculous.

I would mind a lot less if they were celebrities and not only because they would be paying for their own holiday.

The sad reality is they are here as representatives of New Zealand's head of state The Queen and therefore hosted at the expense of the state. The constitutional arrangements I find far less objectionable than this horrible charade. Ban it.

Good luck! Your best bet is for NZ to become a republic.

Then we get presidential politics

That could be a nightmare. Can't we just elect some celebrities for brand purposes?

But seriously I don't think we need a president. Just call the governer general the office of the supreme caretaker or something and appoint a panel of retired judges to it instead. And then get some non-voting celebrity to front the whole thing as a brand ambassador and ban that person from talking politics. Tough problem but I think I've really cracked it there : )

President Dotcom or Her Majesty the Queen? Hmmmm.

Exactly. False dichotomy. The beauty of my proposed arrangement is that it preserves the tension between the elected government and the superstructure of the state without making a stupid system set in stone forever like the Americans have.

nakedmolerat

4631 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 874

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1025509 15-Apr-2014 12:13

KiwiNZ: I am not going to get into explaining individual words of my post, have neither the time nor the inclination.

Great and understandable.

"1. Are you saying that every companies/government departments etc, employees are automatically entitled to free food at work? If yes, based on what? " based on 40 years of working and living. Government staff pay for their own meals either by their own funds but if business related the CEO directly or by delegation will pay for it, they are not paid for by others. When I was a public servant I had a delegated authority for $X expenditure. At private companies I generally had good expense accounts. These are working meetings not parties.

An example for my wife, she left home this morning circa 5.45am to get into town for a breakfast meeting that is paid for, she will not be home until circa 9pm tonight as she has a working dinner. These are not a perk it is work.

Exactly, this is part of the job for those on long hours and I totally agree on this. Junior doctors who work long hours at the DHB also has their meals paid.

It is not really a 'job' coming over to NZ, racing on yacht, going on shotover jet, etc.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5