Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20


1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  #1860953 8-Sep-2017 14:50
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

How do we get the tax take up by getting folks off benefits and increasing wages and salaries without fueling inflation, making us less competitive in  our export markets thus resulting in drops in production and exports meaning job losses and higher unemployment.

 

 

Never said anything about increasing wages and salaries.

 

Agreed that the consequence of doing so just increases prices, thus increases the cost of living and thereby fueling inflation.

 

We need less people on benefits and more people in jobs. This results in more income for government and the need to raise taxes.


14673 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  #1860959 8-Sep-2017 15:03
2 people support this post
Send private message

Wiggum:

 

MikeB4:

 

How do we get the tax take up by getting folks off benefits and increasing wages and salaries without fueling inflation, making us less competitive in  our export markets thus resulting in drops in production and exports meaning job losses and higher unemployment.

 

 

Never said anything about increasing wages and salaries.

 

Agreed that the consequence of doing so just increases prices, thus increases the cost of living and thereby fueling inflation.

 

We need less people on benefits and more people in jobs. This results in more income for government and the need to raise taxes.

 

 

You are assuming or appear to be assuming that all folks on benefit are on primary benefits. There are very large numbers of folks who are working and receiving income support. To move them off income support requires increases in wages and salaries this making us less competitive in our export markets. And as I said earlier this will result in job losses and increased need for benefits and income support. The least disruptive would be a tax or a clean up charge levied at those who pollute the waterways.

 

We could make it a rule that those who discharge into rivers must take their drinking water from 50 meters or less from the discharge point.





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

There is no planet B

 

 


 
 
 
 




1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  #1860963 8-Sep-2017 15:17
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

You are assuming or appear to be assuming that all folks on benefit are on primary benefits. There are very large numbers of folks who are working and receiving income support. To move them off income support requires increases in wages and salaries this making us less competitive in our export markets. And as I said earlier this will result in job losses and increased need for benefits and income support. The least disruptive would be a tax or a clean up charge levied at those who pollute the waterways.

 

We could make it a rule that those who discharge into rivers must take their drinking water from 50 meters or less from the discharge point.

 

 

This is a good point. But at the end of the day, raising taxes will hit these people too. And possibly harder.

 

I can agree on tax on those responsible for polluting the waterways etc. But how do you only hit the guilty ones without taxing those that are not causing the pollution? I think we can all agree that those that make the mess need to clean it up. Taxing bottled drinking water is not getting to the core of the problem, the polluters will continue, and the taxpayers will keep paying to cleanup. The consumer suffers and pays for it in the end (all consumers), even those receiving income support.

 

Why not set up a government origination that's sole purpose is to tackle these messy industries, clean up their mess, and then invoice/or fine them for the work done. I may even be happy paying a small tax to set something like this up. At the end of the day though, the real problem here is industries, government should be dealing with the problem by tackling those responsible, not creating a tax so that each new Zealander should pay to clean up their mess.

 

I like that rule about making those who discharge, drink. Reminds me of that scene from the Erin Brockovich movie

 


14673 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  #1860978 8-Sep-2017 15:29
Send private message

The boffins at organisations like Niwa are actually very good at  tracking down the culprits





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

There is no planet B

 

 


19145 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  #1861019 8-Sep-2017 16:01
Send private message

Wiggum:

 

MikeB4:

 

You are assuming or appear to be assuming that all folks on benefit are on primary benefits. There are very large numbers of folks who are working and receiving income support. To move them off income support requires increases in wages and salaries this making us less competitive in our export markets. And as I said earlier this will result in job losses and increased need for benefits and income support. The least disruptive would be a tax or a clean up charge levied at those who pollute the waterways.

 

We could make it a rule that those who discharge into rivers must take their drinking water from 50 meters or less from the discharge point.

 

 

This is a good point. But at the end of the day, raising taxes will hit these people too. And possibly harder.

 

I can agree on tax on those responsible for polluting the waterways etc. But how do you only hit the guilty ones without taxing those that are not causing the pollution? I think we can all agree that those that make the mess need to clean it up. Taxing bottled drinking water is not getting to the core of the problem, the polluters will continue, and the taxpayers will keep paying to cleanup. The consumer suffers and pays for it in the end (all consumers), even those receiving income support.

 

Why not set up a government origination that's sole purpose is to tackle these messy industries, clean up their mess, and then invoice/or fine them for the work done. I may even be happy paying a small tax to set something like this up. At the end of the day though, the real problem here is industries, government should be dealing with the problem by tackling those responsible, not creating a tax so that each new Zealander should pay to clean up their mess.

 

I like that rule about making those who discharge, drink. Reminds me of that scene from the Erin Brockovich movie

 

 

 

Thats primarily the point. Targeting the causers. Whether you charge them via a tax or an invoice makes no difference, they pay. They can keep paying if they wish, and we will use those funds to cleanup, and no doubt there will be bylaws in place to cease further pollution, so that once the cleanup is done its done

 

Winegrowers will pay a little per bottle, thats invisble. Farmers unsure. Bottlers, well they are taking whats left of our clean water they can pay in Chinese yuan as well. Ideally, if any one cleans up their act, they can avoid paying


1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  #1861042 8-Sep-2017 16:57
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

Wiggum:

 

MikeB4:

 

How do we get the tax take up by getting folks off benefits and increasing wages and salaries without fueling inflation, making us less competitive in  our export markets thus resulting in drops in production and exports meaning job losses and higher unemployment.

 

 

Never said anything about increasing wages and salaries.

 

Agreed that the consequence of doing so just increases prices, thus increases the cost of living and thereby fueling inflation.

 

We need less people on benefits and more people in jobs. This results in more income for government and the need to raise taxes.

 

 

You are assuming or appear to be assuming that all folks on benefit are on primary benefits. There are very large numbers of folks who are working and receiving income support. To move them off income support requires increases in wages and salaries this making us less competitive in our export markets. And as I said earlier this will result in job losses and increased need for benefits and income support. The least disruptive would be a tax or a clean up charge levied at those who pollute the waterways.

 

We could make it a rule that those who discharge into rivers must take their drinking water from 50 meters or less from the discharge point.

 

 

I understand that the majority of the money goes to working people on income support. It is these people who are getting increases. 


14673 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  #1861052 8-Sep-2017 17:23
One person supports this post
Send private message

One area that I would like the next Government to look at but probably wont is subsidies on power and heating for the elderly and or disabled/chronically ill. These of course should be means tested. I have dealt with many people who have medical conditions exacerbated or get ill because they are unable to heat their homes sufficiently. I have also dealt with folk who stay in be all day to try and keep warm unfortunately being less active makes one colder and exacerbates illness and disabilities. I believe that providing heating subsidies would reduce medical cost and reduce hospitalisations. 





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

There is no planet B

 

 


 
 
 
 


19145 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  #1861056 8-Sep-2017 17:32
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

One area that I would like the next Government to look at but probably wont is subsidies on power and heating for the elderly and or disabled/chronically ill. These of course should be means tested. I have dealt with many people who have medical conditions exacerbated or get ill because they are unable to heat their homes sufficiently. I have also dealt with folk who stay in be all day to try and keep warm unfortunately being less active makes one colder and exacerbates illness and disabilities. I believe that providing heating subsidies would reduce medical cost and reduce hospitalisations. 

 

 

That rings a bell, maybe Labour, but could be National


636 posts

Ultimate Geek


  #1861083 8-Sep-2017 20:46
One person supports this post
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

One area that I would like the next Government to look at but probably wont is subsidies on power and heating for the elderly and or disabled/chronically ill. These of course should be means tested. I have dealt with many people who have medical conditions exacerbated or get ill because they are unable to heat their homes sufficiently. I have also dealt with folk who stay in be all day to try and keep warm unfortunately being less active makes one colder and exacerbates illness and disabilities. I believe that providing heating subsidies would reduce medical cost and reduce hospitalisations. 

 

 

http://www.labour.org.nz/labour_helps_older_new_zealanders_and_low_income_families_with_winter_heating_bills


13884 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1861108 8-Sep-2017 22:51
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

The boffins at organisations like Niwa are actually very good at  tracking down the culprits

 

 

 

 

Some of the most regular can be easy to spot: They have 4 legs and are often black and white.






13884 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1861109 8-Sep-2017 22:57
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

How do we get the tax take up by getting folks off benefits and increasing wages and salaries without fueling inflation, making us less competitive in  our export markets thus resulting in drops in production and exports meaning job losses and higher unemployment.

 

 

 

 

I never suggested wages and salaries would get increased. I suggested benefits should go down. You have to deal with getting more income yourself by getting well paid employment. Creating a culture of reliance on the State is not, in my view, a sound basis to run a country.

 

The other side of wage levels is supply and demand: if wages are low, we might consider whether the population - or at least the number of available people in a particular area of work - is too great.






13884 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1861111 8-Sep-2017 23:02
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

Wiggum:

 

MikeB4:

 

You are assuming or appear to be assuming that all folks on benefit are on primary benefits. There are very large numbers of folks who are working and receiving income support. To move them off income support requires increases in wages and salaries this making us less competitive in our export markets. And as I said earlier this will result in job losses and increased need for benefits and income support. The least disruptive would be a tax or a clean up charge levied at those who pollute the waterways.

 

We could make it a rule that those who discharge into rivers must take their drinking water from 50 meters or less from the discharge point.

 

 

This is a good point. But at the end of the day, raising taxes will hit these people too. And possibly harder.

 

I can agree on tax on those responsible for polluting the waterways etc. But how do you only hit the guilty ones without taxing those that are not causing the pollution? I think we can all agree that those that make the mess need to clean it up. Taxing bottled drinking water is not getting to the core of the problem, the polluters will continue, and the taxpayers will keep paying to cleanup. The consumer suffers and pays for it in the end (all consumers), even those receiving income support.

 

Why not set up a government origination that's sole purpose is to tackle these messy industries, clean up their mess, and then invoice/or fine them for the work done. I may even be happy paying a small tax to set something like this up. At the end of the day though, the real problem here is industries, government should be dealing with the problem by tackling those responsible, not creating a tax so that each new Zealander should pay to clean up their mess.

 

I like that rule about making those who discharge, drink. Reminds me of that scene from the Erin Brockovich movie

 

 

 

 

Thats primarily the point. Targeting the causers. Whether you charge them via a tax or an invoice makes no difference, they pay. They can keep paying if they wish, and we will use those funds to cleanup, and no doubt there will be bylaws in place to cease further pollution, so that once the cleanup is done its done

 

Winegrowers will pay a little per bottle, thats invisble. Farmers unsure. Bottlers, well they are taking whats left of our clean water they can pay in Chinese yuan as well. Ideally, if any one cleans up their act, they can avoid paying

 

 

 

 

Why a tax? Why not fines on the polluters, starting at say $500,000? Pay in 30 days or it's 5 years in prison.

 

If you want to discourage pollution, surely penalising polluters is better than taxing people? And slapping them with wet bus ticket fines is not going to achieve anything.

 

If you want a good base for looking at government body, this one might be worth considering.






14673 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  #1861127 9-Sep-2017 07:04
Send private message

Geektastic:

MikeB4:


How do we get the tax take up by getting folks off benefits and increasing wages and salaries without fueling inflation, making us less competitive in  our export markets thus resulting in drops in production and exports meaning job losses and higher unemployment.



 


I never suggested wages and salaries would get increased. I suggested benefits should go down. You have to deal with getting more income yourself by getting well paid employment. Creating a culture of reliance on the State is not, in my view, a sound basis to run a country.


The other side of wage levels is supply and demand: if wages are low, we might consider whether the population - or at least the number of available people in a particular area of work - is too great.



Reducing benefits would reduce spending and create more unemployment and greater welfare spending.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

There is no planet B

 

 


13884 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1861147 9-Sep-2017 07:59
Send private message

MikeB4:
Geektastic:

 

MikeB4:

 

 

 

How do we get the tax take up by getting folks off benefits and increasing wages and salaries without fueling inflation, making us less competitive in  our export markets thus resulting in drops in production and exports meaning job losses and higher unemployment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never suggested wages and salaries would get increased. I suggested benefits should go down. You have to deal with getting more income yourself by getting well paid employment. Creating a culture of reliance on the State is not, in my view, a sound basis to run a country.

 

 

 

The other side of wage levels is supply and demand: if wages are low, we might consider whether the population - or at least the number of available people in a particular area of work - is too great.

 



Reducing benefits would reduce spending and create more unemployment and greater welfare spending.

 

 

 

Maybe. If you carry on carrying the unemployed, which I wouldn't.






14673 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  #1861148 9-Sep-2017 08:01
One person supports this post
Send private message

You are assuming that those on Welfare are doing it by choice, a mistake a lot of people make.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

There is no planet B

 

 


1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter and LinkedIn »



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

New Vodafone mobile data plans with unlimited data
Posted 26-Feb-2020 06:55


Vodafone launches innovation initiatives to help businesses use 5G
Posted 26-Feb-2020 05:00


Ultimate Ears HYPERBOOM brings massive sound and extreme bass
Posted 25-Feb-2020 09:00


Withings launches three new devices to help monitor heart health from home
Posted 13-Feb-2020 20:05


Auckland start-up Yourcar matches new car buyers with dealerships
Posted 13-Feb-2020 18:05


School gardens go high tech to teach kids the importance of technology
Posted 13-Feb-2020 11:10


Malwarebytes finds Mac threats outpace Windows for the first time
Posted 13-Feb-2020 08:01


Amazon launches Echo Show 8 in Australia and New Zealand
Posted 8-Feb-2020 20:36


Vodafone New Zealand starts two year partnership with LetsPlay.Live
Posted 28-Jan-2020 11:24


Ring launches indoor-only security camera
Posted 23-Jan-2020 17:26


New report findings will help schools implement the digital technologies curriculum content
Posted 23-Jan-2020 17:25


N4L to upgrade & support wireless internet inside schools
Posted 23-Jan-2020 17:22


Netflix releases 21 Studio Ghibli works
Posted 22-Jan-2020 11:42


Vodafone integrates eSIM into device and wearable roadmap
Posted 17-Jan-2020 09:45


Do you need this camera app? Group investigates privacy implications
Posted 16-Jan-2020 03:30



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.