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 | ... | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | ... | 268

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1922551 20-Dec-2017 13:51

New government has just back flipped on medicinal cannabis after staunch promises by Adern during campaign. Seems terminal patients with less than 12 months to live will be granted a legal defense that allows them not to be prosecuted.

I guess those patients with chronic and debilitating pain will remain on prescribed opiates with all the side effects that go with it. Shame on Adern!!!

Pluralsight

Learn cloud, mobile, security, data and web technologies with Pluralsight (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
30204 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1922553 20-Dec-2017 13:54

Pumpedd:

New government has just back flipped on medicinal cannabis after staunch promises by Adern during campaign. Seems terminal patients with less than 12 months to live will be granted a legal defense that allows them not to be prosecuted.

I guess those patients with chronic and debilitating pain will remain on prescribed opiates with all the side effects that go with it. Shame on Adern!!!

My understanding was this was the undertaking in the first 90 days, further legislation is coming perhaps?

I don't recall her promising to allow medical cannabis for everyone. I understood it was for terminal patients only. I thought that 2 independent doctors had to verify as well.

I am not a fan of cannabis being made legal, however for terminal patients it's more acceptable.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1922558 20-Dec-2017 13:59

networkn:

Pumpedd:

New government has just back flipped on medicinal cannabis after staunch promises by Adern during campaign. Seems terminal patients with less than 12 months to live will be granted a legal defense that allows them not to be prosecuted.

I guess those patients with chronic and debilitating pain will remain on prescribed opiates with all the side effects that go with it. Shame on Adern!!!

My understanding was this was the undertaking in the first 90 days, further legislation is coming perhaps?

I don't recall her promising to allow medical cannabis for everyone. I understood it was for terminal patients only. I thought that 2 independent doctors had to verify as well.

I am not a fan of cannabis being made legal, however for terminal patients it's more acceptable.

I hope you are right and further legislation comes. The current price for prescribed medicinal cannabis is $1500 a small puffer. Cannabis for ongoing chronic pain provides quite different relief to some sufferers than opoids.

Labour was extremely clear with its election promise on this....and I know some very ill people who voted accordingly because of it.

I too have mixed views on making cannabis legal generally.

BarTender

3530 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1922567 20-Dec-2017 14:12

Still doesn't change the fact that superannuation it is a government subsidy for one generation of people are funded by future generations. The current superannuates Tax was spent years ago on infrastructure and services such as free or very low cost secondary education. It's a pyramid scheme wholly dependant on future tax payers funding the current retirees. This is with the clear direction to future generations it will no longer exist or be means tested so planning for retirement is required.

Superannuation is more than twice the amount paid to all benefits combined and that is growing at a exponential rate whereas all other benefits have either been dropping or remaining static. For @MaxLV to say it's not a benefit and that's "EOS" is just a matter of perspective in my opinion. It's paid by the government as a benefit of being over 65 just like unemployment benefit. It is not money that was saved by previous generations to fund them in the future, it's also not fixed at the value that individuals invested into the retirement scheme as it's a universal entitlement.

With a slight devils advocates hat on I know a number of women in my parents generation who's husband worked but they never needed to work as the single salary was sufficient to support the whole household and were looking after children. Those individuals never contributed PAYE TAX to NZ. Talking with them they feel absolutely entitled to draw on superannuation as it's their right. That was the majority of mothers prior to the 70's however a single working parent household is the exception these days due to the cost of living, housing and high student debt from tertiary education.

My view is Superannuation is absolutely a dole / government benefit. And to me it's sad that previous governments considered investment in children as an expense yet superannuation as a right. Thankfully that has recently changed. I just wished the bevvy of National Voters on this thread considered investment in our youth the same or greater value than investment in retired folks. But then again pulling the ladder up behind them seems to be the way National operates.

and

MikeB4

18125 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1922577 20-Dec-2017 14:30

BarTender:

Still doesn't change the fact that superannuation it is a government subsidy for one generation of people are funded by future generations. The current superannuates Tax was spent years ago on infrastructure and services such as free or very low cost secondary education. It's a pyramid scheme wholly dependant on future tax payers funding the current retirees. This is with the clear direction to future generations it will no longer exist or be means tested so planning for retirement is required.

Superannuation is more than twice the amount paid to all benefits combined and that is growing at a exponential rate whereas all other benefits have either been dropping or remaining static. For @MaxLV to say it's not a benefit and that's "EOS" is just a matter of perspective in my opinion. It's paid by the government as a benefit of being over 65 just like unemployment benefit. It is not money that was saved by previous generations to fund them in the future, it's also not fixed at the value that individuals invested into the retirement scheme as it's a universal entitlement.

With a slight devils advocates hat on I know a number of women in my parents generation who's husband worked but they never needed to work as the single salary was sufficient to support the whole household and were looking after children. Those individuals never contributed PAYE TAX to NZ. Talking with them they feel absolutely entitled to draw on superannuation as it's their right. That was the majority of mothers prior to the 70's however a single working parent household is the exception these days due to the cost of living, housing and high student debt from tertiary education.

My view is Superannuation is absolutely a dole / government benefit. And to me it's sad that previous governments considered investment in children as an expense yet superannuation as a right. Thankfully that has recently changed. I just wished the bevvy of National Voters on this thread considered investment in our youth the same or greater value than investment in retired folks. But then again pulling the ladder up behind them seems to be the way National operates.

Lets not forget those currently receiving National Superannuation contributed to it and contributed to many other aspects of NZ including the education, health of those too young for super and many put their butts on the line for NZ.

Edit; for clarity although my signature says "retired" I do not receive Superannuation (or any Benefit) and will not for some time.

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1922582 20-Dec-2017 14:49

BarTender:

Still doesn't change the fact that superannuation it is a government subsidy for one generation of people are funded by future generations. The current superannuates Tax was spent years ago on infrastructure and services such as free or very low cost secondary education. It's a pyramid scheme wholly dependant on future tax payers funding the current retirees. This is with the clear direction to future generations it will no longer exist or be means tested so planning for retirement is required.

Superannuation is more than twice the amount paid to all benefits combined and that is growing at a exponential rate whereas all other benefits have either been dropping or remaining static. For @MaxLV to say it's not a benefit and that's "EOS" is just a matter of perspective in my opinion. It's paid by the government as a benefit of being over 65 just like unemployment benefit. It is not money that was saved by previous generations to fund them in the future, it's also not fixed at the value that individuals invested into the retirement scheme as it's a universal entitlement.

With a slight devils advocates hat on I know a number of women in my parents generation who's husband worked but they never needed to work as the single salary was sufficient to support the whole household and were looking after children. Those individuals never contributed PAYE TAX to NZ. Talking with them they feel absolutely entitled to draw on superannuation as it's their right. That was the majority of mothers prior to the 70's however a single working parent household is the exception these days due to the cost of living, housing and high student debt from tertiary education.

My view is Superannuation is absolutely a dole / government benefit. And to me it's sad that previous governments considered investment in children as an expense yet superannuation as a right. Thankfully that has recently changed. I just wished the bevvy of National Voters on this thread considered investment in our youth the same or greater value than investment in retired folks. But then again pulling the ladder up behind them seems to be the way National operates.

I'm not (and never have been/never will be) a National Party voter. As to your 'matter of perspective on New Zealand's government Superannuation, this is the way this country has decided a universal government superannuation scheme should operate. You may have an opinion that it's a government benefit/dole payment, but it isn't.

I challenge you to find any politician of any political persuasion that will risk their political career on doing anything other than tinkering with NZ government superannuation (as in Nationals vote losing raising the age qualification to 67 by 2040).

As to the cost of government superannuation, what's your perspective on the NZ Government Superannuation fund? It's currently at $37 billion, and has has a current return on investment of over $4 billion. It would have been over $52 billion if the previous National government hadn't stopped contributing as soon as they got into power in 2008. This fund will be available from 2020 to offset the cost of government superannuation.

https://www.nzsuperfund.co.nz/

BarTender

3530 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1922679 20-Dec-2017 16:46

MaxLV: I'm not (and never have been/never will be) a National Party voter. As to your 'matter of perspective on New Zealand's government Superannuation, this is the way this country has decided a universal government superannuation scheme should operate. You may have an opinion that it's a government benefit/dole payment, but it isn't.

I challenge you to find any politician of any political persuasion that will risk their political career on doing anything other than tinkering with NZ government superannuation (as in Nationals vote losing raising the age qualification to 67 by 2040).

As to the cost of government superannuation, what's your perspective on the NZ Government Superannuation fund? It's currently at $37 billion, and has has a current return on investment of over $4 billion. It would have been over $52 billion if the previous National government hadn't stopped contributing as soon as they got into power in 2008. This fund will be available from 2020 to offset the cost of government superannuation.

No politician would risk their career touching nz super doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.

http://statistical-report-2012.msd.govt.nz/Superannuation+and+pensions/New+Zealand+Superannuation

Every year an extra 20k people are eligible for NZ Super and "In 2012, an estimated 95.7% of people aged 65 or over were receiving New Zealand Superannuation, up from 93.2% in 2008."

I suspect a good number of those 95.7% were still working and the argument from @networkn that those who do receive the superannuation benefit donate it or use it to help others doesn't pass the sniff test for me.

I see a lot of arguments in this thread about benefits for families raising children "I have an issue with them forcing me to pay for their life choices."

In my view if NZ Super was viewed the same as the unemployment benefit then perhaps there would be more empathy for those doing it tough. I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for someone sitting in a 1+Million dollar mortgage free house on super saying they are doing it tough and complaining about people on benefits.

and

networkn

Networkn
30204 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1922682 20-Dec-2017 16:51

BarTender:

MaxLV: I'm not (and never have been/never will be) a National Party voter. As to your 'matter of perspective on New Zealand's government Superannuation, this is the way this country has decided a universal government superannuation scheme should operate. You may have an opinion that it's a government benefit/dole payment, but it isn't.

I challenge you to find any politician of any political persuasion that will risk their political career on doing anything other than tinkering with NZ government superannuation (as in Nationals vote losing raising the age qualification to 67 by 2040).

As to the cost of government superannuation, what's your perspective on the NZ Government Superannuation fund? It's currently at $37 billion, and has has a current return on investment of over $4 billion. It would have been over $52 billion if the previous National government hadn't stopped contributing as soon as they got into power in 2008. This fund will be available from 2020 to offset the cost of government superannuation.

No politician would risk their career touching nz super doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.

http://statistical-report-2012.msd.govt.nz/Superannuation+and+pensions/New+Zealand+Superannuation

Every year an extra 20k people are eligible for NZ Super and "In 2012, an estimated 95.7% of people aged 65 or over were receiving New Zealand Superannuation, up from 93.2% in 2008."

I suspect a good number of those 95.7% were still working and the argument from @networkn that those who do receive the superannuation benefit donate it or use it to help others doesn't pass the sniff test for me.

I see a lot of arguments in this thread about benefits for families raising children "I have an issue with them forcing me to pay for their life choices."

In my view if NZ Super was viewed the same as the unemployment benefit then perhaps there would be more empathy for those doing it tough. I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for someone sitting in a 1+Million dollar mortgage free house on super saying they are doing it tough and complaining about people on benefits.

People with 1M homes mortgage free may have no income. Assets don't mean much and often cost a fair bit to maintain.

I wasn't suggesting 95% of people who were still working, donated their benefits, I was saying of the people I know who are wealthy, a fair number of them talk about not needing their SA and donating it or doing other things with it.

As I mentioned, a lot of the people still working after 70, are earning relatively little money, to supplement their SA which is hardly enough to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle.

MikeB4

18125 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1922693 20-Dec-2017 16:55

Thankfully NZ is still a caring society, however one would really struggle to believe it reading Geekzone.

BarTender

3530 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1922697 20-Dec-2017 17:10

networkn: People with 1M homes mortgage free may have no income. Assets don't mean much and often cost a fair bit to maintain.

I wasn't suggesting 95% of people who were still working, donated their benefits, I was saying of the people I know who are wealthy, a fair number of them talk about not needing their SA and donating it or doing other things with it.

As I mentioned, a lot of the people still working after 70, are earning relatively little money, to supplement their SA which is hardly enough to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle.

I also know a number of very wealthy individuals who claim SA. Whenever I have probed them about not claiming it as they don't really need it I have always received a resounding no. To me talk is cheap, if they were serious they would opt-out but I am yet to meet anyone over 65 who has done that.

MikeB4: Thankfully NZ is still a caring society, however one would really struggle to believe it reading Geekzone.

Then how come we have kids living in cars? Or homeless?

Yes NZ is good, but we can do better than we did for the last 9 years.

and

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1922704 20-Dec-2017 17:47

BarTender:

networkn: People with 1M homes mortgage free may have no income. Assets don't mean much and often cost a fair bit to maintain.

I wasn't suggesting 95% of people who were still working, donated their benefits, I was saying of the people I know who are wealthy, a fair number of them talk about not needing their SA and donating it or doing other things with it.

As I mentioned, a lot of the people still working after 70, are earning relatively little money, to supplement their SA which is hardly enough to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle.

I also know a number of very wealthy individuals who claim SA. Whenever I have probed them about not claiming it as they don't really need it I have always received a resounding no. To me talk is cheap, if they were serious they would opt-out but I am yet to meet anyone over 65 who has done that.

MikeB4: Thankfully NZ is still a caring society, however one would really struggle to believe it reading Geekzone.

Then how come we have kids living in cars? Or homeless?

Yes NZ is good, but we can do better than we did for the last 9 years.

If you dont apply to NZ government superannuation, then you dont get it. (it's not automatically given to you once you reach 65) If you do apply for it after you've turned 65, it's not backdated. you only receive it from the date of your application. It can be temporarily stopped if you go overseas for an extended period, but once you're back in New Zealand it can be resumed.

How do you think stopping wealthy NZers from claiming government super will help solve the kids living in cars/homeless problem? These problems are not a 'money' problem. They're a social problem that cant be solved just by throwing money at it. It starts with reversing the policies of the previous government (selling social housing, paying the poor/homeless to move out of Auckland, and removing the toxic anti caring environment from the MSD, etc).

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1923049 21-Dec-2017 11:02

As to the cost of government superannuation, what's your perspective on the NZ Government Superannuation fund? It's currently at $37 billion, and has has a current return on investment of over $4 billion. It would have been over $52 billion if the previous National government hadn't stopped contributing as soon as they got into power in 2008. This fund will be available from 2020 to offset the cost of government superannuation.

It's nice to think that National should have continued contributing to the super-fund. However, that cash had to come from somewhere, and the government was certainly not in a strong financial position in 2008, and future economic outlook was not good. Every billion invested into the super fund is one less billion invested into kick-starting the economy that literally stalled in 2008.

Of course they could have borrowed it, but would have been consequently lampooned for increasing debt.

Alternatively they could have just recklessly invested into it and left the next labour government to sort out their mess.

One must always remember that the super-fund is a fund set up for YOU to contribute to, for your own personal retirement. It's nice to think the government should be putting aside cash for YOUR retirement now, but if you really care about your own superannuation then feel free to increase your OWN weekly contributions.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1923051 21-Dec-2017 11:06

Then how come we have kids living in cars? Or homeless?

It would be interesting to ask those people living in cars, it those homeless people:
A) just how they got into that position,?
B) Do they care? (For some people homelessness/living on the street is a lifestyle choice)
C) do they blame the government for where they are?

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1923242 21-Dec-2017 15:23

rjt123:

As to the cost of government superannuation, what's your perspective on the NZ Government Superannuation fund? It's currently at $37 billion, and has has a current return on investment of over $4 billion. It would have been over $52 billion if the previous National government hadn't stopped contributing as soon as they got into power in 2008. This fund will be available from 2020 to offset the cost of government superannuation.

It's nice to think that National should have continued contributing to the super-fund. However, that cash had to come from somewhere, and the government was certainly not in a strong financial position in 2008, and future economic outlook was not good. Every billion invested into the super fund is one less billion invested into kick-starting the economy that literally stalled in 2008.

Of course they could have borrowed it, but would have been consequently lampooned for increasing debt.

Alternatively they could have just recklessly invested into it and left the next labour government to sort out their mess.

One must always remember that the super-fund is a fund set up for YOU to contribute to, for your own personal retirement. It's nice to think the government should be putting aside cash for YOUR retirement now, but if you really care about your own superannuation then feel free to increase your OWN weekly contributions.

What do you mean they 'could have borrowed' it'? The National government DID borrow hugely, and ran up the national debt!
When Labour left office in 2008 our government debt was $10 billion. Now the debt is over $92 billion and National wanted to cut taxes instead of paying down the debt.

https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/newzealand

Clark's fifth Labour Government reduced debt from 22.6 per cent of GDP in 2000 to 5.5 per cent in 2008. That same Labour Government went from a $386 million deficit in 2001, to a $2.8b surplus in 2008.

During Key's National Government, debt as a percentage of GDP went from 9.1 per cent in 2009 to 24.6 per cent in 2016.

The current Labour/NZF/Greens government is having to sort out the mess left by the previous National government.

The NZ super fund does NOT get or require direct contributions from individual New Zealanders. The contributions to the fund are made by the government.

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1923243 21-Dec-2017 15:26

rjt123:

Then how come we have kids living in cars? Or homeless?

It would be interesting to ask those people living in cars, it those homeless people:
A) just how they got into that position,?
B) Do they care? (For some people homelessness/living on the street is a lifestyle choice)
C) do they blame the government for where they are?

The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
32nd U.S. President

1 | ... | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | ... | 268