J Adern, How will she affect the election, and is she a good leader?

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

Forums › Politics › J Adern, How will she affect the election, and is she a good leader?

1 | ... | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | ... | 45

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1866256 14-Sep-2017 14:14

Rikkitic:

Pumpedd:

The Project is so clearly biased, just from some of the off cuff comments from crew. Quite disgusting imo. The Labour housing guy is really creepy and says nothing of value. I do agree the Nats have screwed up over housing and have also screwed up on taking care of the vulnerable.

Todays U turn from Labour on tax is yet another desperate attempt to get power at any cost. To go into an election like Labour has is extremely bad management. If Little was still Leader, Labour would be about 20% on the polls. Jacinda has no real experience at anything. She has never been leader and isnt politics her only job ever?

Now they release a tax plan, and without increasing tax their is no way in hell they can afford their election promises. Its desparation!!!

What about all the desperate policy promises National has been scattering about? How many of those are going to quietly disappear after the election?

All policy promises can disappear as a result of a party trying to form a government. Thats why I don't like our version of MMP.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1866281 14-Sep-2017 14:51

networkn:

Rikkitic:

And no, I am definitely not qualified in any way to lead the country, but like you, that does not prevent me from having an opinion on issues that affect me, or from feeling I have a right to. I think extreme income disparity, poverty, inequality of opportunity, lead to crime in the streets, which affects me. I think more roads instead of better trains affects me. Degradation of the environment from intensified dairying and general disregard for ecological concerns affects me. Watching Rugby does not affect me, but I want to have a voice in things that do.

So hang on a second... First, you lambast me for having an opinion on JA's ability to lead, even though I can't do better, then you say you ALSO can't do better, but ALSO want to have an opinion.

I do not understand you one little bit. You need to decide on a position and stick to it.

You live rurally I assume you aren't expecting trains rurally to improve? Agree with intensified farming, don't think it's an easy answer.

I see a difference. Maybe you don't. The difference is that you try to present yourself as fair-minded but at the same time you keep scrabbling for justifications to shore up your pre-determined prejudices. You have decided that JA isn't qualified to lead at this time. You say she might be later but I think you are just squirming. When later comes you will find other reasons why she isn't qualified. The truth of the matter is you just don't want a Labour government under any circumstances, but you don't want to admit to that.

I used to travel from Hastings up to Morere quite frequently to stay with friends who ran accommodation and the hot springs there. As I dodged logging trucks on the way up and back, I frequently thought how much more pleasant the trip would be if there was a passenger rail service. At this time the train was still operating, but only for freight. When there was a passenger service to Wellington, I used that and I still mourn its passing.

National seems only able to look at something and say it costs x dollars and it can only earn y dollars back and it is therefore a money-loser and should be abandoned. What they can't seem to comprehend is that there are also non-dollar values in society. Most rail services elsewhere need to be subsidised, but they give back other value. It is not only about dollars and cents.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1866287 14-Sep-2017 14:59

Rikkitic:

I see a difference. Maybe you don't. The difference is that you try to present yourself as fair-minded but at the same time you keep scrabbling for justifications to shore up your pre-determined prejudices. You have decided that JA isn't qualified to lead at this time. You say she might be later but I think you are just squirming. When later comes you will find other reasons why she isn't qualified. The truth of the matter is you just don't want a Labour government under any circumstances, but you don't want to admit to that.

You are right, I don't see a difference, I think you are blatantly hypocritical in your accusations. However, you are correct, I do not want a Labour Government in it's current state, which is essentially the same as it was for the last 9 years with a different leader, leading NZ. They have a very small number of good policies and a lot I don't agree with. For the second, I don't squirm.

I used to travel from Hastings up to Morere quite frequently to stay with friends who ran accommodation and the hot springs there. As I dodged logging trucks on the way up and back, I frequently thought how much more pleasant the trip would be if there was a passenger rail service. At this time the train was still operating, but only for freight. When there was a passenger service to Wellington, I used that and I still mourn its passing.

I assume buses are an option, costs considerably less in infrastructure and much better for the environment.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1866290 14-Sep-2017 15:02

6FIEND:

tdgeek: @6Fiend

Your graphs, let's not talk billions as that is misleading albeit true. The vast majority of the revenue is tax cuts at $20 per week. The other is very small. Compared to today the extra taxes are a few dollars a week. That's not a real burden based on what needs to be fixed imho

I think that I may not have been clear...

Labour (their own figures) are ^H^H^H were projecting tax revenue to increase to 17bn more per year (by the end of their term) than its current level. They had also described where just under 2.5bn per year of that increase would come from:

- reversing the uplifts to the two lowest tax brackets that have already been enacted into law.

- tourist tax

- extend "bright line" test from 2yrs to 5yrs remove negative gearing tax breaks

- crackdown on multinational tax avoidance

As you noted, the lion's share (about 80%) of that came from cancelling the tax cuts - that's the $20pw impact.

What's missing is where the extra revenue coming from?   (17-2.5=14.5bn)

It's a huge gap...   over $3k every year from every man, woman and child in NZ. (on top of the $20pw ;-)

[Edit] I was assuming that the 14.5bn difference was going to be met by the reforms proposed by the Tax Working Group. As it turns out, Labour seem to have also banked on the Economy growing at a rate up to 5X higher than it historically has, while at the same time significantly cutting immigration and significantly tightening up on labour laws.

It really doesn't seem at all plausible.

Calling @Rikkitic

So, no significant difference in peoples way of lives under Labour? BTW if you want to see someone "squirm", check out JA today being grilled by the press about the change in tax policy. She started ok, but once the fluff was discarded she was really sweating.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1866291 14-Sep-2017 15:03

networkn:

I assume buses are an option, costs considerably less in infrastructure and much better for the environment.

That sounds very much like a statement from someone who has never used either.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1866294 14-Sep-2017 15:08

networkn:

So, no significant difference in peoples way of lives under Labour? BTW if you want to see someone "squirm", check out JA today being grilled by the press about the change in tax policy. She started ok, but once the fluff was discarded she was really sweating.

Yeah, I saw that. I'm still waiting to hear what the pundits think. A lot of wild and false claims have been made, especially in regard to taxation, in the heat of this election campaign. I will wait for calmer voices before deciding what is or isn't correct.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1866295 14-Sep-2017 15:10

Rikkitic:

networkn:

I assume buses are an option, costs considerably less in infrastructure and much better for the environment.

That sounds very much like a statement from someone who has never used either.

I have caught hundreds of buses and trains in my life. I used to travel from Hamilton to CHCH by train and by bus twice a year to visit my grandparents and older sister in Palmerston North. My kids have travelled on buses within NZ, and so have my nephews and neices over the past 15 years.

You should really stop digging now.

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.

allio

885 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1866297 14-Sep-2017 15:11

6FIEND:

Labour (their own figures) are ^H^H^H were projecting tax revenue to increase to 17bn more per year (by the end of their term) than its current level. They had also described where just under 2.5bn per year of that increase would come from:

- reversing the uplifts to the two lowest tax brackets that have already been enacted into law.

- tourist tax

- extend "bright line" test from 2yrs to 5yrs remove negative gearing tax breaks

- crackdown on multinational tax avoidance

As you noted, the lion's share (about 80%) of that came from cancelling the tax cuts - that's the $20pw impact.

What's missing is where the extra revenue coming from? (17-2.5=14.5bn)

It's a huge gap... over $3k every year from every man, woman and child in NZ. (on top of the $20pw ;-)

[Edit] I was assuming that the 14.5bn difference was going to be met by the reforms proposed by the Tax Working Group. As it turns out, Labour seem to have also banked on the Economy growing at a rate up to 5X higher than it historically has, while at the same time significantly cutting immigration and significantly tightening up on labour laws.

It really doesn't seem at all plausible.

Man - with all due respect, you are careering off in the complete wrong direction here and may have got into some territory you don't fully understand. You completely ignored my post in which I pointed out that Labour's numbers are based on the 2017 PREFU (produced by the Treasury) and really don't differ very much at all from what is expected to occur under the current government. I'll pull the numbers out for you.

PREFU (i.e. National's plan)

GDP

2017: 268.8b

2018: 282.6b

2019: 296.5b

2020: 310.5b

2021: 323.2b

Tax revenue

2016: 70.4b

2017: 75.6b

2018: 78.3b

2019: 81.3b

2020: 85.8b

2021: 89.8b

Labour

GDP

2018: 282.6b

2019: 296.5b

2020: 310.5b

2021: 323.2b

2022: 337.1b

Tax revenue

2018: 78.2b

2019: 82.8b

2020: 87.2b

2021: 91.4b

2022: 95.8b

So the GDP predictions are exactly the same as National's. The "14.5bn hole" you think you've found is simply Treasury's forecast of increased tax revenue over the years, due to inflation, increases in pay and increased population etc. The only difference between Labour's numbers and Treasury's is the difference of about 2b per year in tax revenue. That is made up of cancelling the planned tax cuts and the other minor changes already announced. There is no additional "hole" that needs to be filled by unannounced taxes.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1866301 14-Sep-2017 15:23

networkn:

You should really stop digging now.

Good on you for supporting public transport. Assuming Allio knows what he is talking about (see above), you might want to look for another source to back up your arguments.

This is what has characterised this election. Claims and counterclaims and lots of numbers thrown about that might or might not be true. At least some tax and finance claims made by English and Joyce have been shown to be blatantly false. It is no longer about presenting the facts and having a rational debate on them. It has become about winning at all costs, and slinging whatever mud you can in the hope that some may stick. That seems to have been successful.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

allio

885 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1866314 14-Sep-2017 15:34

Rikkitic:

Good on you for supporting public transport. Assuming Allio knows what he is talking about (see above), you might want to look for another source to back up your arguments.

This is what has characterised this election. Claims and counterclaims and lots of numbers thrown about that might or might not be true. At least some tax and finance claims made by English and Joyce have been shown to be blatantly false. It is no longer about presenting the facts and having a rational debate on them. It has become about winning at all costs, and slinging whatever mud you can in the hope that some may stick. That seems to have been successful.

It has become a thoroughly ugly election.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1866317 14-Sep-2017 15:36

allio:

Rikkitic:

Good on you for supporting public transport. Assuming Allio knows what he is talking about (see above), you might want to look for another source to back up your arguments.

This is what has characterised this election. Claims and counterclaims and lots of numbers thrown about that might or might not be true. At least some tax and finance claims made by English and Joyce have been shown to be blatantly false. It is no longer about presenting the facts and having a rational debate on them. It has become about winning at all costs, and slinging whatever mud you can in the hope that some may stick. That seems to have been successful.

It has become a thoroughly ugly election.

All Nationals fault naturally!

allio

885 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1866320 14-Sep-2017 15:42

networkn:

All Nationals fault naturally!

Honestly? I know I'm biased, but I think it is. The fearmongering and misinformation started with them and it has been relentless. Compare their campaign ads - National's started out poking fun at Labour (the dreadful running ad) and swiftly turned into full-out attack ads. Labour's ads have barely mentioned National.

The stuff going on on social media is even worse.

I have spent God knows how much time in the past couple of months gently unpicking outright false claims like 6FIEND's above (credit to him, I think that was a genuine misunderstanding), but also stuff coming directly from National - like $17 cabbages and $50,000 bills for the average farmer. It's just pathetic.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1866321 14-Sep-2017 15:42

Thanks @allio

That certainly clears that up for me. (Yes - it seems that I missed your earlier post)

Though the link to the PREFU does introduce some further questions...

The Treasury made some assumptions in producing that forecast - among them were

- NZ Superannuation eligibility age increases to 67

- Health & Education expenses "Held constant"

- NZ Super Fund contributions remain on hold

...all of which would be proven false under a current Labour policy.

But thanks again for linking Labour's revenue and GDP figures back to Treasury's forecasts for me.

allio

885 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1866323 14-Sep-2017 15:49

6FIEND:

Thanks @allio

That certainly clears that up for me. (Yes - it seems that I missed your earlier post)

Though the link to the PREFU does introduce some further questions...

The Treasury made some assumptions in producing that forecast - among them were

- NZ Superannuation eligibility age increases to 67

- Health & Education expenses "Held constant"

- NZ Super Fund contributions remain on hold

...all of which would be proven false under a current Labour policy.

But thanks again for linking Labour's revenue and GDP figures back to Treasury's forecasts for me.

No worries.

Fair points and those represent the major differences between National's and Labour's policies.

NZ super isn't due to change until 2040 so doesn't have any impact on the financials this decade, but the other things all mean more spending under Labour. They are planning to pay for them by increased tax revenue, more borrowing, slower debt payback and running smaller surpluses. The numbers are all detailed in their fiscal forecast.

There are genuine differences between the parties' plans, and if you think that paying debt off faster is more important than increasing health and education spending, then fair enough - great reason to vote for National. But this suggestion that Labour's numbers "don't add up" just isn't right.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1866326 14-Sep-2017 15:55

Now this is how the discussion should be conducted. +1 to both of you.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | ... | 45