Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

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

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 230 | 231 | 232 | 233 | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 | 238 | 239 | 240 | ... | 268

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2048351 3-Jul-2018 15:14

Pumpedd:

The lesson here is for voters to be a lot more serious about who they vote for.

Winston could have gone either way (National government, or labour goverment), so not really sure how being a more serious voter would really have made any difference.

Under MMP its better to vote strategically than for the party of your choice. Thats not what we should be doing.

Norton

Get easy to use, easy to install Norton antivirus protection against advanced online threats (affiliate link).

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2048353 3-Jul-2018 15:21

Wiggum:

Pumpedd:

The lesson here is for voters to be a lot more serious about who they vote for.

Winston could have gone either way (National government, or labour goverment), so not really sure how being a more serious voter would really have made any difference.

Under MMP its better to vote strategically than for the party of your choice. Thats not what we should be doing.

The reason he went with LAbour is because National wouldn't give him what he wanted. The reason he got billions in taxpayer dollars to spend is because Labour wanted power at any cost.

As I said be serious about who/what you vote for.

MikeB4

18133 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2048358 3-Jul-2018 15:32

In my opinion I feel National made some vital mistakes in the campaign and hitting out at who was going to be a potential coalition partner was in hindsight wrong. National needs to get a little smarter about elections and about coalition partners. They need to ascertain early who their target partners maybe not work against them the election campaign. I don't mean agree with their every whim but be shrewd in their not working with them on conflicting interests.

networkn

Networkn
30223 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2048361 3-Jul-2018 15:40

MikeB4:

In my opinion I feel National made some vital mistakes in the campaign and hitting out at who was going to be a potential coalition partner was in hindsight wrong. National needs to get a little smarter about elections and about coalition partners. They need to ascertain early who their target partners maybe not work against them the election campaign. I don't mean agree with their every whim but be shrewd in their not working with them on conflicting interests.

I agree.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2048372 3-Jul-2018 15:50

MikeB4:

In my opinion I feel National made some vital mistakes in the campaign and hitting out at who was going to be a potential coalition partner was in hindsight wrong. National needs to get a little smarter about elections and about coalition partners. They need to ascertain early who their target partners maybe not work against them the election campaign. I don't mean agree with their every whim but be shrewd in their not working with them on conflicting interests.

I really dont think it would have made any difference. Winston was thinking of himself. I'm glad he is not part of a National government even if it means National is not governing. Partnering with Winston would have been an ethical pitfall for the party long term. It would have just been wrong. Let the 3 stooges coalition mess things up (they doing a dam fine job of it). That's Nationals next ticket into government. No need to partner with an unethical narcissist.

MikeB4

18133 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2048394 3-Jul-2018 16:05

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

In my opinion I feel National made some vital mistakes in the campaign and hitting out at who was going to be a potential coalition partner was in hindsight wrong. National needs to get a little smarter about elections and about coalition partners. They need to ascertain early who their target partners maybe not work against them the election campaign. I don't mean agree with their every whim but be shrewd in their not working with them on conflicting interests.

I really dont think it would have made any difference. Winston was thinking of himself. I'm glad he is not part of a National government even if it means National is not governing. Partnering with Winston would have been an ethical pitfall for the party long term. It would have just been wrong. Let the 3 stooges coalition mess things up (they doing a dam fine job of it). That's Nationals next ticket into government. No need to partner with an unethical narcissist.

Right now National has no viable coalition partner. It needs to nurture one now or it will not win the treasury benches in the next election. Act is dead. Now National could well nurture the NZ Green party as a coalition party and I could see these two working together. If Winston stands as Leader of NZ First in the next election they may still be a problem but if he retires at the end of this term in my opinion NZ First will die.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2048788 4-Jul-2018 10:24

Good lord - to qualify for Kiwibuild, you have to earn under $180,000 per two person household, and under $120,000 per single person household. (Gross income).

From a quick look at some data, that means that only about 6% of the entire population would be earning too much to qualify. And that's actually probably a vast overestimate - income typically peaks at an older age group than the age group looking to buy their first home (I doubt as many as 6% of 30 year olds earn >$120k, but I'd expect more than 6% of 50 year olds may - chances are they'd have been able to afford their own homes anyway.).

This means in practice that *almost everybody* qualifies. So instead of targeting for greatest need - it's going to be rationed out by a lottery/ballot!

The only redeeming feature of this crazy scheme is that in the unlikely event that they could actually build the numbers of houses being suggested, then that would dampen demand and thus improve "affordability" by lowering house prices (and rental returns), but in what looks like coming "interesting times", external factors in the global market will probably outweigh whatever happens here over any realistic timescale to build thousands of new homes.

This government is insane.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2048793 4-Jul-2018 10:33

Fred99:

This government is insane.

I will drink to that....

MikeAqua

7616 posts

Uber Geek

#2048822 4-Jul-2018 10:56

Also aren't the houses going to cost $650k? Bit of a stretch on $180k combined income.

Mike

networkn

Networkn
30223 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2048853 4-Jul-2018 11:23

MikeAqua:

Also aren't the houses going to cost $650k? Bit of a stretch on $180k combined income.

Well, over 25 years @ 6% it works out around 4K a month or $1K a week give or take a few dollars.

networkn

Networkn
30223 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2048855 4-Jul-2018 11:24

Don't forget that there is quite a bit of speculation in the building industry they can't build them for $650K, they will take a loss on lots of them.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2048857 4-Jul-2018 11:27

MikeAqua:

Also aren't the houses going to cost $650k? Bit of a stretch on $180k combined income.

House price ratio of 3.6 x household income is low. I thought Auckland median house price:income ratio was sitting on about 9 or 10, longer term average is about 5.

$180k annual household income, after paying rent of say $600 week, and say $600 for food, electricity, transport etc, you'd still have about $1200 per week net disposable income left over.

Yet apparently these people are now considered to be "poor enough" to need a helping hand.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2048871 4-Jul-2018 11:40

networkn:

MikeAqua:

Also aren't the houses going to cost $650k? Bit of a stretch on $180k combined income.

Well, over 25 years @ 6% it works out around 4K a month or $1K a week give or take a few dollars.

Yes - about $966/week.

That should be easily doable on a combined household income of $180k (netting about $2400/week).
It would be a hell of a stretch though if you were on median household income of say $100k (netting under $1500/week - leaving only about $500/week for transport, electricity, rates, food, property maintenance etc etc.

This is a nutty "chardonnnay socialist" policy. It shows how out of touch with reality Labour's leaders are. I presume it's a desperate politically motivated measure to try to not alienate young professionals who might feel "cheated" if they don't qualify.

networkn

Networkn
30223 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2048872 4-Jul-2018 11:43

Fred99:

Yes - about $966/week.

That should be easily doable on a combined household income of $180k (netting about $2400/week).
It would be a hell of a stretch though if you were on median household income of say $100k (netting under $1500/week - leaving only about $500/week for transport, electricity, rates, food, property maintenance etc etc.

This is a nutty "chardonnnay socialist" policy. It shows how out of touch with reality Labour's leaders are.

I agree, like so many of their policies, they are just incredibly poorly thought out, and as a result are going to be even more poorly executed. I honestly don't think Labour thought they had much chance to get in this term. A little like Trump :)

networkn

Networkn
30223 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2048874 4-Jul-2018 11:43

I maintain that not everyone in NZ should be able to buy a house. It's an entirely acceptable situation for those on lower incomes to rent.

1 | ... | 230 | 231 | 232 | 233 | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 | 238 | 239 | 240 | ... | 268