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 | ... | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | ... | 268

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2030431 6-Jun-2018 06:37

tdgeek:

A tax cut when education and health were left behind? Yep, ok. #itsallaboutme

Look, I know you love your personal tax cuts. I do too, more money for me. id rather those that need it, get it. Id rather money the Govt can spare goes to the needy, which is poor people, health and education, rather than saving it up to have a surplus and rock star economy. Analogolise a house. Why maintain it when I can build up my bank account? That will cost big time.

I rarely visit this vent thread, the more people that are not tied to the hip to a party, the better. You can argue that National saved and didnt spend, you can argue that Labs will throw it all away on benefits. There are pros and cons both ways, debate that.

The question is whether the Govt is going to spend your money smarter than you would. And explain to me how the money I could have been using to save for a house or pay rent (shelter) is going to millionaire boomers to pay their power bills, or university students to help with fees which are apparently evil - but I'm still expected to pay mine back, right? Or better yet, pay for mountains of civil servants but then not even consult them on economy-significant decisions like the oil and gas sunset policy. But of course, only teachers and nurses feel wage pressures, right?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2030433 6-Jun-2018 06:56

Wiggum:

Sounds to me that you the put spending on needy/health and education a higher priority than having a good economy?

Labour spending conservatively? Is that a joke?

1. True. We could spend less on health and education to further the economy even more?

2. Read the post budget news

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2030434 6-Jun-2018 06:59

rjt123:

Seems that jacinda condones vote buying actually. The much-loved bribe-o-meter shows the leading contenders for the "vote buying" spot are...

Regrettably, vote buying is part and parcel of politics. But cancelling the tax cuts was the opposite, and a risky policy

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2030436 6-Jun-2018 07:02

tdgeek:

2. Read the post budget news

And the pre-budget news... A billion dollars for Winston's foreign affairs.

It was fiscally conservative, but that doesn't necessarily mean the money was well spent.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2030438 6-Jun-2018 07:04

GV27:

tdgeek:

A tax cut when education and health were left behind? Yep, ok. #itsallaboutme

Look, I know you love your personal tax cuts. I do too, more money for me. id rather those that need it, get it. Id rather money the Govt can spare goes to the needy, which is poor people, health and education, rather than saving it up to have a surplus and rock star economy. Analogolise a house. Why maintain it when I can build up my bank account? That will cost big time.

I rarely visit this vent thread, the more people that are not tied to the hip to a party, the better. You can argue that National saved and didnt spend, you can argue that Labs will throw it all away on benefits. There are pros and cons both ways, debate that.

The question is whether the Govt is going to spend your money smarter than you would. And explain to me how the money I could have been using to save for a house or pay rent (shelter) is going to millionaire boomers to pay their power bills, or university students to help with fees which are apparently evil - but I'm still expected to pay mine back, right? Or better yet, pay for mountains of civil servants but then not even consult them on economy-significant decisions like the oil and gas sunset policy. But of course, only teachers and nurses feel wage pressures, right?

Ok, forget health and education, they are over rated anyway it seems. In a perfect world, the govt would earn enough revenue from us to cater for all required services. Then they could fine tune the economy. But this isnt the case. The Govt is like a poor person, always broke, always in debt, never enough to cover everything

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2030439 6-Jun-2018 07:06

tdgeek:
rjt123:

Seems that jacinda condones vote buying actually. The much-loved bribe-o-meter shows the leading contenders for the "vote buying" spot are...

Regrettably, vote buying is part and parcel of politics. But cancelling the tax cuts was the opposite, and a risky policy

Yes but they marketed their WFF increases in a direct response to National's tax cuts. Basically saying their rebates were better.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2030442 6-Jun-2018 07:10

rjt123:
tdgeek:

2. Read the post budget news

And the pre-budget news... A billion dollars for Winston's foreign affairs.

It was fiscally conservative, but that doesn't necessarily mean the money was well spent.

I think if you look at any Govt, you can say that also. This Govt hasnt done enough for education and health shortfalls, neither has the previous. Its easy to cherry pick spending and criticise, very easy. The last Govt didnt spend! Had they kept up, then some key services would not be in the state they are, but also our books would not be as solid, so where do we draw the line? End of the day these type of discussions are really party line discussions, disguised.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2030445 6-Jun-2018 07:15

rjt123:
tdgeek:

rjt123:

Seems that jacinda condones vote buying actually. The much-loved bribe-o-meter shows the leading contenders for the "vote buying" spot are...

Regrettably, vote buying is part and parcel of politics. But cancelling the tax cuts was the opposite, and a risky policy

Yes but they marketed their WFF increases in a direct response to National's tax cuts. Basically saying their rebates were better.

Thats right. The benefit of $40 per week is of little use for the wealthy and the above average household. Its huge for low income families. That makes a lot of sense to me

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2030458 6-Jun-2018 07:55

tdgeek:
rjt123:
tdgeek:

rjt123:

Seems that jacinda condones vote buying actually. The much-loved bribe-o-meter shows the leading contenders for the "vote buying" spot are...

Regrettably, vote buying is part and parcel of politics. But cancelling the tax cuts was the opposite, and a risky policy

Yes but they marketed their WFF increases in a direct response to National's tax cuts. Basically saying their rebates were better.

Thats right. The benefit of $40 per week is of little use for the wealthy and the above average household. Its huge for low income families. That makes a lot of sense to me

My point was both parties were essentially offering tax cuts, whatever name they were disguised under.

As for your perspective on socialism... well that's a never ending debate, but I think we all agree that social welfare (and socialism by extension) will always fail at some point. I don't think that the increases of WFF will bring us to tipping point, but unfortunately it's not as simple as just 'giving a bit more to the poor'.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2030460 6-Jun-2018 08:04

rjt123:

My point was both parties were essentially offering tax cuts, whatever name they were disguised under.

As for your perspective on socialism... well that's a never ending debate, but I think we all agree that social welfare (and socialism by extension) will always fail at some point. I don't think that the increases of WFF will bring us to tipping point, but unfortunately it's not as simple as just 'giving a bit more to the poor'.

There is a huge difference between socialism and what we have, capitalism with a social welfare bend.

Yes, both offered tax cuts if you like, one was for everyone , one was targeted.

Giving a bit to the poor is just income redistribution. The test is if its fair and reasonable or if its given when not needed

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2030475 6-Jun-2018 08:13

tdgeek:
rjt123:

My point was both parties were essentially offering tax cuts, whatever name they were disguised under.

As for your perspective on socialism... well that's a never ending debate, but I think we all agree that social welfare (and socialism by extension) will always fail at some point. I don't think that the increases of WFF will bring us to tipping point, but unfortunately it's not as simple as just 'giving a bit more to the poor'.

There is a huge difference between socialism and what we have, capitalism with a social welfare bend.

Yes, both offered tax cuts if you like, one was for everyone , one was targeted.

Giving a bit to the poor is just income redistribution. The test is if its fair and reasonable or if its given when not needed

Agreed, but it's just one more step closer.

And I agree with your test, only bear in mind 'need' is subjective.

However, I don't think the WFF increases were out of place.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#2030481 6-Jun-2018 08:48

tdgeek:

Wiggum:

Sounds to me that you the put spending on needy/health and education a higher priority than having a good economy?

Labour spending conservatively? Is that a joke?

1. True. We could spend less on health and education to further the economy even more?

Its never a good idea spending when there is no sustaining plan to keep the money rolling in to fund that spending. (it does not matter what the money is being spent on health/welfare/roads/infrastructure). I'm not saying we should not be spending on needy/health/education. The current governments spending cannot sustain itself without a good plan to grow this economy.

Its all well and good for the short term. So far this government is spending surplus which is going to dry up very quickly, that will be the end of this government.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#2030487 6-Jun-2018 08:54

GV27:

tdgeek:

A tax cut when education and health were left behind? Yep, ok. #itsallaboutme

Look, I know you love your personal tax cuts. I do too, more money for me. id rather those that need it, get it. Id rather money the Govt can spare goes to the needy, which is poor people, health and education, rather than saving it up to have a surplus and rock star economy. Analogolise a house. Why maintain it when I can build up my bank account? That will cost big time.

I rarely visit this vent thread, the more people that are not tied to the hip to a party, the better. You can argue that National saved and didnt spend, you can argue that Labs will throw it all away on benefits. There are pros and cons both ways, debate that.

The question is whether the Govt is going to spend your money smarter than you would. And explain to me how the money I could have been using to save for a house or pay rent (shelter) is going to millionaire boomers to pay their power bills, or university students to help with fees which are apparently evil - but I'm still expected to pay mine back, right? Or better yet, pay for mountains of civil servants but then not even consult them on economy-significant decisions like the oil and gas sunset policy. But of course, only teachers and nurses feel wage pressures, right?

Spot on. I would not trust any government to spend money smartly. I'm a big supporter of "Charity begins at home".

A person is responsible for the welfare of their close family and friends before taking up any responsibilities for others.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2030490 6-Jun-2018 08:56

Wiggum:

tdgeek:

Wiggum:

Sounds to me that you the put spending on needy/health and education a higher priority than having a good economy?

Labour spending conservatively? Is that a joke?

1. True. We could spend less on health and education to further the economy even more?

Its never a good idea spending when there is no sustaining plan to keep the money rolling in to fund that spending. (it does not matter what the money is being spent on health/welfare/roads/infrastructure). I'm not saying we should not be spending on needy/health/education. The current governments spending cannot sustain itself without a good plan to grow this economy.

Its all well and good for the short term. So far this government is spending surplus which is going to dry up very quickly, that will be the end of this government.

They could cease spending like the last Govt. Spending on needy things does go back to the economy. Nurse and teacher salaries go back, adding infrastructure goes back. Or we could forget about most of those things and give all the surpluses back as tax cuts. IIRC the budget showed that spending is fiscally conservative, being spread out. Conclusion is that the post is party based and not a discussion

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2030492 6-Jun-2018 08:59

Wiggum:

GV27:

tdgeek:

A tax cut when education and health were left behind? Yep, ok. #itsallaboutme

Look, I know you love your personal tax cuts. I do too, more money for me. id rather those that need it, get it. Id rather money the Govt can spare goes to the needy, which is poor people, health and education, rather than saving it up to have a surplus and rock star economy. Analogolise a house. Why maintain it when I can build up my bank account? That will cost big time.

I rarely visit this vent thread, the more people that are not tied to the hip to a party, the better. You can argue that National saved and didnt spend, you can argue that Labs will throw it all away on benefits. There are pros and cons both ways, debate that.

The question is whether the Govt is going to spend your money smarter than you would. And explain to me how the money I could have been using to save for a house or pay rent (shelter) is going to millionaire boomers to pay their power bills, or university students to help with fees which are apparently evil - but I'm still expected to pay mine back, right? Or better yet, pay for mountains of civil servants but then not even consult them on economy-significant decisions like the oil and gas sunset policy. But of course, only teachers and nurses feel wage pressures, right?

Spot on. I would not trust any government to spend money smartly. I'm a big supporter of "Charity begins at home".

A person is responsible for the welfare of their close family and friends before taking up any responsibilities for others.

Ok, keep the charity at home, we dont need schools and hospitals? You earn a salary to manage your life at home, the Govt, whoever they are, earn a salary also by way of generally Income Tax and GST to manage the country. You seem to be confusing the two, or wanting the Govt function to just give you money

1 | ... | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | ... | 268