NZ 2023 Election Thread

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

Forums › Politics › NZ 2023 Election Thread

1 | ... | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | ... | 102

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7828

Lifetime subscriber

#3131444 24-Sep-2023 18:50

Labour promises 6000 additional state housing units. This is realistic and in line with housing Labour has delivered so far:

RNZ: Labour says it will build 6000 additional public and transitional houses on top of its existing commitments, if re-elected. It would take the total built since Labour came into office to 27,000 houses by 2027.

Housing spokesperson Megan Woods said it would be a significant step to eliminate the public housing waitlist.

"In just six years we've delivered over 13,000 public homes, the most of any government since the 1950s. We've also added over 4,000 transitional homes. We are on track to deliver 21,000 public and transitional homes by 2025 and there is more to come. If re-elected, we'll deliver another 6000 public homes by 2027.

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3131445 24-Sep-2023 18:54

Technofreak:

BarTender:

But this is what the majority of the population want. Further growth in inequality, homelessness and crime driven mostly due to poverty to justify building private prisons.

I'd suggest it's most definitely not the majority wants, but with exception of your private prisons quip it's exactly what we've got from the past six years

Polling says otherwise. https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/09/24/exclusive-polling-how-kiwis-feel-about-paying-for-poverty-climate-change/

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#3131468 24-Sep-2023 20:12

gzt: Labour promises 6000 additional state housing units. This is realistic and in line with housing Labour has delivered so far:

RNZ: Labour says it will build 6000 additional public and transitional houses on top of its existing commitments, if re-elected. It would take the total built since Labour came into office to 27,000 houses by 2027.

Housing spokesperson Megan Woods said it would be a significant step to eliminate the public housing waitlist.

"In just six years we've delivered over 13,000 public homes, the most of any government since the 1950s. We've also added over 4,000 transitional homes. We are on track to deliver 21,000 public and transitional homes by 2025 and there is more to come. If re-elected, we'll deliver another 6000 public homes by 2027.

While the achievement is laudable one must question the cost. Its like NASA getting to the moon in the 1960's - the outcome was achieved but the cost was unpalatable.

Labour proposed spending $3.1bn for 3,000 state homes in the Budget 2023. Thats $1m per home. If you can get a $1m home in a multi-dwelling environment (work out that cost to build given the land cost is shared among all homes on that site) that will be your home for life thanks to the state then you'd be taking it everyday. It begs the question, why bother buying your own home rather than going on a state home waiting list?

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#3131495 24-Sep-2023 20:48

gzt: Labour promises 6000 additional state housing units. This is realistic and in line with housing Labour has delivered so far:

RNZ: Labour says it will build 6000 additional public and transitional houses on top of its existing commitments, if re-elected. It would take the total built since Labour came into office to 27,000 houses by 2027.

Housing spokesperson Megan Woods said it would be a significant step to eliminate the public housing waitlist.

"In just six years we've delivered over 13,000 public homes, the most of any government since the 1950s. We've also added over 4,000 transitional homes. We are on track to deliver 21,000 public and transitional homes by 2025 and there is more to come. If re-elected, we'll deliver another 6000 public homes by 2027.

While we as a nation need to look after those that need help, promising to build more state houses is an admission the government has failed to deliver an economy where people can provide for themselves without the need for government handouts.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#3131508 24-Sep-2023 20:50

BarTender:

Polling says otherwise. https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/09/24/exclusive-polling-how-kiwis-feel-about-paying-for-poverty-climate-change/

I can't say I'm surprised given the question asked. We can't tax our way out of poverty. That’s a dead end street.

However if you were to just ask "Would people rather see less poverty? I'm pretty sure what the answer would be.

Rather than tax tax tax, the government should be creating an environment where we all can prosper and get ahead and not rely on government handouts.

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish, feed him for life.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

ezbee

2658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3101

#3131522 24-Sep-2023 21:19

We could ask Denmark, Nordics etc what their higher marginal taxes give them.

Having better financed Healthcare and Education does help stop a number from slipping into poverty, recover from misfortune.
As well as providing quality employment if we would increase training budgets for staff needed.

Having better low cost public transport is also an enabler, ability to get to a place of work reliably affordably.

Better able to get skills, reskill for adult education, and to rehabilitate, so health problems, accidents don't block a way to a productive life.

Having greater housing security also helps people to not slip off into a cycle of poverty as well.
Not having a car as you can get to work etc without one its best you don't need one to live in.

National is looking for magical efficiencies in Healthcare that is already oily rag department and needs injection of capital.
Roads will get that capital, there are areas its needed, but only at cost of something else with National.
Its just cut, cut , cut, did not see extra money allocated for fishing lessons?

It was a silly question, put in Education, Healthcare (Physical and Mental), Vocational and Employment programs, Public Transport, Housing.
These all impact on poverty and the answer may have been quite different.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7828

Lifetime subscriber

#3131525 24-Sep-2023 21:30

ockel: Labour proposed spending $3.1bn for 3,000 state homes in the Budget 2023. Thats $1m per home.

Not only has Labour consistently underspent previous allocations it's likely those projects include land acquisition with space for future building. Personally I'm comfortable with it.

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#3131537 24-Sep-2023 22:08

ezbee:

We could ask Denmark, Nordics etc what their higher marginal taxes give them.

Having better financed Healthcare and Education does help stop a number from slipping into poverty, recover from misfortune.
As well as providing quality employment if we would increase training budgets for staff needed.

Having better low cost public transport is also an enabler, ability to get to a place of work reliably affordably.

Better able to get skills, reskill for adult education, and to rehabilitate, so health problems, accidents don't block a way to a productive life.

Having greater housing security also helps people to not slip off into a cycle of poverty as well.
Not having a car as you can get to work etc without one its best you don't need one to live in.

National is looking for magical efficiencies in Healthcare that is already oily rag department and needs injection of capital.
Roads will get that capital, there are areas its needed, but only at cost of something else with National.
Its just cut, cut , cut, did not see extra money allocated for fishing lessons?

It was a silly question, put in Education, Healthcare (Physical and Mental), Vocational and Employment programs, Public Transport, Housing.
These all impact on poverty and the answer may have been quite different.

We need to pay taxes to ensure we all receive a proper education etc. The spending of those taxes needs to be better targetted than it has been. With the current government it seems the expected outcome is if you throw enough money at the problem, the problem is solved. The reality is quite different.

I heard Professor Des Gorman being interviewed recently on the way our health system is funded. Professor Gorman has consulted for governments of both left and right in many parts of the world on the running of health systems. He said the type of system used in New Zealand is broken and needs turning on it's head.

He made a very good argument for adopting systems like they have in Germany or Switzerland. If I recall correctly, basically everyone has to buy medical insurance. Instead of paying taxes to the government to run a health system you pay a premium to a health insurance provider. There's a bit more to it than that, but it has proven to work very well.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80661 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41083

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3131539 24-Sep-2023 22:09

Technofreak:

BarTender:

Polling says otherwise. https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/09/24/exclusive-polling-how-kiwis-feel-about-paying-for-poverty-climate-change/

I can't say I'm surprised given the question asked. We can't tax our way out of poverty. That’s a dead end street.

However if you were to just ask "Would people rather see less poverty? I'm pretty sure what the answer would be.

Rather than tax tax tax, the government should be creating an environment where we all can prosper and get ahead and not rely on government handouts.

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish, feed him for life.

I'd say getting more tax on rich people would help a lot to enable governments to do the education, infrastructure and healthy work needed.

Alas, it seems no political party seem to think this is right.

Instead, "let's give an extra $2 a week to poor people by removing GST from vegies they can't afford to buy anyway"

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80661 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41083

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3131544 24-Sep-2023 22:13

Technofreak:

I heard Professor Des Gorman being interviewed recently on the way our health system is funded. Professor Gorman has consulted for governments of both left and right in many parts of the world on the running of health systems. He said the type of system used in New Zealand is broken and needs turning on it's head.

He made a very good argument for adopting systems like they have in Germany or Switzerland. If I recall correctly ,basically everyone has to buy medical insurance. Instead of paying taxes to the government to run a health system you pay a premium to a health insurance provider. There's a bit more to it than that, but it has proven to work very well.

And then wait to see the government having to scramble to treat the list of ailments those insurance companies won't cover. Or being only available to employed people - or do you think insurance companies will change their current policy of making insurance more expensive the older you get. Oh, right, exactly when people are retiring and don't have that employment income anymore to pay absurd amounts of money for a health insurance policy that cover less than they need.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#3131547 24-Sep-2023 22:21

freitasm:

Technofreak:

I heard Professor Des Gorman being interviewed recently on the way our health system is funded. Professor Gorman has consulted for governments of both left and right in many parts of the world on the running of health systems. He said the type of system used in New Zealand is broken and needs turning on it's head.

He made a very good argument for adopting systems like they have in Germany or Switzerland. If I recall correctly ,basically everyone has to buy medical insurance. Instead of paying taxes to the government to run a health system you pay a premium to a health insurance provider. There's a bit more to it than that, but it has proven to work very well.

And then wait to see the government having to scramble to treat the list of ailments those insurance companies won't cover. Or being only available to employed people - or do you think insurance companies will change their current policy of making insurance more expensive the older you get. Oh, right, exactly when people are retiring and don't have that employment income anymore to pay absurd amounts of money for a health insurance policy that cover less than they need.

That's not my understanding of how it works in Germany or Switzerland. The requirement to have health insurance is enshrined in law.

The health insurance model we have here is very different to what they have.

I don't remember the full details of the interview but Professor Gorman made some very salient points and suggested solutions to our health system problems.

The problem we have is our current health system model is rapidly becoming unsustainable. It is heading for collapse at some point we will be forced to change how it's run.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3131553 24-Sep-2023 22:42

Technofreak:
BarTender:

Polling says otherwise. https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/09/24/exclusive-polling-how-kiwis-feel-about-paying-for-poverty-climate-change/

I can't say I'm surprised given the question asked. We can't tax our way out of poverty. That’s a dead end street.

However if you were to just ask "Would people rather see less poverty? I'm pretty sure what the answer would be.

Rather than tax tax tax, the government should be creating an environment where we all can prosper and get ahead and not rely on government handouts.

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish, feed him for life.

If any of the above supply side economics talking points were true we wouldn’t need.
- A pension for over 65s even if they never worked a day in their life.
- A social welfare system
- Accommodation supplement
- Minimum wage

But here in reality it just isn’t true.

It’s sad how people can be so blinkered to completely ignore the realities of the society we live in. Do you just never see homeless people?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80661 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41083

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3131571 24-Sep-2023 23:58

BarTender: It’s sad how people can be so blinkered to completely ignore the realities of the society we live in. Do you just never see homeless people?

Some people see homeless people, think it's their own fault and because of that they don't need/deserve help to get off the ground.

Oh, yeah. Some call it "bootstrap"

Why you can't "bootstrap" yourself out of poverty (yahoo.com)

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3131577 25-Sep-2023 04:59

freitasm:

Technofreak:

I heard Professor Des Gorman being interviewed recently on the way our health system is funded. Professor Gorman has consulted for governments of both left and right in many parts of the world on the running of health systems. He said the type of system used in New Zealand is broken and needs turning on it's head.

He made a very good argument for adopting systems like they have in Germany or Switzerland. If I recall correctly ,basically everyone has to buy medical insurance. Instead of paying taxes to the government to run a health system you pay a premium to a health insurance provider. There's a bit more to it than that, but it has proven to work very well.

And then wait to see the government having to scramble to treat the list of ailments those insurance companies won't cover. Or being only available to employed people - or do you think insurance companies will change their current policy of making insurance more expensive the older you get. Oh, right, exactly when people are retiring and don't have that employment income anymore to pay absurd amounts of money for a health insurance policy that cover less than they need.

The insurer for lower income people is..... the government. You need to be earning over €66,500 to be eligible to get private insurance or a mixture of public and private insurance. 73 million Germans belong to the government insurance scheme.

To some extent it's a left pocket/right pocket situation. "Income tax" is lower but total tax paid is higher. The good thing about the German system is the tax/premium collected for health is ring fenced for health.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3131578 25-Sep-2023 05:31

Technofreak:

While we as a nation need to look after those that need help, promising to build more state houses is an admission the government has failed to deliver an economy where people can provide for themselves without the need for government handouts.

From 1946-1980 New Zealand built massive numbers of state houses. That was arguably the most prosperous time ever for the New Zealand economy. It was viewed as a a public good, not a handout.

1 | ... | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | ... | 102