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 | ... | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | ... | 268

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1920765 17-Dec-2017 12:38

Geektastic:

Quite; school dinners have been a source of jokes and shared misery for generations. We got breakfast, lunch and dinner at school since we lived there 36 weeks a year but the day pupils still ate lunch with us and my wife, who attended state schools, also got lunch. I do not know if that is still the case in state schools in Britain or not.

If all this is about children not being hungry, the obvious solution seems to me to be 'feed them' rather than 'rely on the parents who so far have failed in their primary duty of care by not feeding them'.

Being the socialist little island we are, food stamps are likely to not happen due to the "stigma" it causes. (though I don't care about stigma, if the result is good).

Hot lunches in school are a massive massive logistical nightmare, though the bad old days of what lunches at schools were like, are unlikely to be repeated in 2017 in NZ.

Eat my lunch is an outstanding program in NZ, it delivers nutritious lunches to kids who genuinely need it.

Rolling out on a national scale would be years in the making

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1920768 17-Dec-2017 12:52

networkn:

Tax cuts generally cause spending to increase which improves tax take. I didn't need a tax cut, didn't really even want one, but I don't agree with how the money is being spent. It's a lolly scramble without forethought and as a result, I expect a lot of the money spent to be wasted.

Is this really true or just a political assumption? I don't know, I'm just asking.

Tax cuts may or may not improve the tax take through increased spending, but I get the impression that 'trickle down' has now been largely discredited and the worst off don't really benefit from such measures. Even if government spending is a wasteful lolly scramble, does this not put money back into the economy? Why is one worse than the other?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1920816 17-Dec-2017 17:55

networkn:

tdgeek:

I agree, Im disappointed it is less targeted than what I would have hoped. But compare that to Nationals $20 per week tax cut, $2040 p.a., for pretty much everyone.

Tax cuts generally cause spending to increase which improves tax take. I didn't need a tax cut, didn't really even want one, but I don't agree with how the money is being spent. It's a lolly scramble without forethought and as a result, I expect a lot of the money spent to be wasted.

I wouldn't have wasted the $4040 that would have come into my household.

A $2040 tax cut for you and me is easy money, as it is for many. Provide that for the needy, and you can give more per needy person. Either way that will generate oil in the economy, ie, cashflow. But the needy will spend all of it.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1920819 17-Dec-2017 17:58

Rikkitic:

networkn:

Tax cuts generally cause spending to increase which improves tax take. I didn't need a tax cut, didn't really even want one, but I don't agree with how the money is being spent. It's a lolly scramble without forethought and as a result, I expect a lot of the money spent to be wasted.

Is this really true or just a political assumption? I don't know, I'm just asking.

Tax cuts may or may not improve the tax take through increased spending, but I get the impression that 'trickle down' has now been largely discredited and the worst off don't really benefit from such measures. Even if government spending is a wasteful lolly scramble, does this not put money back into the economy? Why is one worse than the other?

Because lower income props spend it, it goes back into the economy, the wealthy, it goes into shares and other non economic benefits.

Im not in favour of excessive wealth distribution to the poor, but National is very much against that

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1920833 17-Dec-2017 19:43

tdgeek:

Rikkitic:

networkn:

Tax cuts generally cause spending to increase which improves tax take. I didn't need a tax cut, didn't really even want one, but I don't agree with how the money is being spent. It's a lolly scramble without forethought and as a result, I expect a lot of the money spent to be wasted.

Is this really true or just a political assumption? I don't know, I'm just asking.

Tax cuts may or may not improve the tax take through increased spending, but I get the impression that 'trickle down' has now been largely discredited and the worst off don't really benefit from such measures. Even if government spending is a wasteful lolly scramble, does this not put money back into the economy? Why is one worse than the other?

Because lower income props spend it, it goes back into the economy, the wealthy, it goes into shares and other non economic benefits.

Im not in favour of excessive wealth distribution to the poor, but National is very much against that

National didnt have any spare cash to do much after the GFC and major earthquakes that cost it billions. They had to be frugal or our national debt would have been much higher.

Labour has got in at an opportune time when there is spare cash for the first time in many years...and watch them spend it.

Not holding National up as a hero here...but it has been dire times over the last few years.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1920843 17-Dec-2017 20:00

tdgeek:

Im not in favour of excessive wealth distribution to the poor, but National is very much against that

They certainly aren't going to ever have a social lolly scramble, but I don't think the last 9 years has been a fair picture. They had a fair number of holes to dig the country out of starting with the mess Labour left it last time (which I expect, based on current spending they will need to do again). This term I think National had big plans with their surplus. They were talking similar results to what Labour are touting around Child Poverty, WITH Tax cuts, and I believe social policy would have been much more controlled in a good way. Maybe less money overall, but better targetted to those who needed it.

I am already feeling frustrated and resentful of the lack of control Labour is exhibiting around their education and social policies. All older people getting heating subsidies instead of those who apply for them. Applications could have been extremely simple and easily administered. No need for verification, if you apply for it, you get it. Fraud would be low as part of your application would be your power companies account number and funds sent direct to them. Those who had no need for it, wouldn't have applied, and therefore money would have been saved and spent elsewhere.

I am going to predict with the education lolly scramble, overall pass rates as a percentage and grades as an average will both drop. Labour will have squandered the tax cut money (Again I don't care about tax cuts, but it's what they said would pay for it).

Just like their (lack of) tax plan planning, everything is being done knee jerk. They are either not listening to the advisors they have, or the ones they have are loopy.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1920863 17-Dec-2017 20:35

tdgeek:

Rikkitic:

networkn:

Tax cuts generally cause spending to increase which improves tax take. I didn't need a tax cut, didn't really even want one, but I don't agree with how the money is being spent. It's a lolly scramble without forethought and as a result, I expect a lot of the money spent to be wasted.

Is this really true or just a political assumption? I don't know, I'm just asking.

Tax cuts may or may not improve the tax take through increased spending, but I get the impression that 'trickle down' has now been largely discredited and the worst off don't really benefit from such measures. Even if government spending is a wasteful lolly scramble, does this not put money back into the economy? Why is one worse than the other?

Because lower income props spend it, it goes back into the economy, the wealthy, it goes into shares and other non economic benefits.

Im not in favour of excessive wealth distribution to the poor, but National is very much against that

In what way is buying shares not an economic activity? Providing capital to companies to support their operations is a pretty economic activity I would think.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1920865 17-Dec-2017 20:36

networkn:

tdgeek:

Im not in favour of excessive wealth distribution to the poor, but National is very much against that

They certainly aren't going to ever have a social lolly scramble, but I don't think the last 9 years has been a fair picture. They had a fair number of holes to dig the country out of starting with the mess Labour left it last time (which I expect, based on current spending they will need to do again). This term I think National had big plans with their surplus. They were talking similar results to what Labour are touting around Child Poverty, WITH Tax cuts, and I believe social policy would have been much more controlled in a good way. Maybe less money overall, but better targetted to those who needed it.

I am already feeling frustrated and resentful of the lack of control Labour is exhibiting around their education and social policies. All older people getting heating subsidies instead of those who apply for them. Applications could have been extremely simple and easily administered. No need for verification, if you apply for it, you get it. Fraud would be low as part of your application would be your power companies account number and funds sent direct to them. Those who had no need for it, wouldn't have applied, and therefore money would have been saved and spent elsewhere.

I am going to predict with the education lolly scramble, overall pass rates as a percentage and grades as an average will both drop. Labour will have squandered the tax cut money (Again I don't care about tax cuts, but it's what they said would pay for it).

Just like their (lack of) tax plan planning, everything is being done knee jerk. They are either not listening to the advisors they have, or the ones they have are loopy.

It feels very much like some kids have got hold of the controls and are saying "I wonder what happens if we do...THIS!"!

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1920884 17-Dec-2017 22:16

Geektastic:

It feels very much like some kids have got hold of the controls and are saying "I wonder what happens if we do...THIS!"!

What's worse, is the lack of alarm from voters of Labour about this approach.

It reminds me of a very political friend I have in the US. After Obama's 1st term, and the house and senate were Republican, and Obama had a lot of his policies blocked, therefore wasn't really getting anything done, my friend said he thought Obama was a good President and superior to Republican candidates, but he was voting Republican this time around because ANY direction was better than standing still. I asked "even backward", and got a firm "Yep".

Someone actually said something similar "anything better than National for another 3 years" and I thought, wow what a statement.

Had a conversation with someone the other day, she said he voted Labour, I asked why "Not National" was the response. She couldn't tell me what she didn't like about Nationals policies and couldn't name any Labour policies.

When I suggested a couple of high profile policies, she disagreed with them strongly, when I told her they were Labour Policies, the look on her face was priceless. From what I gather, she liked JA.

Some people shouldn't vote.

I wonder if like wearing a All Blacks Jersey, the prerequisites being able to name 10 AB's and the captain as a minimum, if you want to vote for a party, you should be able to name the leader, 3 policies, and at least 5 front line MP's.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1920895 17-Dec-2017 22:29

networkn:

I wonder if like wearing a All Blacks Jersey, the prerequisites being able to name 10 AB's and the captain as a minimum, if you want to vote for a party, you should be able to name the leader, 3 policies, and at least 5 front line MP's.

I wonder if you think all animals are equal, except some are more equal than others.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1920898 17-Dec-2017 22:39

Rikkitic:

networkn:

I wonder if like wearing a All Blacks Jersey, the prerequisites being able to name 10 AB's and the captain as a minimum, if you want to vote for a party, you should be able to name the leader, 3 policies, and at least 5 front line MP's.

I wonder if you think all animals are equal, except some are more equal than others.

That's very rude (Why would I expect anything less).

Just like I expect my surgeon to have a passing knowledge of surgery, I believe that those who vote should have a passing knowledge of what they vote for.

HP

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

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1920904 17-Dec-2017 23:34

You'd think Labour might have investigated a little more thoroughly why National thought a ban on foreign buyers wasn't an ideal solution. Turns out they were probably right.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11961504

More evidence to support my earlier claims.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1921078 18-Dec-2017 09:23

networkn:

That's very rude (Why would I expect anything less).

Just like I expect my surgeon to have a passing knowledge of surgery, I believe that those who vote should have a passing knowledge of what they vote for.

I wasn't trying to be rude. If that is how it came across, I apologise.

I was trying to make a point, which I'm surprised you can't see. The essence of democracy is that everyone has a voice. As soon as you try to introduce eligibility qualifications to vote, you open up endless cans of worms. The system is the way it is for a reason, and it is a good one.

Who determines voter eligibility under your suggestion? Does someone have to convince you that they are sufficiently knowledgeable? What are your criteria? Why yours, and not someone else's?

People vote the way they do for different reasons. These may be based on political nous, party affiliation, or the colour of the candidate's hair. It is none of your business why someone chooses to vote the way they do, nor is it anyone else's. For all its shortcomings, democracy works pretty well for most people. For one thing, it allows someone like you to complain endlessly when you don't get your way. I can't think of any other system I would rather have.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1921107 18-Dec-2017 09:40

Rikkitic:

networkn:

That's very rude (Why would I expect anything less).

Just like I expect my surgeon to have a passing knowledge of surgery, I believe that those who vote should have a passing knowledge of what they vote for.

I wasn't trying to be rude. If that is how it came across, I apologise.

I was trying to make a point, which I'm surprised you can't see. The essence of democracy is that everyone has a voice. As soon as you try to introduce eligibility qualifications to vote, you open up endless cans of worms. The system is the way it is for a reason, and it is a good one.

Who determines voter eligibility under your suggestion? Does someone have to convince you that they are sufficiently knowledgeable? What are your criteria? Why yours, and not someone else's?

People vote the way they do for different reasons. These may be based on political nous, party affiliation, or the colour of the candidate's hair. It is none of your business why someone chooses to vote the way they do, nor is it anyone else's. For all its shortcomings, democracy works pretty well for most people. For one thing, it allows someone like you to complain endlessly when you don't get your way. I can't think of any other system I would rather have.

I was stating a preference that people spend time (to be fair people spend more time drinking coffee in a month than it would take to get a passing knowledge of the major parties) investigating parties and their policies, and their decisions affect millions of people.

I understand it won't happen, and so we have muppets like this lady I was speaking to, who had she of done a modicum of research would have actually voted for a party that represented her actual views (I don't care which party).

You are (generally) required to be qualified to do most jobs.

Why my criteria? Well, because it's "my" preference. In reality, it wouldn't be mine.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1921133 18-Dec-2017 10:27

networkn:
You'd think Labour might have investigated a little more thoroughly why National thought a ban on foreign buyers wasn't an ideal solution. Turns out they were probably right.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11961504

More evidence to support my earlier claims.

Treasury deserve a slap for the hideous "operationalise" in that briefing.

1 | ... | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | ... | 268