Christopher Luxon, New Zealand Prime Minister 2023

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

Forums › Politics › Christopher Luxon, New Zealand Prime Minister 2023

1 | ... | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | ... | 188

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#3192129 7-Feb-2024 20:45

freitasm:

I did not write EQUALLY in the sense of "same tax bracket" but "EQUALLY" as in everyone pays tax.

But thanks for your (wrong interpretation) of my writing.

It would be better than go deep into assumptions to ask first, clarifying the point and then argue it.

This is where the fairness argument falls down in terms of tax too - you have people paying nil or nothing close to it because they structure their affairs thusly (although generally this isn't worth doing for 99.9% of people) and you have people paying nil or close to it because they have huge families and draw an enormous amount of resources away from the state. is either one of those outcomes fair? Arguably no. And yet you could argue one of those is much fairer than the other.

Everyone likes to talk about GST being regressive but it's one of the reasons GST is such a brilliant catch-all tax. You simply can't spend money on the things you need to live and not pay it. It's a great leveller - those who spend more, pay more. Those who spend less pay less. GST doesn't care if you have no kids or sixteen kids.

It's the 'time makes fool of us all' of the tax world.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79289 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3192130 7-Feb-2024 20:53

In a perfect worlds you'd have GST only.

Because, think of it you are paying tax (GST) with money you already paid tax on (income).

So many taxes on top of taxes.

But not a National problem.

quickymart

13963 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#3192191 7-Feb-2024 23:10

freitasm:

And the government is now opening the COVID-19 Inquiry gates just a little bit, so that the crazies partners can come in too:

“As committed to in both the ACT-National and NZ First-National coalition agreements, the public will be given the opportunity to have their say on a broadened terms of reference that addresses the handling of the response and many complex impacts of the COVID-19 response.

“The current terms of reference were decided by the same Government responsible for the COVID-19 response and they place significant limits on what the inquiry can consider. New Zealanders deserve a frank assessment of what occurred and how we can learn from it.

“The Government is seeking feedback on the inclusion of the following topics, as part of its commitment to expanding the scope of the inquiry:

Use of multiple lockdowns
Vaccine procurement and efficacy
The social and economic impacts on both regional and national levels
Whether the decisions made, and steps taken, were justified
The cost-effectiveness of the Government’s policies, and whether the rules set by the Government appropriately balanced COVID-19 elimination with other goals
The Government’s utilisation of partnerships with business and professional groups
The extent of disruption to New Zealanders’ health, education, and business as a result of the Government’s policies
If the Government’s response was consistent with the rule of law
How New Zealand’s pandemic preparedness compared to other countries
“The engagement will begin in February, and details about the opportunity to have your say on the terms of reference and how people can share their experiences of the pandemic will be announced soon by the Royal Commission.

“This is a forward-thinking piece of work. It is not simply about learning what went wrong, but working out what we need to do right in the future.

“This Government is ensuring all New Zealanders’ concerns are heard.”

I agree with the majority of the items - but this will open a can of worms that will need to be managed. Let's wait for the submissions.

Interestingly, Bomber talked about exactly this today: https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2024/02/07/qanon-antivaxxers-push-new-hard-racist-government-into-extending-covid-inquiry-into-a-grievance-carnival/

Handle9

11391 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3192192 7-Feb-2024 23:19

Another “quality” piece of journalism from Bradbury.

He’s putting this entirely on ACT when the first four terms of reference are in the NZ First National coalition agreement.

I’d like to say it’s a surprise but he’s always been this lazy, even when he was editor of Craccum.

gzt

17137 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3192197 7-Feb-2024 23:48

Specifically the article quotes ACT MP Brooke Van Velden as Minister of Internal Affairs implementing the inquiry thing.

Rather than attributing 100% responsibility for the inquiry to ACT I think it's more a commentary on ACT sailing very close to the fringes in some areas as seen by the unpleasant dissolution of the ACT Auckland Uni Branch which Seymour eventually stepped in to his credit and sorted out. But, yeah there is probably not a shortage of ongoing examples.

Minister of Internal Affairs Van Velden' press release.

Handle9

11391 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3192198 7-Feb-2024 23:56

gzt: Specifically the article quotes ACT MP Brooke Van Velden as Minister of Internal Affairs implementing the inquiry thing.

Rather than attributing 100% responsibility for the enquiry to ACT I think it's more a commentary on ACT sailing very close to the fringes in some areas as seen by the unpleasant dissolution of the ACT Auckland Uni Branch which Seymour eventually stepped in to his credit and sorted out.

Minister of Internal Affairs Van Velden' press release.

Nah it's just Bradbury being lazy and useless.

Van Velden is the Minister so responsible for implementation of the policy just as Willis is responsible for the fiscal policies in the coalition agreement.

ACT have a policy in their coalition agreement to put various issues from the Covid response out to public consultation which is being implemented.

There's plenty of legitimate criticism to be had but Bradbury just takes the easy way out and vomits some nonsense that this is all ACTs fault when there's a fair bit more context to be discussed here.

ACT are certainly guilty of lots of culture war crap, as are many other parties. They should be called out for it but so should others who contribute to the policy.

gzt

17137 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3192200 8-Feb-2024 00:04

Handle9: ACT have a policy in their coalition agreement to put various issues from the Covid response out to public consultation which is being implemented.

I think you're saying ACT is exactly and 100% responsible for the 'consultation' policy that Bradbury is objecting to as an invitation to nutjobs to come fly.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Handle9

11391 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3192206 8-Feb-2024 00:35

gzt:
Handle9: ACT have a policy in their coalition agreement to put various issues from the Covid response out to public consultation which is being implemented.

I think you're saying ACT is exactly and 100% responsible for the 'consultation' policy that Bradbury is objecting to as an invitation to nutjobs to come fly.

Nope. I’m saying that New Zealand First is equally responsible and there is zero mention of this.

Handle9

11391 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3192208 8-Feb-2024 00:40

This is straight out of the NZ First coalition agreement. Does it look at all familiar and might be relevant to the topic?

Ensure, as a matter of urgency in establishment and completion, a full scale, wide ranging, independent inquiry conducted publicly with local and international experts, into how the Covid pandemic was handled in New Zealand, including covering:
Use of multiple lockdowns,
Vaccine procurement and efficacy,
The social and economic impacts on both regional and national levels, and
Whether the decisions made, and steps taken, where justified.

SaltyNZ

8231 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3192245 8-Feb-2024 08:25

Handle9:

Nope. I’m saying that New Zealand First is equally responsible and there is zero mention of this.

More than Act, even. I'm sure Act's loony fringe are happy it's happening, but it wouldn't be there at all without NZF. Seymour has his marching orders; the rich backers don't really give a crap about a COVID inquiry.

They've already gotten their way and had all restrictions dropped. A second inquiry is just a waste of precious tax dollars (and on that, I agree - the first inquiry probably should have had a somewhat wider scope if for no other reason than to make sure the crazies have no oxygen).

He's got to concentrate the Mahrees who are stealing our water / not agreeing to sell everything to a corporation for maximum monetisation.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79289 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3192263 8-Feb-2024 09:27

gzt: Minister of Internal Affairs Van Velden' press release.

Yes, that's where I got the whole wall of text, posted five pages back.

Paul1977

5047 posts

Uber Geek

#3192288 8-Feb-2024 10:17

freitasm:

Or your definition of "EQUALLY" is off:

So what does treating people equally actually mean? Twinkl NZ

Let's put aside that you didn't go to a dictionary for your definition, but I don't understand how even Twinkl's definition supports what your saying:

Treating people equally means that you treat everyone the same regardless of their race, sex, social status, disability, religion, or anything else
Treating people equally means that you are doing the same thing for everyone

Taxing different people at different rates is not treating people the same, it's doing something different depending on a persons income (which would fall into the "anything else" category).

We obviously aren't going to agree.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79289 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3192348 8-Feb-2024 11:08

Taxing everyone is treating people equally.

Taxing everyone at at rate that won't cause financial pain is treating people equally and fairly.

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3192349 8-Feb-2024 11:11

Paul1977:

freitasm:

Or your definition of "EQUALLY" is off:

So what does treating people equally actually mean? Twinkl NZ

Let's put aside that you didn't go to a dictionary for your definition, but I don't understand how even Twinkl's definition supports what your saying:

Treating people equally means that you treat everyone the same regardless of their race, sex, social status, disability, religion, or anything else
Treating people equally means that you are doing the same thing for everyone
Taxing different people at different rates is not treating people the same, it's doing something different depending on a persons income (which would fall into the "anything else" category).

We obviously aren't going to agree.

If we taxed everyone at say 22% that would be fair? While everyone in that scenario is treated equally, the are not in fact equal. Person A on a low income has little left over after tax, Person B on a high income has plenty left over after tax. That doesn't mean you screw the higher earners down, but as they have a massively higher PDI, (and in fact have a PDI) they can afford to pay more, and still enjoy plenty of benefits that they have created for themselves, income wise.

ezbee

2405 posts

Uber Geek

#3192422 8-Feb-2024 12:57

Auckland Regional Fuel Tax to end in June, PM announces
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508653/auckland-regional-fuel-tax-to-end-in-june-pm-announces

""
However, Auckland's mayor Wayne Brown has said while the tax should be scrapped, that should only be as part of a plan to replace the revenue with other fund-raising measures like congestion charging.

In August, he said removing the regional fuel tax without a replacement could leave a $2 billion gap in the council's budget, and urged the government to work with local government rather than dictating to the council.
""

So something will replace it, rates rises, congestion charging or something else.

Congestion charging does have potential that if people become even more incentivised to work at home.
You have to charge those that can't and don't have public transport handy even more to make the target yearly income.

Paradoxically if it works then they have to charge more. :-)

1 | ... | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | ... | 188