J Adern, How will she affect the election, and is she a good leader?

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

Forums › Politics › J Adern, How will she affect the election, and is she a good leader?

1 | ... | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | ... | 45

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1865147 14-Sep-2017 11:36

Reciprocity:
tdgeek:

6FIEND:

tdgeek:

6FIEND:

networkn:

How will they fund the miracles they plan on performing to solve the serious issues they see in NZ now?

Is it too soon to enquire about a fiscal hole again?...

Might let the market sort it out :-)

Is the secret, non disclosed tax reform the source of all the funds needed for all their policies?...

No - Labour have already detailed the other sources of funds.

...if you round that up to 2.5bn per year, then that leaves a $14.5bn per year shortfall.

You suggested that this should be treated seriously - It's probably worth doing precisely that.

Labour are spending 12B more and taxing more, thats known, paying debt back at a lower rate, and doing more, so as they have had to back track the tax reform, the policies will need to back track too. Cannot avoid that. Or we can throw stones at each other, thats my point. many here ha e stated good things aboyt the other side, but most of the time its anger rather than serious discusison

Actually, I'm a big fan of how 6FIEND generally responds with facts and sources to make an argument rather than stone throwing or name calling.

If they are spending 12B more and taxing 2.5B more, then they won't just be repaying debt at a lower rate, they'll be increasing debt by almost 10B per year. (Until they cancel some spending promises)

How about you point out in this post above, where the stone throwing and name calling is? Or you just missed my point

Mighty Ape

Shop Mighty Ape for electronics, games, computers books and more (affiliate link).

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1865148 14-Sep-2017 11:38

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/96409123/election-2017-where-will-the-money-come-from

Good article to show how both parties are similar in terse ion overall goals, just get there differently.

networkn

Networkn
30207 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1865150 14-Sep-2017 11:38

Rikkitic:

networkn:

allio:

Well my call of half an hour ago was exactly wrong - Labour have now categorically ruled out any (not already announced) new taxes in the first term.

Wow, way to stick to your "beliefs" Labour.

So they believe these taxation policies are critical to NZ, but since they won't get elected with them in place, they have compromised their values to take power. How will they fund the miracles they plan on performing to solve the serious issues they see in NZ now?

Oh come on now. Most of your posts at least make sense, even if they are wrong. Are you now seriously going to maintain that National (or any other political party) does not 'compromise their values' to take power? I have never known any party in any country that did not make compromises once it got elected. You are just reaching for things to bash Labour with. This is a BS non-argument.

Most of my posts are wrong, wow, thanks for letting me know.

I know all parties do it to a degree, but it's a pretty big one, don't you think?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17234 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1865151 14-Sep-2017 11:39

Pumpedd:

The Project is so clearly biased, just from some of the off cuff comments from crew. Quite disgusting imo. The Labour housing guy is really creepy and says nothing of value. I do agree the Nats have screwed up over housing and have also screwed up on taking care of the vulnerable.

Todays U turn from Labour on tax is yet another desperate attempt to get power at any cost. To go into an election like Labour has is extremely bad management. If Little was still Leader, Labour would be about 20% on the polls. Jacinda has no real experience at anything. She has never been leader and isnt politics her only job ever?

Now they release a tax plan, and without increasing tax their is no way in hell they can afford their election promises. Its desparation!!!

What about all the desperate policy promises National has been scattering about? How many of those are going to quietly disappear after the election?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1865164 14-Sep-2017 11:45

MikeAqua:

Surely they aren't predicting an economic upturn of that magnitude? The commentary I have seen is predicting a slight downturn.

Actually, according to the Fiscal Forecast on their website, Labour are forecasting GDP to grow at the following rate:

In percentage terms, that is growth of 4.9% 4.7% 4.1% and 4.3% for FY19 - FY22 respectively.

Some would call that "aspirational", others "delusional" ...considering:

networkn

Networkn
30207 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1865165 14-Sep-2017 11:46

Rikkitic:

networkn:

I agree compromise is a good thing, but they should have thought things out better in the first place. JA came out like a bull in a china shop. I believe it's an inexperience and age thing. I am a very similar age to JA and I don't believe I know anyone in my age group I'd feel comfortable leading the Government. There isn't a lot of downside to Labour under JA being in opposition for 3 years longer.

C'mon, seriously? You don't think you are qualified to run the country but you feel qualified to post endless opinions here about how it should be done. And you accuse Jacinda Ardern of inconsistency!

I am not qualified to play for the All Blacks, but I feel I can criticize parts of their game (based on my opinion and experience), like not passing in front of a player at the correct height to make running onto the ball into spaces easier, and stuff they do well, like skills handling in close that makes it hard for the opponent to compete for the ball.

If not being able to do it at least as well as someone who says they want to do the job, is a re-requisite, do you, on your own logic, feel you are qualified or allowed to offer an opinion here ?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17234 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1865168 14-Sep-2017 11:48

networkn:

tdgeek:

Too much exageration. I accept the bias but even so. They have policies that feel with help. And there is no housing crisis I'm told anyway

We will have to agree to disagree over exaggeration. You can google for JA stating she didn't want the PM job, it's a video from January if I recall correctly.

Despite what you might feel, I was prepared to give Labour a fair shot under JA, but honestly other than being a bit more upbeat, and having nice aspirations, the actual ability to deliver on promises left me cold, and most policies were similar enough I'd rather the Devil I know.

I don't think JA is right for the PM role right now, but I think she has some potential. I wanted to see her stick with it longer than 5 weeks, I don't think many would consider that unreasonable.

There is a bit about National I don't like right now, I don't want tax cuts, I'd prefer higher social spending. I don't want extra languages when a fair number of our kids can't speak and write the primary language of NZ as it is.

I want to see healthcare and education required to be more efficient so we get better value of the money we already spend, as well as spending more sensibly.

There you go again. You have not at any time been prepared to give JA a 'fair shot'. You have been looking for ways to undermine her from the moment she became leader. You mouth a few platitudes to create an appearance of 'objectivity', but under no circumstances are you prepared to even consider giving her a fair go. I already addressed your pointless attack about her not wanting to be leader, and I notice you never responded to that. And all the other 'progressive' things you say, if you really want any of those, you can have them. Just vote Labour/Greens.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
30207 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1865170 14-Sep-2017 11:49

Rikkitic:

Pumpedd:

The Project is so clearly biased, just from some of the off cuff comments from crew. Quite disgusting imo. The Labour housing guy is really creepy and says nothing of value. I do agree the Nats have screwed up over housing and have also screwed up on taking care of the vulnerable.

Todays U turn from Labour on tax is yet another desperate attempt to get power at any cost. To go into an election like Labour has is extremely bad management. If Little was still Leader, Labour would be about 20% on the polls. Jacinda has no real experience at anything. She has never been leader and isnt politics her only job ever?

Now they release a tax plan, and without increasing tax their is no way in hell they can afford their election promises. Its desparation!!!

What about all the desperate policy promises National has been scattering about? How many of those are going to quietly disappear after the election?

Well, do you have proof these weren't planned for prior to the announcements? Are you saying Labour intended to kill it's Tax stance in the first term all along?

I am not saying you are entirely wrong, but you are making some assumptions.

Having said that, I am happy (Even pleased) for to you to keep a record of all the promises made, and let us know how many are kept.

One question. If there is another major disruption in NZ, say another quake, or GFC2, do you expect National if they are elected, to keep all it's promises?

Reciprocity

169 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#1865174 14-Sep-2017 11:53

tdgeek:

How about you point out in this post above, where the stone throwing and name calling is? Or you just missed my point

I may have missed your point. It read as if you were accusing them of throwing stones...

networkn

Networkn
30207 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1865176 14-Sep-2017 11:53

Rikkitic:

There you go again. You have not at any time been prepared to give JA a 'fair shot'. You have been looking for ways to undermine her from the moment she became leader. You mouth a few platitudes to create an appearance of 'objectivity', but under no circumstances are you prepared to even consider giving her a fair go. I already addressed your pointless attack about her not wanting to be leader, and I notice you never responded to that. And all the other 'progressive' things you say, if you really want any of those, you can have them. Just vote Labour/Greens.

If my 8 year old son ran for PM, I wouldn't support him either! Just because someone runs for PM doesn't mean I need to give them an inch. I think she has the beginnings of a good leader, and with some more experience and time, I may come to support her as PM. She talks a good talk most of the time

and I admire her mostly consistent positive outlook. I don't think those alone make for a good leader of a country. Not sure what harm you see in her having another 3 years to firm up her experience base and continue to prove she can be a good leader for the Labour party.

I do think that Bill has loosened up and shown a little more of his personality this time around, I quite like him. Before, I supported him because I think he is a fantastic financial leader, well respected internationally for being good at his job and he is calm which some mistake for boring. He is steady and I personally like steady and reliable.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17234 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1865186 14-Sep-2017 12:14

networkn:

If my 8 year old son ran for PM, I wouldn't support him either! Just because someone runs for PM doesn't mean I need to give them an inch. I think she has the beginnings of a good leader, and with some more experience and time, I may come to support her as PM. She talks a good talk most of the time

and I admire her mostly consistent positive outlook. I don't think those alone make for a good leader of a country. Not sure what harm you see in her having another 3 years to firm up her experience base and continue to prove she can be a good leader for the Labour party.

I do think that Bill has loosened up and shown a little more of his personality this time around, I quite like him. Before, I supported him because I think he is a fantastic financial leader, well respected internationally for being good at his job and he is calm which some mistake for boring. He is steady and I personally like steady and reliable.

We will see how it turns out. If Labour wins, I'm sure some of their more aspirational policies will get watered down as reality bites. If National gets in, I don't doubt some of their more recent campaign promises will fade away. But there is a lot of hyperbole in debates like this and as I said before, a victory either way is not going to mean the end of our way of life. I also agree with you that Bill English has loosened up and become somewhat more likeable, and I can certainly live with him as PM for three more years, but I still think National has got their priorities wrong.

And no, I am definitely not qualified in any way to lead the country, but like you, that does not prevent me from having an opinion on issues that affect me, or from feeling I have a right to. I think extreme income disparity, poverty, inequality of opportunity, lead to crime in the streets, which affects me. I think more roads instead of better trains affects me. Degradation of the environment from intensified dairying and general disregard for ecological concerns affects me. Watching Rugby does not affect me, but I want to have a voice in things that do.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1865221 14-Sep-2017 12:36

Reciprocity:
tdgeek:

How about you point out in this post above, where the stone throwing and name calling is? Or you just missed my point

I may have missed your point. It read as if you were accusing them of throwing stones...

My point was when discussing both parties there is more biased stone throwing than real discussions

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1865222 14-Sep-2017 12:39

@6Fiend

Your graphs, let's not talk billions as that is misleading albeit true. The vast majority of the revenue is tax cuts at $20 per week. The other is very small. Compared to today the extra taxes are a few dollars a week. That's not a real burden based on what needs to be fixed imho

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1865238 14-Sep-2017 13:20

tdgeek: @6Fiend

Your graphs, let's not talk billions as that is misleading albeit true. The vast majority of the revenue is tax cuts at $20 per week. The other is very small. Compared to today the extra taxes are a few dollars a week. That's not a real burden based on what needs to be fixed imho

I think that I may not have been clear...

Labour (their own figures) are ^H^H^H were projecting tax revenue to increase to 17bn more per year (by the end of their term) than its current level. They had also described where just under 2.5bn per year of that increase would come from:

- reversing the uplifts to the two lowest tax brackets that have already been enacted into law.

- tourist tax

- extend "bright line" test from 2yrs to 5yrs remove negative gearing tax breaks

- crackdown on multinational tax avoidance

As you noted, the lion's share (about 80%) of that came from cancelling the tax cuts - that's the $20pw impact.

What's missing is where the extra revenue coming from? (17-2.5=14.5bn)

It's a huge gap... over $3k every year from every man, woman and child in NZ. (on top of the $20pw ;-)

[Edit] I was assuming that the 14.5bn difference was going to be met by the reforms proposed by the Tax Working Group. As it turns out, Labour seem to have also banked on the Economy growing at a rate up to 5X higher than it historically has, while at the same time significantly cutting immigration and significantly tightening up on labour laws.

It really doesn't seem at all plausible.

networkn

Networkn
30207 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1865255 14-Sep-2017 14:00

Rikkitic:

And no, I am definitely not qualified in any way to lead the country, but like you, that does not prevent me from having an opinion on issues that affect me, or from feeling I have a right to. I think extreme income disparity, poverty, inequality of opportunity, lead to crime in the streets, which affects me. I think more roads instead of better trains affects me. Degradation of the environment from intensified dairying and general disregard for ecological concerns affects me. Watching Rugby does not affect me, but I want to have a voice in things that do.

So hang on a second... First, you lambast me for having an opinion on JA's ability to lead, even though I can't do better, then you say you ALSO can't do better, but ALSO want to have an opinion.

I do not understand you one little bit. You need to decide on a position and stick to it.

You live rurally I assume you aren't expecting trains rurally to improve? Agree with intensified farming, don't think it's an easy answer.

1 | ... | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | ... | 45