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 | ... | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | ... | 268

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1923244 21-Dec-2017 15:27

rjt123:

Then how come we have kids living in cars? Or homeless?

It would be interesting to ask those people living in cars, it those homeless people:
A) just how they got into that position,?
B) Do they care? (For some people homelessness/living on the street is a lifestyle choice)
C) do they blame the government for where they are?

A) things happen with peoples lives, not as bad as the US but I think this is applicable in NZ.

B) Yeah, I think the number of those who have it as a lifestyle choice vs things that happened to put them into the situation are the minority. It's a common right wing theme to bash individuals back to the personal responsibility argument vs focusing on the fact they are homeless and what wrap around services can be provided to get them off the street. As homeless people are expensive for all government agencies to manage either across MSD or Police/Justice. Much like the 100k per annum having people in jail, isn't it perhaps more pragmatic dealing with the issue upfront rather than jailing only the most serious offenders?

C) Should blame matter, they are homeless. Where is your compassion as a human being living in a first world country?

gzt

18694 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7831

Lifetime subscriber

#1923247 21-Dec-2017 15:31

rjt123:

Then how come we have kids living in cars? Or homeless?

It would be interesting to ask those people living in cars, it those homeless people:
A) just how they got into that position,?
B) Do they care? (For some people homelessness/living on the street is a lifestyle choice)
C) do they blame the government for where they are?

The answers will vary. The fact is the market cannot fulfill the need rapidly enough.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1923281 21-Dec-2017 17:27

rjt123:

As to the cost of government superannuation, what's your perspective on the NZ Government Superannuation fund? It's currently at $37 billion, and has has a current return on investment of over $4 billion. It would have been over $52 billion if the previous National government hadn't stopped contributing as soon as they got into power in 2008. This fund will be available from 2020 to offset the cost of government superannuation.

It's nice to think that National should have continued contributing to the super-fund. However, that cash had to come from somewhere, and the government was certainly not in a strong financial position in 2008, and future economic outlook was not good. Every billion invested into the super fund is one less billion invested into kick-starting the economy that literally stalled in 2008.

Of course they could have borrowed it, but would have been consequently lampooned for increasing debt.

Alternatively they could have just recklessly invested into it and left the next labour government to sort out their mess.

One must always remember that the super-fund is a fund set up for YOU to contribute to, for your own personal retirement. It's nice to think the government should be putting aside cash for YOUR retirement now, but if you really care about your own superannuation then feel free to increase your OWN weekly contributions.

Not forgetting that the government’s money is YOUR money it took, not some other money!

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1923298 21-Dec-2017 17:47

Geektastic:

Not forgetting that the government’s money is YOUR money it took, not some other money!

And gave back, health, Welfare, Defence, Roads, Protection.....................

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

dwilson

162 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 123

#1923356 21-Dec-2017 19:44

Geektastic: Not forgetting that the government’s money is YOUR money it took, not some other money!

Glad you emphasized that word, because, as far as I can tell, it's not YOUR money. You personally appear to pay close to nothing in tax.

The whiner doth protest too much, methinks.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1923366 21-Dec-2017 20:07

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

Don't play his silly game.

Dell

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

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1306
Inactive user

#1923368 21-Dec-2017 20:15

MaxLV:

What do you mean they 'could have borrowed' it'? The National government DID borrow hugely, and ran up the national debt!
When Labour left office in 2008 our government debt was $10 billion. Now the debt is over $92 billion and National wanted to cut taxes instead of paying down the debt.

https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/newzealand

Clark's fifth Labour Government reduced debt from 22.6 per cent of GDP in 2000 to 5.5 per cent in 2008. That same Labour Government went from a $386 million deficit in 2001, to a $2.8b surplus in 2008.

Of course National just spent willy-nilly, no disasters happened while they were in govt... /sarcasm

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 161

#1923397 21-Dec-2017 21:12

blakamin:

MaxLV:

What do you mean they 'could have borrowed' it'? The National government DID borrow hugely, and ran up the national debt!
When Labour left office in 2008 our government debt was $10 billion. Now the debt is over $92 billion and National wanted to cut taxes instead of paying down the debt.

https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/newzealand

Clark's fifth Labour Government reduced debt from 22.6 per cent of GDP in 2000 to 5.5 per cent in 2008. That same Labour Government went from a $386 million deficit in 2001, to a $2.8b surplus in 2008.

Of course National just spent willy-nilly, no disasters happened while they were in govt... /sarcasm

FYI
----------------
The Treasury estimates the capital cost of the Canterbury earthquakes to be around$40 billion. The Government, on behalf of New Zealand taxpayers, is making a significant contribution to the rebuild of around $14.9 billion (including the Earthquake Commission (EQC)).
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2014/bps/06.htm

How much has the Government actually been spending on Christchurch once you examine its books? Indeed with the insurance flowing though the city, will it earn about as much as it ultimately spends because of the tax take on the resulting construction boom? Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee frequently mentions the headline figure of a $16.5 billion Crown contribution to Canterbury, although half of that is insurance payouts from the Earthquake Commission (EQC). And with the Government now playing hardball over the cost of fixing Christchurch's horizontal infrastructure and the timelines on its central city anchor projects are stretching out, a closer look is being taken at precisely what it has ended up committing to the rebuild.

One recovery critic, Cam Preston – a chartered accountant who after the earthquakes had contract jobs with both the EQC and Housing New Zealand – says he was surprised when he started to comb the Treasury figures. Boil it down, says Preston, and the Government is provisioning to spend a total of $6.7b on "core Crown" contributions like the anchor projects, the fixing of roads and sewers, the repairs to (mainly insured) Crown-owned schools and hospitals. Which no doubt is a fair sum of money to be promising. But what his accountant's eye has noticed is the fact that the Government's accounts up to 2014 show only $2b of this $6.7b has been cash actually spent –operational expenditure.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/the-rebuild/70084887/How-much-is-the-Government-really-spending-to-fix-Christchurch

The [Kaikoura] November earthquakes are expected to cost New Zealand about half a billion dollars.

A new Government-commissioned report estimates that in the 18 months from the November 2016 earthquakes, New Zealand's gross domestic product will drop by $450 million to $500m.

The report, released by Economic Development and Transport Minister Simon Bridges, details the economic impact of disruptions from infrastructure damage and road closures on tourism and other businesses.

-----------------

The full costs (including the government costs) aren't available yet, but it wont be anything like the costs of the Christchurch earthquakes.

The cost to the government are nowhere near the 92 billion the National government borrowed in the 9 years they ran up the Government debt.
IOW this weak excuse For the previous governments huge debt just doesn't add up.

As for the GFC that happened in 2008, and New Zealand wasn't that badly affected by it, certainly not enough to justify running up such a huge government debt anyway. They didn't have to pay out billions to banks, or any other 'too big to let fail' corporate mates did they.

So where has all the money gone that they have borrowed? And why did they borrow money to fund their promised electioneering tax cuts?

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1923444 21-Dec-2017 22:11

dwilson:

Geektastic: Not forgetting that the government’s money is YOUR money it took, not some other money!

Glad you emphasized that word, because, as far as I can tell, it's not YOUR money. You personally appear to pay close to nothing in tax.

The whiner doth protest too much, methinks.

Kind of sad you decided to get personal. Merry Xmas to you as well.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1923454 21-Dec-2017 23:12

dwilson:

Geektastic: Not forgetting that the government’s money is YOUR money it took, not some other money!

Glad you emphasized that word, because, as far as I can tell, it's not YOUR money. You personally appear to pay close to nothing in tax.

The whiner doth protest too much, methinks.

My tax affairs are irrelevant. Rest assured that the IRD has received all the pounds of flesh to which it lays claim which are certainly far from being "close to nothing".

I was responding to this

"One must always remember that the super-fund is a fund set up for YOU to contribute to, for your own personal retirement. It's nice to think the government should be putting aside cash for YOUR retirement now, but if you really care about your own superannuation then feel free to increase your OWN weekly contributions. "

To whit that if the government is putting aside cash for your retirement, it is in effect putting aside cash you previously gave it.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#1923522 22-Dec-2017 08:53

Geektastic:

To whit that if the government is putting aside cash for your retirement, it is in effect putting aside cash you previously gave it.

More specifically, the government is borrowing money to put aside cash for your retirement, it is in effect signing you and your children up to pay for one final layer at the base of the great pyramid scheme that is NZ's Superannuation.

Aside - It does amuse me how some commentators here are able to criticise National for running up debt in a period of Financial Crisis and Natural Disaster, yet are completely silent on the new coalition's plans to borrow more, and repay it later.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1923538 22-Dec-2017 09:09

6FIEND:

Geektastic:

To whit that if the government is putting aside cash for your retirement, it is in effect putting aside cash you previously gave it.

More specifically, the government is borrowing money to put aside cash for your retirement, it is in effect signing you and your children up to pay for one final layer at the base of the great pyramid scheme that is NZ's Superannuation.

Aside - It does amuse me how some commentators here are able to criticise National for running up debt in a period of Financial Crisis and Natural Disaster, yet are completely silent on the new coalition's plans to borrow more, and repay it later.

Thats a fair comment. However, there are many sectors that have been underfunded by National over the 9 years, thats a lot of catch up. If the current Govt caught up that deferred spending over another 9 years, that becomes equally as crazy. As has been stated, much of the disaster was funded by existing reserves built up over many decades by EQWDC, renamed to EQC. GFC, we were affected, but our banking system is far less reliant on global banking than most other countries. While its unfair for me and others to use those points as a cop out, its also inaccurate to use those points as the cause of everything now. Underfunding to create surpluses is bad enough, then to use that to give tax cuts to everyone??

As regards Superannuation, I dont believe in the Govt funding that. Kiwisaver is doing a fine job in allowing individuals to fund it. But there needed to be a transition so that some age groups are not advantaged or disadvantaged. And some form of guide as to breaking into it for home loans. Perhaps a lengthy repayment of the home loan grant over and above the % contributed, but thats another story in itself. Threadworthy in fact

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 161

#1923540 22-Dec-2017 09:10

6FIEND:

Geektastic:

To whit that if the government is putting aside cash for your retirement, it is in effect putting aside cash you previously gave it.

More specifically, the government is borrowing money to put aside cash for your retirement, it is in effect signing you and your children up to pay for one final layer at the base of the great pyramid scheme that is NZ's Superannuation.

Aside - It does amuse me how some commentators here are able to criticise National for running up debt in a period of Financial Crisis and Natural Disaster, yet are completely silent on the new coalition's plans to borrow more, and repay it later.

You're still sticking with the tired old sad excuses of natural disasters and the GFC?
The National government ran up debt through borrowing to 92 billion+, far more than was ever needed to cover the Christchurch and Kaikoura earthquakes, and the negative effects of the GFC. Where has all that borrowed 92 billion gone? Why did they have to borrow it in the first place?

The current government has to borrow to cover the obligations the previous government's mismanagement has lumbered us all with.
This website will explain it to you:

https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/newzealand

HTH

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#1923541 22-Dec-2017 09:11

MaxLV:

blakamin:

MaxLV:

What do you mean they 'could have borrowed' it'? The National government DID borrow hugely, and ran up the national debt!
When Labour left office in 2008 our government debt was $10 billion. Now the debt is over $92 billion and National wanted to cut taxes instead of paying down the debt.

https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/newzealand

Clark's fifth Labour Government reduced debt from 22.6 per cent of GDP in 2000 to 5.5 per cent in 2008. That same Labour Government went from a $386 million deficit in 2001, to a $2.8b surplus in 2008.

Of course National just spent willy-nilly, no disasters happened while they were in govt... /sarcasm

-----------------

The full costs (including the government costs) aren't available yet, but it wont be anything like the costs of the Christchurch earthquakes.

The cost to the government are nowhere near the 92 billion the National government borrowed in the 9 years they ran up the Government debt.
IOW this weak excuse For the previous governments huge debt just doesn't add up.

As for the GFC that happened in 2008, and New Zealand wasn't that badly affected by it, certainly not enough to justify running up such a huge government debt anyway. They didn't have to pay out billions to banks, or any other 'too big to let fail' corporate mates did they.

So where has all the money gone that they have borrowed? And why did they borrow money to fund their promised electioneering tax cuts?

So if 92 billion debt is bad then borrowing a further billions to contribute to the super fund would be even worse, yes?

So where had all the money gone. The reason you can't see where it has gone is because you are taking a very narrow view of the government's affairs and expenditure to portray it in a negative light. If you look at the bigger picture then suddenly it all makes sense and doesn't look so bad.

Take the government's payout for the collapse of South Canterbury Finance for example. A billion dollars of wasted money because the previous government had failed in their oversight of the industry. As well as all the economic stimulus measures required because the previous labour government had run the economy into the ground. One needs only read the prefu for the 2008 election to see that labour's surpluses (which look good on paper) had failed to deliver the economic prosperity or fiscal strength that the country needed for the coming years.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1923547 22-Dec-2017 09:18

rjt123:

One needs only read the prefu for the 2008 election to see that labour's surpluses (which look good on paper) had failed to deliver the economic prosperity or fiscal strength that the country needed for the coming years.

OK - so let's slam Labour for not predicting the GFC, then also slam Labour for daring to suggest that the current "Trump Bump" to global markets might not be sustainable, even over the course of the current term.

1 | ... | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | ... | 268