Who should I vote for?

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

Forums › Politics › Who should I vote for?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 21

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1834788 1-Aug-2017 10:49

Wiggum:

Funny that all those countries have the highest tax rates. It would be a vote to pay more tax.

You also have to look at what they do with that tax. Much of it is returned in the form of social services. It gets invested in things like universal health care (including mental health) and penal reform, resulting in much lower rates of incarceration and recidivism. Some societies, like America, favour minimal tax and minimal welfare and the result can be seen throughout their society. Others believe that paying more tax results in lower costs further down the line. I have been in Scandinavian countries and they are generally quite pleasant places to be.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1834794 1-Aug-2017 10:53

Arguments by poverty deniers usually end up with them desperately searching for evidence of home with hungry child but sky dish, beer can or empty winfield pack in garbage.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1834795 1-Aug-2017 10:55

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

We (wife and I) would be happy to pay more tax if it helps ease homelessness and poverty. You should have read about those counties, they are orders of magnitude ahead of us and ranked high on surveys.

I prefer having the choice of where I donate any my extra income. Instead of a government taking it via tax, I will like to give to charities of my own choice. I give to World Vision as I believe my money goes a lot further helping people living in real poverty, opposed to it going to people here in NZ just to fund a better lifestyle. Sure there are some instances where it will benefit people in NZ, but personally I would rather have the choice to see my money go where it has the most benefit. Our tax should be tenough just for a safety net, to cover the very basics of housing/food etc. Nothing more, and I think we currently at the right place with our current tax rate.

Saying that, I would be quiet happy to pay more tax if it was going to benefit people in real poverty. I support this kind of initiative in African countries etc.. Not in NZ.

Not everyone is as enlightened as you. Kiwis do give a lot to charity, but not everyone is as generous. Taxation is a way to ensure that those who want to keep it all for themselves also contribute to society. A problem here is how the taxes are used.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1834796 1-Aug-2017 10:59

Fred99:

Arguments by poverty deniers usually end up with them desperately searching for evidence of home with hungry child but sky dish, beer can or empty winfield pack in garbage.

Its not normally desperate searching. The evidence is normally right in front of you about all of that. From what I have seen it always leans back towards bad parenting.

Back on the topic of tax, I would be quiet happy to pay a little more tax so people don't live as described above. But I don't want these families/parents getting any form of cash.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1834800 1-Aug-2017 11:01

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

Charity begins at home and I really don't want to engage on this but YES poverty does exist in NZ

"Poverty" will always exist in new Zealand, because of its very definition. The solution you describe above will not get rid of "poverty"

"Poverty as defined in New Zealand are the households that make less than 60 per cent of the median disposable income."

So think about that. It means no matter how rich the country is and no matter how high the median household we will always have a class of people that are described as living in poverty.

I think this is false logic. It may be correct and convenient to define poverty at 60% as things stand today, but a more correct definition is standard of living, not percent of what everyone else gets. If the lowest-paid are able to have a decent life from their income, which is not the case at present, then they are not impoverished. In that case it doesn't matter how rich others are. At present New Zealand poverty means things like not enough to eat, living in cold and damp homes or no home at all, no proper winter clothes for children, that kind of thing. I think that is poverty regardless of what the median income is.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1834803 1-Aug-2017 11:03

Geektastic:

Linuxluver:

Geektastic:

Having been told by the internet I needed to vote ACT, I thought I would go and look at their policies.

To be honest, not much there to differentiate them from National really.

I would not vote for them anyway, as they are too small to be relevant but I can't really see anything particularly controversial in their policies.

ACT's policies don't work. That's the #FAIL for me right there.

Neo-liberalism was a greedy grab by the 1%....who preached market forces then rigged the market. Got some upward wage pressure due to skill shortages? Do you increase wages as market forces would indicate? No....you tip the table in your favour by importing cheap workers. Yeah...vote for that. G'won.

That's ACT.

Hopeless.

If you intend to be in the 1% that wouldn't be so mad.

In your illustration, market forces would indicate that you find the cheapest available source of labour commensurate with the ability to produce what you want. Their nationality would be irrelevant.

I know the rules and values in that theory and it's the same thing the NZ Party lead by Bob Jones was saying 1984.

It's a prescription for profound inequality and social problems....and it has delivered everywhere.

Sometimes punching yourself in the face isn't the answer. This is one of them.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1834817 1-Aug-2017 11:12

kotuku4:

jonb:

I'm a Labour or Green leaning voter, however The Opportunities Party's policies would seem to fit with me at the moment. I think they have a chance to reach 5%..

I tend to agree with you, TOPS is a good think tank with interesting policies. However, I am concerned with the candidates put up, by ... well most parties. And if these small parties don't achieve 5% then is this fragmenting the vote, and handing more power to the likes of Winnie the Poo. Remember the past when he held the country to ransom and the tail ends up wagging the dog. I wish some other voters had better memory, or perhaps they like the main parties and the country in general disrupted?

The tail wag dog idea is a relic from the First past the Post days. Past it's best before date.

There is no "dog" if no party wins a majority seats.

All you have a bag of tails that will have to work together.

It helps to see it that way.....or you're buying to idea a party the majority did not vote has some right to govern.

They do not.

They may be a big minority, but they just another minority among the herd of minorities.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Wise

Send money globally for less with Wise - one free transfer up to NZ$900 (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1834822 1-Aug-2017 11:20

Wiggum:

Fred99:

Arguments by poverty deniers usually end up with them desperately searching for evidence of home with hungry child but sky dish, beer can or empty winfield pack in garbage.

Its not normally desperate searching. The evidence is normally right in front of you about all of that. From what I have seen it always leans back towards bad parenting.

Exactly the same "sample bias" and anecdotal "evidence" could lead to other conclusions that I expect you really wouldn't support - about how the rich evade tax, landlords are slumlords etc.

SepticSceptic

2188 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1834824 1-Aug-2017 11:22

I'll add my 2c worth.

Traditionally, pre-2000-ish, I was a National voter - heck I even thought a few of Rob Muldoons policies were ok - i.e the gas-to-gasoline project was to make NZ independent of the vicissitudes of OPEC nations, and possibly forever rising fuel prices. In hindsight, the fuel inflation hasn't really happened, but that is 20/20 hindsight.

I voted purely for myself, and what is best for me.

As I get older, my leanings are more towards political parties that I perceive will do best for NZ overall, and not just for myself. I have become more aware of intangibles like the environment, and perceived hardship for some, and inappropriate justice outcomes.

I have voted Labour in the past, as well as Greens, and the Outdoor Recreation party. I was glad to see the back of Helen Clarke - Helen was a good leader, and did good work, but developed far too much hubris in the latter terms.

Bill English and Nat - a 4th term ? Nah. 3 terms max - just to make sure they work harder next time around.

My current position is that I am favouring TOP, for a number of reasons IMHO:

- Legalisation of Cannabis - I think it is wholly wrong that the convictions for use constrains our young people from employment and overseas travel, and adds to our prison population. It is a soft crime, and overall harms no one.

- Environmental - putting the brakes on the continual degradation of our environment.

- Immigration - excessive Immigration has hurt NZ - infrastructure, housing, etc.

ANd their flag has the same colours as the Carbonari, a network of revolutionaries in the early 1800's in Italy :-)

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1834826 1-Aug-2017 11:23

MikeB4:

If they make this choice or Grant Robertson as Deputy I will relook at Labour. I am not comfortable with National doing a fourth term I do not think it is good for a country. However I don't believe in change for change sake.

Now that Little has stepped down it is a different game. I am prepared to consider Labour again and am willing to hear arguments for them. I would like to see Grant Robertson finally get the opportunity he has long deserved, though he may not want it at this point. Jacinda Ardern might pull more votes, but it might be for the wrong reason. I agree that she has what it takes to be leader, but it is too soon.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1834834 1-Aug-2017 11:30

Can't keep up with the rate that things are happening. Ardern is in. It will be an interesting election to say the least.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1834843 1-Aug-2017 11:38

Rikkitic:

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

We (wife and I) would be happy to pay more tax if it helps ease homelessness and poverty. You should have read about those counties, they are orders of magnitude ahead of us and ranked high on surveys.

I prefer having the choice of where I donate any my extra income. Instead of a government taking it via tax, I will like to give to charities of my own choice. I give to World Vision as I believe my money goes a lot further helping people living in real poverty, opposed to it going to people here in NZ just to fund a better lifestyle. Sure there are some instances where it will benefit people in NZ, but personally I would rather have the choice to see my money go where it has the most benefit. Our tax should be tenough just for a safety net, to cover the very basics of housing/food etc. Nothing more, and I think we currently at the right place with our current tax rate.

Saying that, I would be quiet happy to pay more tax if it was going to benefit people in real poverty. I support this kind of initiative in African countries etc.. Not in NZ.

Not everyone is as enlightened as you. Kiwis do give a lot to charity, but not everyone is as generous. Taxation is a way to ensure that those who want to keep it all for themselves also contribute to society. A problem here is how the taxes are used.

Agreed.

Taxation is the cheapest form of insurance. It provides funds for things we need. It provides funds for fixing things that break. It provides funds to ensure we are all safe and healthy and living in a country governed by the rule of law.

To do all this via private insurance would simply add profit to all the costs...and make it all vastly more expensive as profit becomes the motive.....not actually doing the job that needs doing. Look at what privatisation had done to driver training.....just one example. They have pass / fail targets based on revenue requirements. The "market forces" model fails right there. Again.

People who don't see value in paying tax are very ignorant, unthinking people. Too many of them about, unfortunately.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1834853 1-Aug-2017 11:51

Linuxluver:

People who don't see value in paying tax are very ignorant, unthinking people. Too many of them about, unfortunately.

Unless I missed something, nobody here is proposing we get rid of taxes.

Just questioning the tax threshold, and what should be funded. I am quiet happy for my taxes to be used as a safety net for new Zealanders who need help. I just don't want my taxes to be used to fund lifestyles.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1834886 1-Aug-2017 12:54

Wiggum:

Linuxluver:

People who don't see value in paying tax are very ignorant, unthinking people. Too many of them about, unfortunately.

Unless I missed something, nobody here is proposing we get rid of taxes.

Just questioning the tax threshold, and what should be funded. I am quiet happy for my taxes to be used as a safety net for new Zealanders who need help. I just don't want my taxes to be used to fund lifestyles.

No idea where to draw the line there.....especially as we are moving toward a time when more and more people won't have jobs at all as AI replaces people in more and more niches - from top to bottom. I'm happy to "fund lifestyles" if there is no job to go to. Anything else is a recipe for disaster.

We need to rethink this is Old Testament narrative on what "work" is. It's evaporating before our eyes.

The government creates money. There is never a shortage for war or bailing out banks. Maybe we should spend it on good stuff instead.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1834893 1-Aug-2017 13:07

Applause. +111111111

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 21