Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | ... | 241

12593 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2239

Trusted

Reply # 1921519 18-Dec-2017 21:22

Fred99:

tdgeek:

Fred99:

Aus plans to charge NZ students full fees to study at Aus institutions has been scrapped.

Thank you.

Is that a win for this horrid new govt? Im not up to play with the NZ vs Oz features and benefits so a genuine post

What's horrid about it?

Nothing has affected me, financially or personally - except the hysterical level of whining from a few in the media and a few bitter individuals has been extreme.

I think she's well thought of overseas. A good thing happened - and you're complaining?

LOL.

LOL, no I'm not complaining. I am a National voter who voted Labour/Labour. Partly as National's let the market sort everything doesnt work for me. Housing crisis (its stable now) Health funding (we gave heaps last budget (but a lot of that was a one off aged care workers catchup)) Infrastructure (well we built a motorway pre election year) And Labours revitalised leadership may do good. It may not. But what we had, doesnt either. My response was based on the theme in this thread and as you say some in the media.

Like you I am unaffected. Well, I dont get our $2040 pa tax cuts! So far, and Labour has had the odd glitch, I'm happy enough. As to throw money at everything being a Labour mantra, well, if the last few years managed spending where its needed there would be no need to throw money at everything.

Its fresh, yes they are new, and I expect Simon Bridges to take over National. He is young and new also. No complaints about Bill E, but its 2017 now. Old school needs to step back, both sides.

MaxLV

650 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 156

Reply # 1921569 18-Dec-2017 22:56

Geektastic:

I have always felt voting should be a licenced activity. Historically (perhaps not in NZ but in the UK from where NZ's democracy originated) voting was effectively restricted to those with education in a population that was mostly uneducated by virtue of things like only land owners being able to vote etc and they were the only people by and large at the time who were educated.

Nowadays, the consequences of government changes can be so serious due to the ways that the world has changed, that at the very least passing some sort of exam at the age of 18 as part of the school leaving process which would test basic economic and political understanding should be a requirement before you can vote.

Some people you meet are so daft that frankly I would not allow them a voice in choosing their own clothes without help, much less choosing a government.

Or something like this?

The first vote is given to every citizen on reaching the age of 21.
The second vote is for university graduates and commissioned military officers.
The third vote is earned after living and working abroad for at least two years.
The fourth vote is for raising two children to the age of fourteen without divorcing.
The fifth vote is for earning at least £5000 in the year before the election. (This is a pretty elite-level income. A newly-built three-bedroom house, we are told, costs four or five thousand Australian pounds.)
The sixth vote is for officials in any of the recognized Christian churches.
The seventh vote is given only at the discretion of the monarch. (At the novel’s climax our hero, a “three-vote man”, saves the Queen’s life, earning the rare and prestigious seventh vote.)

https://orangeraisin.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/nevil-shute-multiple-vote/

Geektastic

11531 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3701

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1921602 19-Dec-2017 08:39

MaxLV:
Geektastic:

I have always felt voting should be a licenced activity. Historically (perhaps not in NZ but in the UK from where NZ's democracy originated) voting was effectively restricted to those with education in a population that was mostly uneducated by virtue of things like only land owners being able to vote etc and they were the only people by and large at the time who were educated.

Nowadays, the consequences of government changes can be so serious due to the ways that the world has changed, that at the very least passing some sort of exam at the age of 18 as part of the school leaving process which would test basic economic and political understanding should be a requirement before you can vote.

Some people you meet are so daft that frankly I would not allow them a voice in choosing their own clothes without help, much less choosing a government.

Or something like this?

The first vote is given to every citizen on reaching the age of 21.

The second vote is for university graduates and commissioned military officers.

The third vote is earned after living and working abroad for at least two years.

The fourth vote is for raising two children to the age of fourteen without divorcing.

The fifth vote is for earning at least £5000 in the year before the election. (This is a pretty elite-level income. A newly-built three-bedroom house, we are told, costs four or five thousand Australian pounds.)

The sixth vote is for officials in any of the recognized Christian churches.

The seventh vote is given only at the discretion of the monarch. (At the novel’s climax our hero, a “three-vote man”, saves the Queen’s life, earning the rare and prestigious seventh vote.)

https://orangeraisin.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/nevil-shute-multiple-vote/

Up to the fifth.

Minus one vote for being gullible enough to believe a religion.

MikeAqua

4562 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1832

Reply # 1921647 19-Dec-2017 09:31

Literacy/comprehension would be a sensible test for eligibility to vote.

Mike

rjt123

444 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 144

Reply # 1921700 19-Dec-2017 09:36

No value placed on common sense, yet we expect the government to have it?

Probably fit it in at number 2: "displays an aptitude for common sense"

Geektastic

11531 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3701

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1921739 19-Dec-2017 10:06

MikeAqua:

Literacy/comprehension would be a sensible test for eligibility to vote.

As would economics to try and cure this idea that 'the government' paying for something is not 'the taxpayer' paying for it!

MikeB4

12607 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5918

Trusted

Reply # 1922074 19-Dec-2017 17:06

Geektastic:

MikeAqua:

Literacy/comprehension would be a sensible test for eligibility to vote.

As would economics to try and cure this idea that 'the government' paying for something is not 'the taxpayer' paying for it!

So everyone paying

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

It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

Geektastic

11531 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3701

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1922097 19-Dec-2017 18:11

MikeB4:

Geektastic:

MikeAqua:

Literacy/comprehension would be a sensible test for eligibility to vote.

As would economics to try and cure this idea that 'the government' paying for something is not 'the taxpayer' paying for it!

So everyone paying

To borrow from Animal Farm - everyone pays. Some people pay more than others...

And given the fact that so many get money back in tax credits for breeding, actually not everyone pays.

"More than one in three households are contributing nothing to New Zealand's tax take.

A table from Finance Minister Bill English's office shows 663,000 households - or 40 per cent - receive more in tax credits and other benefits than they pay in tax. Thousands more are neutral contributors, or are close to it."

tdgeek

12593 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2239

Trusted

Reply # 1922172 19-Dec-2017 20:43

One person supports this post

Geektastic:

MikeB4:

Geektastic:

MikeAqua:

Literacy/comprehension would be a sensible test for eligibility to vote.

As would economics to try and cure this idea that 'the government' paying for something is not 'the taxpayer' paying for it!

So everyone paying

To borrow from Animal Farm - everyone pays. Some people pay more than others...

And given the fact that so many get money back in tax credits for breeding, actually not everyone pays.

"More than one in three households are contributing nothing to New Zealand's tax take.

A table from Finance Minister Bill English's office shows 663,000 households - or 40 per cent - receive more in tax credits and other benefits than they pay in tax. Thousands more are neutral contributors, or are close to it."

OK, lets out a stop to this breeding fiasco. If we stop breeding for 75 years, we can revisit this. Actually, we wont ned to revisit this and there will be no people, aoar6 from the 75yo, who cannot breed = extinct

IMHO you need to get past this kids/breeding issue

tdgeek

12593 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2239

Trusted

Reply # 1922173 19-Dec-2017 20:44

Geektastic:

A table from Finance Minister Bill English's office shows 663,000 households - or 40 per cent - receive more in tax credits and other benefits than they pay in tax. Thousands more are neutral contributors, or are close to it."

You could take that up with National.

Geektastic

11531 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3701

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1922187 19-Dec-2017 21:43

tdgeek:

Geektastic:

MikeB4:

Geektastic:

MikeAqua:

Literacy/comprehension would be a sensible test for eligibility to vote.

As would economics to try and cure this idea that 'the government' paying for something is not 'the taxpayer' paying for it!

So everyone paying

To borrow from Animal Farm - everyone pays. Some people pay more than others...

And given the fact that so many get money back in tax credits for breeding, actually not everyone pays.

"More than one in three households are contributing nothing to New Zealand's tax take.

A table from Finance Minister Bill English's office shows 663,000 households - or 40 per cent - receive more in tax credits and other benefits than they pay in tax. Thousands more are neutral contributors, or are close to it."

OK, lets out a stop to this breeding fiasco. If we stop breeding for 75 years, we can revisit this. Actually, we wont ned to revisit this and there will be no people, aoar6 from the 75yo, who cannot breed = extinct

IMHO you need to get past this kids/breeding issue

You've failed to explain why that would be a bad thing?

I have no issue with people breeding. I have an issue with them forcing me to pay for their life choices.

BarTender

2367 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 786

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1922266 20-Dec-2017 07:16

One person supports this post

Geektastic:

You've failed to explain why that would be a bad thing?

I have no issue with people breeding. I have an issue with them forcing me to pay for their life choices.

Well if no one breeds there will be no tax payers and someone needs to fund your superannuation unless you're sitting on a fat pile of cash and will fund your own way into a retirement home with care and private hospital visits.

With the dole (superannuation) increasing at an explosive rate due to ageing population who feel it's their right to not work and expect to receive the dole (old persons benefit) even though they don't need the money.

There are a lot of dole bludgers in this country, and the vast majority of them are over 65 and not receiving an unemployment benefit but instead receiving superannuation. If you don't think superannuation is the dole you need to re-evaluate your position on government handouts.

MaxLV

650 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 156

Reply # 1922300 20-Dec-2017 08:30

BarTender:

Geektastic:

You've failed to explain why that would be a bad thing?

I have no issue with people breeding. I have an issue with them forcing me to pay for their life choices.

Well if no one breeds there will be no tax payers and someone needs to fund your superannuation unless you're sitting on a fat pile of cash and will fund your own way into a retirement home with care and private hospital visits.

With the dole (superannuation) increasing at an explosive rate due to ageing population who feel it's their right to not work and expect to receive the dole (old persons benefit) even though they don't need the money.

There are a lot of dole bludgers in this country, and the vast majority of them are over 65 and not receiving an unemployment benefit but instead receiving superannuation. If you don't think superannuation is the dole you need to re-evaluate your position on government handouts.

NZ government superannuation is not a benefit payment/is not the dole. EOS.

Geektastic

11531 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3701

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1922494 20-Dec-2017 12:40

BarTender:

Geektastic:

You've failed to explain why that would be a bad thing?

I have no issue with people breeding. I have an issue with them forcing me to pay for their life choices.

Well if no one breeds there will be no tax payers and someone needs to fund your superannuation unless you're sitting on a fat pile of cash and will fund your own way into a retirement home with care and private hospital visits.

With the dole (superannuation) increasing at an explosive rate due to ageing population who feel it's their right to not work and expect to receive the dole (old persons benefit) even though they don't need the money.

There are a lot of dole bludgers in this country, and the vast majority of them are over 65 and not receiving an unemployment benefit but instead receiving superannuation. If you don't think superannuation is the dole you need to re-evaluate your position on government handouts.

So what?

NZ has created it's own problem as far as superannuation goes by not having a proper, tax efficient method of saving for retirement. Someone, some time ago, decided that making retirees clients of the state was better than making it efficient for them to make arrangements. Kiwisaver goes some way to resolve this, but lacks the tax advantages typically found in a pension saving system in comparable nations.

If a third of households are already paying nothing towards their own or anyone else's retirement and we have an affordability problem then perhaps that third should in fact be paying more than they are now - or receiving less.

I start from the position that people should make their own provisions and government should facilitate that, not that government should take money from one set of people and give it to another. I do not expect money from the government: I will (obviously) accept it if they want to give it to me but I would rather pay less tax and make my own arrangements as a general rule.

networkn

17295 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4948

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1922512 20-Dec-2017 12:54

BarTender:

Geektastic:

You've failed to explain why that would be a bad thing?

I have no issue with people breeding. I have an issue with them forcing me to pay for their life choices.

Well if no one breeds there will be no tax payers and someone needs to fund your superannuation unless you're sitting on a fat pile of cash and will fund your own way into a retirement home with care and private hospital visits.

With the dole (superannuation) increasing at an explosive rate due to ageing population who feel it's their right to not work and expect to receive the dole (old persons benefit) even though they don't need the money.

There are a lot of dole bludgers in this country, and the vast majority of them are over 65 and not receiving an unemployment benefit but instead receiving superannuation. If you don't think superannuation is the dole you need to re-evaluate your position on government handouts.

I am interested to hear who these people are that feel entitled to sit around and do nothing and collect SA? I don't know a *single* 65 year old not still working, who is fit to do so (or who have the opportunity to be employed). A fair number of those people who are getting a pension (that I know personally), donate it, or use it to help others. Others feel they have paid tax their entire working lives and deserve it as it was promised to them. I know a few who are into their 70's and 80's who are still working, but they do it to be useful, occupied and the pension is topping them up as they don't earn that much. It makes them a little more comfortable. Those people aren't living extravagant lifestyles by any means, and as a tax payer, I have no issue supporting.

Equally, I know that the pension is likely to be gone by the time I am entitled to it, and we are planning accordingly.

1 | ... | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | ... | 241