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 | ... | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | ... | 268

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1920308 15-Dec-2017 17:51

6FIEND:

The only alternative to that is to increase debt further, or increase taxes.

Like John Key's hike in GST - the one that he said wouldn't happen?

Reciprocity

169 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 97
Inactive user

#1920324 15-Dec-2017 18:33

Fred99:
6FIEND:

The only alternative to that is to increase debt further, or increase taxes.

Like John Key's hike in GST - the one that he said wouldn't happen?

Is that you advocating for Jacinda’s coalition to be more like John Key’s government?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1920331 15-Dec-2017 18:42

Reciprocity:
Fred99:

6FIEND:

The only alternative to that is to increase debt further, or increase taxes.

Like John Key's hike in GST - the one that he said wouldn't happen?

Is that you advocating for Jacinda’s coalition to be more like John Key’s government?

LOL - no. I do have a problem with people who are fundamentally (ideologically) opposed to wealth redistribution, but blind to the fact that this is exactly what John Key was doing.

If they want to argue that through wealth redistribution tweaking, privilege should be only granted to the privileged - then go ahead and say it. Otherwise - STFU.

Reciprocity

169 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 97
Inactive user

#1920341 15-Dec-2017 19:00

Fred99:
Reciprocity:
Fred99:

6FIEND:

The only alternative to that is to increase debt further, or increase taxes.

Like John Key's hike in GST - the one that he said wouldn't happen?

Is that you advocating for Jacinda’s coalition to be more like John Key’s government?

LOL - no. I do have a problem with people who are fundamentally (ideologically) opposed to wealth redistribution, but blind to the fact that this is exactly what John Key was doing.

Was that when Key expanded on Labour’s WFF scheme?
Or when Key increased minimum wage at a faster rate than Labour did?
Or when Key increased benefit rates faster than Labour did?
Or when Key increased paid parental leave?
Or when Key increased Labour’s Health Budget faster than inflation and population growth combined?
Or when Key increased the thresholds of the two lowest tax brackets but left the top two where they were?

There has been a lot said about how Key’s government under invested in social issues... but it seems there’s also a lot of rewriting of history!

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1920344 15-Dec-2017 19:14

Reciprocity:
Fred99:

Reciprocity:
Fred99:

6FIEND:

The only alternative to that is to increase debt further, or increase taxes.

Like John Key's hike in GST - the one that he said wouldn't happen?

Is that you advocating for Jacinda’s coalition to be more like John Key’s government?

LOL - no. I do have a problem with people who are fundamentally (ideologically) opposed to wealth redistribution, but blind to the fact that this is exactly what John Key was doing.

Was that when Key expanded on Labour’s WFF scheme?
Or when Key increased minimum wage at a faster rate than Labour did?
Or when Key increased benefit rates faster than Labour did?
Or when Key increased paid parental leave?
Or when Key increased Labour’s Health Budget faster than inflation and population growth combined?
Or when Key increased the thresholds of the two lowest tax brackets but left the top two where they were?

There has been a lot said about how Key’s government under invested in social issues... but it seems there’s also a lot of rewriting of history!

JK had the support of the right - who absolutely are ideologically opposed to wealth redistribution.

JK was a very nice guy - the kind of guy you'd be happy to have a beer with. He sold those concessions to the left - to the hard right, If I owned a car yard, I'd offer him a job if he needed it.

Actually, I have a problem with what he did and what Jacinda is doing. But at this point in time, I think I prefer Jacinda's optimism for a different future for NZ.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1920394 15-Dec-2017 22:18

Pumpedd:

6FIEND:

tdgeek:

The spending is all in the mini budget? Al of it? Robertson has said they are sailing close, so this spending isnt going to be spent next week, he has said they will prioritise and so on, so I take that as here is the spending, but we need to manage it, it will be spread out.

HYEFU showed a budgeted operating allowance of $21.7bn for new expenditure. The cost of the policies agreed to by the new coalition government was put at $15.1bn Obviously, that money isn't spent on day 1 (It isn't all taxed on day 1 either) it is the estimated cost over 4 years to deliver on the policies that were announced.

That means that there is a total of $6.6bn left in the pot of money that the government expects to take from taxpayers out to 2021.

On the surface, that seems like a reasonable amount, but because almost all new government policies are "ongoing" in nature (Eg. Putting 100 new cops on the beat might cost $10m, but it continues to cost that much every year from now on...) this makes the policies cumulative in cost.

So, if they announce $660m of new stuff in next year's budget. Another $660m of new stuff in 2019, and so on out to the budget for 2021 that they will write in their final year of this term... then they will have allocated all $6.6bn. (660m + 1.32bn + 1.98bn + 2.64bn)

Again, to an everyday person, this might seem like a reasonable amount. But in terms of governmental scale, this will require Lab/NZFirst/Greens to limit new spending to the same amount as Ruth Richardson did in the 90's.

The only alternative to that is to increase debt further, or increase taxes.

Whilst the budget does go some way to delivering where it is needed, I am so confused as to why they are basically giving it to everyone. Why not target it where it is needed and have some money left over for other initiatives?

Between students and mini budget there isnt enough money left for inflation proofing education, health and police etc. Guess its good to be living in a wealthy country.

Im busy and just home, Ill digest tomorrow night, but the point "why they are basically giving it to everyone". The tax cuts, soon to be cancelled were to give $20 per week to everyone. That covers the poor person getting assistance (good), too the other who can use it for the Maserati service coming up next month. We could give $20 er week for everyone, or more to those that need it.

Lego

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1920397 15-Dec-2017 22:24

Reciprocity:
Fred99:

6FIEND:

The only alternative to that is to increase debt further, or increase taxes.

Like John Key's hike in GST - the one that he said wouldn't happen?

Is that you advocating for Jacinda’s coalition to be more like John Key’s government?

No, Fred is just making a factual statement. Nothing more, nothing less. I may be wrong, but I think Fred is a National voter. I am too, apart from this year. The tax tax tax IMHO is a bit of a Labour attack. National raised taxed 21 times in their reign, so its more a tactic than fact.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1920402 15-Dec-2017 22:40

tdgeek:
Pumpedd:

6FIEND:

tdgeek:

The spending is all in the mini budget? Al of it? Robertson has said they are sailing close, so this spending isnt going to be spent next week, he has said they will prioritise and so on, so I take that as here is the spending, but we need to manage it, it will be spread out.

HYEFU showed a budgeted operating allowance of $21.7bn for new expenditure. The cost of the policies agreed to by the new coalition government was put at $15.1bn Obviously, that money isn't spent on day 1 (It isn't all taxed on day 1 either) it is the estimated cost over 4 years to deliver on the policies that were announced.

That means that there is a total of $6.6bn left in the pot of money that the government expects to take from taxpayers out to 2021.

On the surface, that seems like a reasonable amount, but because almost all new government policies are "ongoing" in nature (Eg. Putting 100 new cops on the beat might cost $10m, but it continues to cost that much every year from now on...) this makes the policies cumulative in cost.

So, if they announce $660m of new stuff in next year's budget. Another $660m of new stuff in 2019, and so on out to the budget for 2021 that they will write in their final year of this term... then they will have allocated all $6.6bn. (660m + 1.32bn + 1.98bn + 2.64bn)

Again, to an everyday person, this might seem like a reasonable amount. But in terms of governmental scale, this will require Lab/NZFirst/Greens to limit new spending to the same amount as Ruth Richardson did in the 90's.

The only alternative to that is to increase debt further, or increase taxes.

Whilst the budget does go some way to delivering where it is needed, I am so confused as to why they are basically giving it to everyone. Why not target it where it is needed and have some money left over for other initiatives?

Between students and mini budget there isnt enough money left for inflation proofing education, health and police etc. Guess its good to be living in a wealthy country.

Im busy and just home, Ill digest tomorrow night, but the point "why they are basically giving it to everyone". The tax cuts, soon to be cancelled were to give $20 per week to everyone. That covers the poor person getting assistance (good), too the other who can use it for the Maserati service coming up next month. We could give $20 er week for everyone, or more to those that need it.

Tax cuts are not giving anything to anyone.

They are taking less of what an individual already owns.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1920403 15-Dec-2017 22:53

Rikkitic:

I don't dispute the facts you have cited in regard to Jacinda Ardern. Everything you say is a matter of public record and known to be true. I might hold a different opinion as to the significance of these facts. According to what I have read recently (I don't have the sources at hand but if you insist, I will look for them), she is performing quite well in the job. I'm sure there are other sources that say precisely the opposite, but nothing I have seen so far persuades me of that.

So articles supporting your view are ok, ones that don't, well those aren't "convincing", or lack credibility? Sounds well reasoned.

It reminds me of the kid who is sitting in the middle of the floor with parents standing over her giving her a warning about something and the kid has her fingers in her ears and is shouting "la la la la la la la".

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1920405 15-Dec-2017 22:56

Sending your child to school with no breakfast or lunch or shoes etc. is probably the result of a bad choice of the parents (how much money did they spend on cigarettes, drugs, alcohol on the weekend?). Is it my responsibility as a tax payer to fund the poor choices of those individuals?

I used to feel a similar way till someone said this to me..

You simply cannot punish children for the sins of their parents. It doesn't matter that the kid's parents didn't spend money wisely, are you seriously going to let them go hungry?

As much as the parent's behaviour annoys me, I'll always support helping the kids.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1920407 15-Dec-2017 22:59

networkn:

Sending your child to school with no breakfast or lunch or shoes etc. is probably the result of a bad choice of the parents (how much money did they spend on cigarettes, drugs, alcohol on the weekend?). Is it my responsibility as a tax payer to fund the poor choices of those individuals?

I used to feel a similar way till someone said this to me..

You simply cannot punish children for the sins of their parents. It doesn't matter that the kid's parents didn't spend money wisely, are you seriously going to let them go hungry?

As much as the parent's behaviour annoys me, I'll always support helping the kids.

The problem with that is that it simply ensures that people who cannot afford children will have them anyway, secure in the knowledge that the government will simply hand them other people's money to pay for their behaviours.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1920409 15-Dec-2017 23:05

Geektastic:

Tax cuts are not giving anything to anyone.

They are taking less of what an individual already owns.

No - actually seriously incorrect.
They take less of what an individual earns.

The only politician (now retired apparently) who gets this was Gareth Morgan, who sees (correctly) that inequality of opportunity is a problem of growing wealth inequality - more than that of income inequality. That's why I have a problem with Labour/Greens - and also National. That said, I think that any solution offered by Morgan would have resulted in economically devastating capital flight. The world needed to have changed first.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1920410 15-Dec-2017 23:15

Geektastic:

networkn:

Sending your child to school with no breakfast or lunch or shoes etc. is probably the result of a bad choice of the parents (how much money did they spend on cigarettes, drugs, alcohol on the weekend?). Is it my responsibility as a tax payer to fund the poor choices of those individuals?

I used to feel a similar way till someone said this to me..

You simply cannot punish children for the sins of their parents. It doesn't matter that the kid's parents didn't spend money wisely, are you seriously going to let them go hungry?

As much as the parent's behaviour annoys me, I'll always support helping the kids.

The problem with that is that it simply ensures that people who cannot afford children will have them anyway, secure in the knowledge that the government will simply hand them other people's money to pay for their behaviours.

I'd actually suggest an inherent genetic unconscious "selfish gene" (Dawkins). The correlation is much too strong, those (whose survival is most) threatened tend to breed - fast. Simultaneously, those societies least threatened have negative population growth - despite in many cases having massive incentive to breed.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1920413 15-Dec-2017 23:24

networkn:

Rikkitic:

I don't dispute the facts you have cited in regard to Jacinda Ardern. Everything you say is a matter of public record and known to be true. I might hold a different opinion as to the significance of these facts. According to what I have read recently (I don't have the sources at hand but if you insist, I will look for them), she is performing quite well in the job. I'm sure there are other sources that say precisely the opposite, but nothing I have seen so far persuades me of that.

So articles supporting your view are ok, ones that don't, well those aren't "convincing", or lack credibility? Sounds well reasoned.

It reminds me of the kid who is sitting in the middle of the floor with parents standing over her giving her a warning about something and the kid has her fingers in her ears and is shouting "la la la la la la la".

That works both ways. Same could be said of you. So how do you decide what is real information, and what is fake? Not just stuff that echos your views, I hope.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1920414 15-Dec-2017 23:26

networkn:

I used to feel a similar way till someone said this to me..

You simply cannot punish children for the sins of their parents. It doesn't matter that the kid's parents didn't spend money wisely, are you seriously going to let them go hungry?

As much as the parent's behaviour annoys me, I'll always support helping the kids.

Yay! Three cheers for you. I mean that with complete sincerity.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | ... | 268