Don't blame me. I didn't vote for them.

freitasm:

 

[So what you asked is "If employees are going to have a tax rebate, then could employers reduce wages because employees will get the same amount as now?"

 

That's the same logic employers in the USA apply to people working from home - "Oh, you have less expenses now because you moved to Montana to WFH. Seeing Montana is a lot cheaper than California, we will reduce your salary because, technically you won't be worse off."

 

It sounds like a false equivalence fallacy to me.

 

Its the same argument...If landlords get a tax break they should reduce the rent so they get the same amount.

I'm starting to get the feeling already that I'm going to dislike this government as much as the last.

SJB:

 

I'm starting to get the feeling already that I'm going to dislike this government as much as the last.

 

Eh, it's far too early to tell whether they'll fail to deliver on repealing all the stuff the previous government failed to deliver or not. So we've got that going for us, which is nice.

But we will get inflation fixed, same for health and education and crime and housing, so there is also these...

National is inheriting and incoming tide?
Considering China is in trouble, and places with terrible inflation like Argentina's >100%.
Maybe more a time to act cautiously rather than going hard and creating more risks.

12 graphs that show New Zealand isn’t doing as badly as you think.
Max Rashbrooke
https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/20-11-2023/12-graphs-that-show-new-zealand-isnt-doing-as-badly-as-you-think

ezbee:

 

National is inheriting and incoming tide?
Considering China is in trouble, and places with terrible inflation like Argentina's >100%.
Maybe more a time to act cautiously rather than going hard and creating more risks.

 

12 graphs that show New Zealand isn’t doing as badly as you think.
Max Rashbrooke
https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/20-11-2023/12-graphs-that-show-new-zealand-isnt-doing-as-badly-as-you-think

 

 

 

Indeed - the latest inflation figures were released a day or two after the election, and it was down (even down a little more than expected). And despite the fact that Stuff was also complicit in relentlessly publishing multiple stories a day about ram raids before the election (and zero after) it turns out they were already falling for months prior.

So yes, NAFT will be as quick to take credit for positive circumstances they didn't cause as they were to blame Labour for negative circumstances they didn't cause either.

ezbee:

 

National is inheriting and incoming tide?
Considering China is in trouble, and places with terrible inflation like Argentina's >100%.
Maybe more a time to act cautiously rather than going hard and creating more risks.

 

12 graphs that show New Zealand isn’t doing as badly as you think.
Max Rashbrooke
https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/20-11-2023/12-graphs-that-show-new-zealand-isnt-doing-as-badly-as-you-think

 

 

 

Agree

Labour inherited the tide when Covid hit, then Ukraine, then our produce ending weather events. Globally, its all slowly coming right, but China will/may hurt everyone globally. So yes, the new Government picks all that up, not their fault nor the previous iteration. But, its a problem. Must be better ways for NZ than divisive tax cuts that we could not afford even before the Coalition's extra funding. We have ended up with the most right Government for some time.  My opinion but the media reports that too I've seen. Most likely the most divisive between rich and poor, and Maori, let alone climate change. I feel for those that are struggling, there is nothing for you. While they are just a days into the role, one would hope that the campaign slogans, talk, and slagging doesn't keep continuing

gzt: Apparently National policy is no family will pay more than $100 annually for prescription charges. Is that something people need to apply for in writing or is it somehow automatic?

Sounds like it would be difficult to make sure people get that entitlement automatically.

That is simply how it already worked before Labour introduced the free prescriptions legislation. It's not some bonus nice thing the National government are doing to soften the blow.

gzt: Apparently National policy is no family will pay more than $100 annually for prescription charges. Is that something people need to apply for in writing or is it somehow automatic?

Sounds like it would be difficult to make sure people get that entitlement automatically.

Its what we used to have, and I had zero issues with paying the $5 per script.

I was in favour of getting rid of it for various demographics/medications, but for me and the family although we are high users we could afford to pay and would have liked to see that money used to expand/subsidise medications available.

sir1963:

 

Its what we used to have, and I had zero issues with paying the $5 per script.

 

Yeah I've got zero issues paying $5 a script either but I don't rely on a weekly bottle of pills to stave off death or crippling disease. For some people, $5 is the difference between food and disease. And the thing is, if they choose disease, we - the taxpayers - end up paying MORE when they end up in Emergency suffering a massive episode that could have been avoided for want of a $5 prescription. 

Rolling it back is as dumb as rolling back Smokefree.

sir1963: I was in favour of getting rid of it for various demographics/medications, but for me and the family although we are high users we could afford to pay and would have liked to see that money used to expand/subsidise medications available

For many households even $5 can be the difference to obtaining needed medication but I've also got friends who are pharmacists and they're not looking forward to the added overhead of collecting payments and for those vulnerable some pharmacies also would often do an IOU with some people to ensure they get the medication they need adding additional overhead once again as they'll often have to chase up payments etc.

So the fee free prescriptions allowed for less pharmacy overheads in many different ways.

It would be pretty incredible if the govt could still cater for the vulnerable and not just the rich wouldn't it?

SaltyNZ:

 

sir1963:

 

Its what we used to have, and I had zero issues with paying the $5 per script.

 

 

 

 

Yeah I've got zero issues paying $5 a script either but I don't rely on a weekly bottle of pills to stave off death or crippling disease. For some people, $5 is the difference between food and disease. And the thing is, if they choose disease, we - the taxpayers - end up paying MORE when they end up in Emergency suffering a massive episode that could have been avoided for want of a $5 prescription. 

 

Rolling it back is as dumb as rolling back Smokefree.

 

I do, and some are not subsidised so cost me $300 a month + subscription fees as I can only get 1 months worth at a time.

And for my other meds, I STILL have no problems with paying the $5 to a max of $100 a year. Thats $100 than can used to supply someone else for free.

I am more than happy for anyone on a benefit , those with a CSC, or various long term health conditions to get them free.