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 | ... | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | ... | 236

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3202203 1-Mar-2024 19:26

sir1963:

No, he should be put up in accommodation that he does not own while the property is being repaired ASAP.

However he has an apartment in Wellington which was obviously empty and able to be used at no ones expense. Give him money for power/internet/water.

Power yes. Minimal to say the least. Water, minimal. Internet, I doubt he leaves the apartment he owns before he was an MP because ho goes there from time to time, with no internet.

Do MP's that live in Welligton get a solid 5 figure bonus for living at home?

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3202205 1-Mar-2024 19:28

sir1963:

Handle9:

So because he has a property of his own his remuneration should be reduced? That is far from consistent with the behaviour of a good employer and wouldn't be in any way acceptable in private or public employment.

Whether or not people working from home got paid for power is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

His remuneration is NOT being reduced.

And if anyone in another government department or in private industry did that, they would be FIRED and likely be done for fraud.

So if someone claimed an allowance they were entitled to claim they would be fired and prosecuted for fraud. Under what act would they be charged? The made up crimes act?

Remuneration is made up of salary and other allowances. If you are not paying an allowance he is entitled to you are reducing his remuneration.

This has gotten very silly, I don't really see the point in arguing about it with you.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3202207 1-Mar-2024 19:30

rb99:

I don't think his enumeration should be reduced. I don't think accommodation and expenses should be paid for as an extra when he doesn't have them. I imagine its designed (mainly) for those who suddenly have to rent.

I believe that basic concept is called leading by example.

Nailed it. If its an extra cost, taxpayers pay for it. if not, taxpayers pay for it, which is essentially zero

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3202208 1-Mar-2024 19:33

Handle9:

tdgeek:

Handle9:

Lack of maintainence is entirely relevant and quite ingenuous to suggest it is not. If the property requires extensive maintainence and can’t be inhabited should the PM be expected to work from home in Auckland as he has nowhere to live in Wellington?

IMO your argument is not logical at all.

Not relevent at all.

He decided to use his own existing property, so the taxpayer can pay for that. Which will be any costs that are solely due to his occupancy as an MP. Power is all I can think of

So your position is that MPs should be paid different salaries and allowances based on their personal circumstances, not based on their job?

No its not as you well know.

No one here is saying reduce his salary. Salary and allowances are different.... as you well know. What they are saying is its fine to pay allowances. If there is no cost, there is no allowance. If I was paid $x a km for travelling to work, do I get an allowance if I WFH?

rb99

3508 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1830

Lifetime subscriber

#3202211 1-Mar-2024 19:38

Handle9:

rb99:

I don't think his enumeration should be reduced. I don't think accommodation and expenses should be paid for as an extra when he doesn't have them. I imagine its designed (mainly) for those who suddenly have to rent.

So you'd be ok paying the allowance if he rented out his apartment and rented a different apartment instead?

Nope. But I doubt even Mr. Luxon would be quite so obvious at gaming the system.

“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.” -John Kenneth Galbraith

rb99

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#3202213 1-Mar-2024 19:38

Handle9:

So your position is that MPs should be paid different salaries and allowances based on their personal circumstances, not based on their job?

Correct, just like any other person dependant on the tax payer to fund it.

For other MPs it goes like this:

Clauses 33 to 38 apply in respect of a member of Parliament’s Wellington accommodation expenses if—

(a) the member’s primary place of residence is outside the Wellington commuting area; and
(b) the member is not provided with a residence at the public cost.

A place of residence has been supplied at the publics cost. There is no C "I want to live elsewhere" for MPs.

Given the PMs job is at the behest of the party and not the voting public the "Job" is still a voted in civil servant. If they get rolled, they do not lose their job and become unemployed.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3202215 1-Mar-2024 19:42

tdgeek:

Handle9:

tdgeek:

Not relevent at all.

He decided to use his own existing property, so the taxpayer can pay for that. Which will be any costs that are solely due to his occupancy as an MP. Power is all I can think of

So your position is that MPs should be paid different salaries and allowances based on their personal circumstances, not based on their job?

No its not as you well know.

No one here is saying reduce his salary. Salary and allowances are different.... as you well know. What they are saying is its fine to pay allowances. If there is no cost, there is no allowance. If I was paid $x a km for travelling to work, do I get an allowance if I WFH?

How would I know what your employment contract says?

There is an opportunity cost to Luxon owning an apartment in Wellington and using it in lieau of other accomodation. If he sold that apartment (supposedly approximately $1 million) and put the money on term deposit he would recieve around $60k. I'd guess he would recieve a resonably similar amount in rent.

Claiming it was "free" for him to use the property and the capital isn't at all correct.

SaltyNZ

8873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9558

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3202216 1-Mar-2024 19:44

rb99:

Nope. But I doubt even Mr. Luxon would be quite so obvious at gaming the system.

No, what you do is you rent it to another MP in your party.

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

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

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3202217 1-Mar-2024 19:44

rb99:

Handle9:

So you'd be ok paying the allowance if he rented out his apartment and rented a different apartment instead?

Nope. But I doubt even Mr. Luxon would be quite so obvious at gaming the system.

What about if he never owned an apartment in the first place?

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3202219 1-Mar-2024 19:50

SaltyNZ:

rb99:

Nope. But I doubt even Mr. Luxon would be quite so obvious at gaming the system.

No, what you do is you rent it to another MP in your party.

I thought you used it to run your own private superfund

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#3202220 1-Mar-2024 19:51

Handle9:

So if someone claimed an allowance they were entitled to claim they would be fired and prosecuted for fraud. Under what act would they be charged? The made up crimes act?

Remuneration is made up of salary and other allowances. If you are not paying an allowance he is entitled to you are reducing his remuneration.

This has gotten very silly, I don't really see the point in arguing about it with you.

When I was working after hours I was entitled to a meal allowance, but ONLY for the times I work after hours. If a meal was supplied by employer I did NOT get a meal allowance.

If I choose to eat at a restaurant, I do not get paid extra.

If I chose to bring my personal tools to work for use (I have better tools at home), I do not get paid extra for that, it was MY choice to make my life easier.

The accommodation allowance IS being paid to him in the use of crown property, if he turns it down, tough.

Who knows...perhaps me being an Atheist has made me a more moral person than he is.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3202221 1-Mar-2024 19:52

sir1963:

His remuneration is NOT being reduced.

And if anyone in another government department or in private industry did that, they would be FIRED and likely be done for fraud.

If I choose not to use any of the supplied items from my employer (phone, computer, transport, etc), I do not get to claim expenses for using my own from my employer

He had perfectly adequate accommodation supplied (palatial by the looks of it, which the tax payers STILL have to maintain), if he choses to use his own, his problem, he does not get paid bonus money to do so.

And I do not care who or which party they belong to does this.

He is paying it back. Like those before him. He has answered this and the previous pages.

An allowance is to cover personal costs. The personal cost of his own apartment exist if he was PM, an MP, at Air NZ or retired. If he is not incurring a personal cost, how can there be an allowance? Prior to all this, he is wealthily enough to own an apartment for convenience. He may stay there a few days a month, or a few days a quarter. He pays all the ownership costs, irregardless of his employment status. Its not being rented or AirBNB'ed, so there is no cost to him, apart from power used as an MP

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3202222 1-Mar-2024 19:54

rb99:

Nope. But I doubt even Mr. Luxon would be quite so obvious at gaming the system.

Watching the news, he just "ungamed it"

rb99

3508 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1830

Lifetime subscriber

#3202223 1-Mar-2024 19:54

SaltyNZ:

rb99:

Nope. But I doubt even Mr. Luxon would be quite so obvious at gaming the system.

No, what you do is you rent it to another MP in your party.

Its enough to make you think politicians want to have their cake and actually eat it.

“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.” -John Kenneth Galbraith

rb99

SaltyNZ

8873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9558

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3202225 1-Mar-2024 19:56

Handle9:

What about if he never owned an apartment in the first place?

Then he can live in the free house he already gets.

He's only there three days a week (according to what he said in the interview in Queenstown this afternoon) and since he's definitely working very hard for the betterment of NZ, most of that time he'll be in the office anyway so a dated and basic interior isn't going to kill him. And since he's the PM he can approve the repairs with a flick of a pen. I have no problem with Premier House being renovated (or replaced) in order to keep it up to scratch.

But I'm bloody well not paying for Premier House and giving him nearly a median annual wage tax free on top.

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

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

1 | ... | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | ... | 236