quickymart:

 

Enough people must like him, he got voted in as PM, didn't he?

 

I don't think the ones posting on here did

Its a beat up because people don't like double standards. The rich take what they're entitled to, thats fine, the poor do the same, they're lazy freeloaders.

rb99:

 

The rich take what they're entitled to, thats fine, the poor do the same, they're lazy freeloaders.

 

All too often people use phrases like: dole bludgers, lazy & useless beneficiaries, heck even Paula Bennett got the nickname "Paula Benefit" as a Nat MP because she was a solo parent on the benefit at one point.

However it's a beat-up when it is poor Luxon?

Qazzy03:

rb99:

The rich take what they're entitled to, thats fine, the poor do the same, they're lazy freeloaders.

All too often people use phrases like: dole bludgers, lazy & useless beneficiaries, heck even Paula Bennett got the nickname "Paula Benefit" as a Nat MP because she was a solo parent on the benefit at one point.

However it's a beat-up when it is poor Luxon?

I think the issue is that his Wellington apartment already existed. He didnt buy it/rent it when he became an MP. The only running cost that would increase is power which would be minimal, but the taxpayer should pay for that. But 52k? 

Handle9:

 

It's a beat up because people don't like Luxon.

 

No, it's a beat up because he already gets a free house in Wellington because he's the PM, but it isn't good enough for him* so he's claiming an extra $52K as well, and he's doing it while at the same time putting thousands of people out of work and telling the people out of work that they are bottom feeders who should get a job.

As The Dude said, he's not wrong, he's just an ***hole.

*It's Chris Hipkins' fault, naturally. He is very clear on that, said it three or four times during the interview just now in Queenstown: the maintenance issues were passed onto him by the previous Prime Minister. To be fair he did say once, in passing, that the property is actually managed by an independent body, but the maintenance issues are the fault of the previous Prime Minister.

Qazzy03:

 

rb99:

 

The rich take what they're entitled to, thats fine, the poor do the same, they're lazy freeloaders.

 

 

All too often people use phrases like: dole bludgers, lazy & useless beneficiaries, heck even Paula Bennett got the nickname "Paula Benefit" as a Nat MP because she was a solo parent on the benefit at one point.

 

However it's a beat-up when it is poor Luxon?

 

She didn't get the nickname because she was on the benefit in the past, she got the nickname because she was on the benefit in the past, used it to help herself get back on her feet, and then spent her career in politics taking those same benefits away from as many other people as possible.

SaltyNZ:

Handle9:

It's a beat up because people don't like Luxon.

 

No, it's a beat up because he already gets a free house in Wellington because he's the PM, but it isn't good enough for him* so he's claiming an extra $52K as well, and he's doing it while at the same time putting thousands of people out of work and telling the people out of work that they are bottom feeders who should get a job.

As The Dude said, he's not wrong, he's just an ***hole.

 

 

*It's Chris Hipkins' fault, naturally. He is very clear on that, said it three or four times during the interview just now in Queenstown: the maintenance issues were passed onto him by the previous Prime Minister. To be fair he did say once, in passing, that the property is actually managed by an independent body, but the maintenance issues are the fault of the previous Prime Minister.

Handle9:

 

quickymart:

 

Enough people must like him, he got voted in as PM, didn't he?

 

 

I don't think the ones posting on here did

 

I'd say it's a pretty even split. Nobody on here is being especially coy about their political leanings. Personally I think it's great to debate people I don't agree with.

Handle9:

SaltyNZ:

 

Handle9:

 

It's a beat up because people don't like Luxon.

 

 

No, it's a beat up because he already gets a free house in Wellington because he's the PM, but it isn't good enough for him* so he's claiming an extra $52K as well, and he's doing it while at the same time putting thousands of people out of work and telling the people out of work that they are bottom feeders who should get a job.

 

As The Dude said, he's not wrong, he's just an ***hole.

 

*It's Chris Hipkins' fault, naturally. He is very clear on that, said it three or four times during the interview just now in Queenstown: the maintenance issues were passed onto him by the previous Prime Minister. To be fair he did say once, in passing, that the property is actually managed by an independent body, but the maintenance issues are the fault of the previous Prime Minister.

 

You mean the maintainence that we recommended by the independent authority but not funded by Ardern and Hipkins? That maintainence?

Or the ones before them, yes, that maintenance.

tdgeek:

 

I think the issue is that his Wellington apartment already existed. He didnt buy it/rent it when he became an MP. The only running cost that would increase is power which would be minimal, but the taxpayer should pay for that. But 52k? 

 

He has accommodation supplied to him by his employers (us tax payers). He choses not to use it.

Handle9:

 

If you have a job that requires you to work in multiple locations you get reimbursed for the expense of travel and extra living costs in the second location. Luxon is MP for Botany and of course has to be present in Wellington. His primary residence is in Auckland.

 

It's entirely reasonable that the cost of travel and away from home living costs are covered. If they weren't it would mean that only the rich could be MPs.

 

The final sentence is silly. He has been offered remuneration, he's accepted it. No one is disputing he is entitled to the allowance under his contract.

 

 

 

I DO have a job that has on occasions required me to travel in NZ and internationally.

My employer chose my accommodation and paid for it, if I chose to stay somewhere else, the expense is all mine, and it's likely my employer would want their unrequited cost reimbursed. I certainly would NOT be paid to stay in one of my own properties at their expense.

Luxton has accommodation being supplied to him by his employers (the tax payer), if he chooses not to use it, then it becomes his expense.

SaltyNZ:

Handle9:

I don't think the ones posting on here did

 

I'd say it's a pretty even split. Nobody on here is being especially coy about their political leanings. Personally I think it's great to debate people I don't agree with.

sir1963:

Handle9:

If you have a job that requires you to work in multiple locations you get reimbursed for the expense of travel and extra living costs in the second location. Luxon is MP for Botany and of course has to be present in Wellington. His primary residence is in Auckland.

It's entirely reasonable that the cost of travel and away from home living costs are covered. If they weren't it would mean that only the rich could be MPs.

The final sentence is silly. He has been offered remuneration, he's accepted it. No one is disputing he is entitled to the allowance under his contract.

 

 

I DO have a job that has on occasions required me to travel in NZ and internationally.

My employer chose my accommodation and paid for it, if I chose to stay somewhere else, the expense is all mine, and it's likely my employer would want their unrequited cost reimbursed. I certainly would NOT be paid to stay in one of my own properties at their expense.

Luxton has accommodation being supplied to him by his employers (the tax payer), if he chooses not to use it, then it becomes his expense.

I see he's giving it back - 'its become a distraction'. Wasn't the wrong thing to do of course (what, make a mistake...me), its just a distraction from our mission of firing some people so those of us left in jobs can pay a bit less in tax.