Our next national election - policies, promises and people

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

Forums › Politics › Our next national election - policies, promises and people

1 | ... | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | ... | 33

5979 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2423014 18-Feb-2020 10:17

Just to confirm, the winter energy payment policy was costed at $374m per year. Haven't been able to see anything about what it actually is costing.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2423257 18-Feb-2020 15:07

The Winter energy payments were not just a payment to pensioners they were available to all pensions and income tested benefits for those who took up the offer. They were $21.46 per week or $31.82 per week depending on family circumstances. Given the serious health impacts of in adequate heating the cost of this programme is worth it and can lower hospital admission rates and other medical expenditure over the winter months. If it were as high $2billion which I doubt then the need was most certainly there.

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

GV27

5979 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2423340 18-Feb-2020 16:47

MikeB4:

The Winter energy payments were not just a payment to pensioners they were available to all pensions and income tested benefits for those who took up the offer. They were $21.46 per week or $31.82 per week depending on family circumstances. Given the serious health impacts of in adequate heating the cost of this programme is worth it and can lower hospital admission rates and other medical expenditure over the winter months. If it were as high $2billion which I doubt then the need was most certainly there.

They were available to anyone who qualified regardless of actual need. That's the bit I'm driving home on. I would rather we just paid people who actually need it more (i.e. lifted benefits/super) instead of looking for politically friendly things to dress it up as.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2423352 18-Feb-2020 17:09

I don't see an issue as to how this has been paid. The cost of means testing would have pushed the cost of the scheme considerably higher.

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2423414 18-Feb-2020 18:02

GV27:

tdgeek:

I posted what I posted as an FYI to all subbers here, it wasnt to brickbat or bouquet anything. To me, its just a few tidbits, a bit more detail, and what I posted does give a nice rounded guide as to Nationals plans.

May be better to wait till campaign day, I can delete if needed

There's goingto be plenty to talk about - plus at this rate we may have an election a lot sooner than we planned.

Because of Peters SFO investigation? Two stories in fact, National had a 100k donation, now its two. Is that not in facts similar to NZF Foundation issue? https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119609560/simon-bridges-says-he-knows-nothing-of-second-100k-donation-at-centre-of-sfo-trial?rm=a

Mahon

473 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 214

#2423425 18-Feb-2020 19:03

MikeB4:

I don't see an issue as to how this has been paid. The cost of means testing would have pushed the cost of the scheme considerably higher.

If they cant means test then they shouldnt have given it out. This amount of money going to all NZers regardless of wealth or income, over the age of 65 is nuts. If the penions/benefits are insufficient, then they should increase those where relevant.

I am totally for the payment, but totally against it going to everyone over 65. Maybe it should have just gone to those on a community services card.

We know from many social agencies that the benefit as such is woefully inadequate and has not even come close to keeping up with the real inflation. This is where the issue is and after 2 years plus, nothing has really changed.

It is high time a means testing system was studied with a view to implementation so at some point in the future payments from the public purse can be targeted.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2423430 18-Feb-2020 19:11

Mahon:

MikeB4:

I don't see an issue as to how this has been paid. The cost of means testing would have pushed the cost of the scheme considerably higher.

If they cant means test then they shouldnt have given it out. This amount of money going to all NZers regardless of wealth or income, over the age of 65 is nuts. If the penions/benefits are insufficient, then they should increase those where relevant.

I am totally for the payment, but totally against it going to everyone over 65. Maybe it should have just gone to those on a community services card.

We know from many social agencies that the benefit as such is woefully inadequate and has not even come close to keeping up with the real inflation. This is where the issue is and after 2 years plus, nothing has really changed.

It is high time a means testing system was studied with a view to implementation so at some point in the future payments from the public purse can be targeted.

I agree. Although has the pension only been an issue in the last two years?? A means test system might start off as costly but it belongs with the pension, and any supplements that are added.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2423463 18-Feb-2020 19:54

@tdgeek income tests are not a one off thing. It has to be reviewed and reassessed on regular cycle. It's an expensive process that requires verification of income from all sources.

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

GV27

5979 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2423729 19-Feb-2020 09:30

MikeB4:

@tdgeek income tests are not a one off thing. It has to be reviewed and reassessed on regular cycle. It's an expensive process that requires verification of income from all sources.

Surely a lot easier now that IRD is gathering a lot of data electronically and we're slowly moving away from self-assessment to issued assessments?

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2423782 19-Feb-2020 09:53

GV27:

MikeB4:

@tdgeek income tests are not a one off thing. It has to be reviewed and reassessed on regular cycle. It's an expensive process that requires verification of income from all sources.

Surely a lot easier now that IRD is gathering a lot of data electronically and we're slowly moving away from self-assessment to issued assessments?

Nope, there are limits to data sharing between departments.

Also the anniversary date is different for different people, what is asked for is the "last 12 months", not last tax year.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2423790 19-Feb-2020 10:13

It would be good to standardise this reporting. There is a lot of benefit to share this data, in order to provide a better level of service to NZ taxpayers. We dont need to be giving cash to successful Kiwis, it belongs to those a number rungs down on the ladder of life. That frees up tax to be used elsewhere for the benefit of all of us, rich and poor alike, such as roads, education, health, etc

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2423792 19-Feb-2020 10:21

@tdgeek you will need to talk to the Privacy Commissioner. I am certain this forum would have a topic that spanned more than 400 pages in very short order if data sharing were to be opened up further. Another consideration some of the MSD empowering legislation treats income differently to IRD. MSD assesses certain assets as income (eg constructive income) where IRD does not.

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2423798 19-Feb-2020 10:30

MikeB4:

@tdgeek you will need to talk to the Privacy Commissioner. I am certain this forum would have a topic that spanned more than 400 pages in very short order if data sharing were to be opened up further. Another consideration some of the MSD empowering legislation treats income differently to IRD. MSD assesses certain assets as income (eg constructive income) where IRD does not.

Ok, but if the IRD and MSD are government department and they cannot share that is bewildering. Its as if one or both cannot be trusted?? Onviosuly not, but it beggars belief that one Govt dept cannot share data with another. I hear what you are saying and you worked for MSD, but it seems like bureacracy gone mad. If you cannot trust the Govt who can anyone trust?

MikeB4

MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2423807 19-Feb-2020 10:41

@tdgeek Yes they are Government agencies, yes they can be trusted. The limits placed on the data sharing they do is guided and very very closely administered by the our privacy laws and the privacy commissioner. There are strict rules concerning the data sharing and as a democratic country that is absolutely appropriate and it truly baffles me that anyone would want to see those rules watered down.

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2423815 19-Feb-2020 10:52

MikeB4:

@tdgeek Yes they are Government agencies, yes they can be trusted. The limits placed on the data sharing they do is guided and very very closely administered by the our privacy laws and the privacy commissioner. There are strict rules concerning the data sharing and as a democratic country that is absolutely appropriate and it truly baffles me that anyone would want to see those rules watered down.

I do. If the IRD can manage to deal with me, about my income, with adequate privacy, I dont see why they cannot deal with MSD. MSD wants to know my income. IRD has it, but if IRD gives it to MSD then the privacy world ends? Yes, off course they can both be trusted, but can you tell me what is the risk if IRD passes on my income to MSD? You saying that would be a privacy breach, but it wont affect my privacy as the Government already knows my income. MSD and IRD are both Government depts, its internal, how can that affect my privacy? I guess if I wanted to rip off MSD, I could as IRD wont give my income to MSD. MSD isnt allowed to know my income. Bizarre.

1 | ... | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | ... | 33