Politicians Say The Dumbest Things

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

Forums › Politics › Politicians Say The Dumbest Things

1 | 2 | 3

1043 posts

Uber Geek

#1746573 23-Mar-2017 18:51

scuwp:

jpoc:

scuwp:

So far today we've had an MP in the Far North advocate bringing back corporal punishment to beat some sense into feral youngsters, and the PM of NZ tell us that charging companies who bottle water is "too hard" (it apparently isn't too hard to work out how to charge companies who bottle oil or dig for gold though).

Silly? I actually like the idea of #1, and #2 argument goes waaaaay further than bottled water. Once you put a value on commercial use of water you have to be consistent, so that will mean all dairy, farming, water (wine, coke, beer etc) will also need to be charged. Also once water is given a value just wait and see the iwi claims start. Not saying that's a bad thing, just be careful what you ask for.

Sorry I am not seeing too much "dumb" here...I guess it depends on your perspective. "Alternative facts" has to be the dumbest and most highly used for 2017

Wine? You do know how wine is made don't you?

Yep, and massive amounts of water is used in the production of it...exactly my point, just watch the cost of everything go up if water is charged for.

That is process water and it does not leave the country. It will need treatment after leaving the winery but that is what waste water charges are for. The water will still flow back into our rivers. The only water that leaves our country as a result of wine production is that which falls on the vineyard as rain. Bottled water exports are different. They involve extracting water from ancient aquifers and shipping it overseas. Unlike wine production, that is far from sustainable.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1746694 23-Mar-2017 21:57

jpoc:

That is process water and it does not leave the country. It will need treatment after leaving the winery but that is what waste water charges are for. The water will still flow back into our rivers. The only water that leaves our country as a result of wine production is that which falls on the vineyard as rain. Bottled water exports are different. They involve extracting water from ancient aquifers and shipping it overseas. Unlike wine production, that is far from sustainable.

So wine production doesn't, for example, involve the grapes sucking water out of ancient aquifers? Or irrigation with water extracted from ancient aquifers?

The rain that falls and is incorporated into the grapes would have gone into the rivers if the grapes hadn't been there, so it is effectively removed from the system.

The amount of water exported via bottled water production is miniscule. Vastly more significant is the water extracted from aquifers for dairying.

JayADee

2148 posts

Uber Geek

#1746748 24-Mar-2017 05:54

If water was gold or oil we wouldn't be allowing people to cart it off for free by the truck load. We are undervaluing a commercially used resource.

Just because we're lucky enough to have a lot of it (flowing into the ocean or not) doesn't mean we should discount some sort of charge for its commercial use to the benefit of NZ. I like Gareth Morgan's idea of using part of the levy to clean up NZ rivers. Plus water 'flowing into the ocean' is filling an environmental and recreational etc. purpose, pumping into bottles and selling it for profit isn't.

Government doesn't want to touch this because they'll be hated by industry and have to deal with Maori over it but how long do you leave the issue and at what volume of pumping do you leave it until it concerns you?

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1746776 24-Mar-2017 07:19

jpoc:

scuwp:

jpoc:

scuwp:

So far today we've had an MP in the Far North advocate bringing back corporal punishment to beat some sense into feral youngsters, and the PM of NZ tell us that charging companies who bottle water is "too hard" (it apparently isn't too hard to work out how to charge companies who bottle oil or dig for gold though).

Silly? I actually like the idea of #1, and #2 argument goes waaaaay further than bottled water. Once you put a value on commercial use of water you have to be consistent, so that will mean all dairy, farming, water (wine, coke, beer etc) will also need to be charged. Also once water is given a value just wait and see the iwi claims start. Not saying that's a bad thing, just be careful what you ask for.

Sorry I am not seeing too much "dumb" here...I guess it depends on your perspective. "Alternative facts" has to be the dumbest and most highly used for 2017

Wine? You do know how wine is made don't you?

Yep, and massive amounts of water is used in the production of it...exactly my point, just watch the cost of everything go up if water is charged for.

That is process water and it does not leave the country. It will need treatment after leaving the winery but that is what waste water charges are for. The water will still flow back into our rivers. The only water that leaves our country as a result of wine production is that which falls on the vineyard as rain. Bottled water exports are different. They involve extracting water from ancient aquifers and shipping it overseas. Unlike wine production, that is far from sustainable.

It is still water extracted for a commercial purpose and for a private company to gain a financial reward. This is exactly what I mean in that the government is going to have to be careful how this is framed up. Is it "fair" that only water taken for commercial bottling is taxed? or would a fairer system be to tax ALL water taken for a commercial purpose? How would you justify a tax targeted to one specific product while others are still getting it free (e.g. coka-cola)

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

gzt

17111 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1746805 24-Mar-2017 08:04

Coca-Cola gets free water?

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1746809 24-Mar-2017 08:20

This is partly why I think that there should be a national agency responsible for all water and it's use within NZ. It is not a resource that we manage very well IMO.

gzt

17111 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1746812 24-Mar-2017 08:21

Water exports are a wider issue than most people realise. California's Orange exports for example. That water leaves the area. Is it balanced by imports? Probably not.

Even if it was, would it find it's way back to the aquifers it was removed from? Probably not. I'm assuming Callifornia's population centers are far removed from the aquifer locations. So it goes somewhere else.

It's not a particularly sustainable situation. We have to be careful not to make the same mistakes. It is not inconsequential.

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.

CruciasNZ

879 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1746818 24-Mar-2017 08:36

I agree that all commercial use of water should be metered and paying a tax, including both municipal and private supply of water to industry. The income raised could be aligned with protecting our environment and arresting the deterioration of our country for future generations. Articles showing how farming has rendered rivers and swiming holes extinct or harmful have become common, and that is something none of us should be comfortable with. Ideally I would prefer to see all internal use of water remain free, and all exports taxed (with hard goods such as dairy taxed on a % Water by Mass/Volume formula); however I accept that would be too difficult to police and too easy to abuse.

As for misbehaving kids, I believe that the LSV (Limited Service Volunteer) program should be expanded so that all teenagers must complete it when they leave school. This program is kind of a mash up between that Brat Camp program from TV a few years back and military training; basically you have to do all the fitness (mind body and soul) stuff military recruits go through, coupled with life skills such as cooking, cleaning, ironing, writing, public speaking, navigating, writing CVs, job seeking, study skills (you have to study for written and oral exams), budgeting and saving. I would like to see it expanded from 3 months to a full year and see expanded from its current scope to include self defence and driving skills plus environmental activities (like cleaning up after natural disasters, clearing litter, maintaining tramping tracks etc). It does not provide military training in the use of firearms, so those worried about that angle could rest safe. I think this would instil a greater sense of self respect, respect for others, respect for the environment, plus better prepare teenagers to cope with the realities of the adult world.

EDIT: As a bonus the LSV idea would force people to live in close proximity to people of other genders, natures, creeds, religions, and race; you have to cooperate and trust each other to succeed in the program - just think how many modern 1st world problems that would fix.

Professional Forum Lurker

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1746821 24-Mar-2017 08:40

CruciasNZ:

I agree that all commercial use of water should be metered and paying a tax, including both municipal and private supply of water to industry. The income raised could be aligned with protecting our environment and arresting the deterioration of our country for future generations. Articles showing how farming has rendered rivers and swiming holes extinct or harmful have become common, and that is something none of us should be comfortable with. Ideally I would prefer to see all internal use of water remain free, and all exports taxed (with hard goods such as dairy taxed on a % Water by Mass/Volume formula); however I accept that would be too difficult to police and too easy to abuse.

As for misbehaving kids, I believe that the LSV (Limited Service Volunteer) program should be expanded so that all teenagers must complete it when they leave school. This program is kind of a mash up between that Brat Camp program from TV a few years back and military training; basically you have to do all the fitness (mind body and soul) stuff military recruits go through, coupled with life skills such as cooking, cleaning, ironing, writing, public speaking, navigating, writing CVs, job seeking, study skills (you have to study for written and oral exams), budgeting and saving. I would like to see it expanded from 3 months to a full year and see expanded from its current scope to include self defence and driving skills plus environmental activities (like cleaning up after natural disasters, clearing litter, maintaining tramping tracks etc). It does not provide military training in the use of firearms, so those worried about that angle could rest safe. I think this would instil a greater sense of self respect, respect for others, respect for the environment, plus better prepare teenagers to cope with the realities of the adult world.

We covered much of that via things like Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme, Combined Cadet Forces and so on when I was at school. Certainly beats spending your days staring at Twitter or whatever.

There is also a lot of spare time in a person's day when school finishes as early as 3pm and you have none at the weekends! We should definitely be filling that with something useful.

Dynamike

167 posts

Master Geek

#1746853 24-Mar-2017 10:05

If the government put a price on water as a commodity, then it would kick open the hornets nest that is Maori ownership, which would be a political nightmare.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1746863 24-Mar-2017 10:14

Dynamike: If the government put a price on water as a commodity, then it would kick open the hornets nest that is Maori ownership, which would be a political nightmare.

Yes, that would indeed be making a rod for your own back.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1746934 24-Mar-2017 10:54

I don't understand why charging for water intended for commercial export has to be an issue at all. This is a sovereign nation. We have a parliament with the power to make laws that affect this nation. Just pass a law slapping a charge on any water that is exported as water intended to be sold at a profit. How hard does that have to be? I don't see why it has to get all tangled up in issues of ownership, Maori rights and the like. Why complicate something that is simple?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos