Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | ... | 268

654 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 1925259 26-Dec-2017 12:05

MikeB4:

The debt cannot be taken on it's own. It needs to be compared to growth rate and debt/GDP ratio. When looking at the previous governments borrowing events over the time need to be taken into account such as four major earthquakes, significant flooding events and a global financial crisis. There is the matter also of past deferred infrastructure expenditure and capital works.

The Debt/GDP ratio increased from 5.5% to over 34% between 2008 and 2017.

See my previous post about the cost of the earthquakes, floods, and the GFC. These costs combined total between 10 - 15 billion to the government between 2008-2017. What previous 'deferred infrastructure expenditure' did the National government pay for?

They had their policy for 'roads of national importance' and that was about 10 billion, but that wasn't catching up on deferred infrastructure expenditure was it. This was a new pet project, principally designed as a 'see we're doing something' vote catching pet project.

Oh and the tax cuts that had to be paid for...

networkn

21759 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1928943 4-Jan-2018 11:17

tdgeek:

6FIEND:

tdgeek:

Why do commentators in NZ frequently refer to under funding? Have you looked at health funding? year after year its underfunded, the medical people have complained for years.

Why do you keep referring to health funding? It is demonstrably true that its funding increased under the National government. (from 11.9bn in 2008 to 16.7bn in 2017) This represents more than a 10% increase per capita in real terms.

Yes - medical people have complained for years... There is significant dysfunction in the DHB's (Example) (And you can argue that the Health Minister ought to have done a much better job of whipping them into line) but it is really not an example of governmental underfunding. Particularly when contrasted with the Labour party's funding history in this portfolio.

It's just not a good example to use if you're trying to make a point that National deferred spending to achieve a "fake" surplus.

I am going by what I read every day as regards health underfunding. So, that is all fake news? Every year, the funding has been enough to cater for the health needs in NZ? Increasing funding isn't the same as funding it correctly. The issue I now have is not that I disbelieve you, its that everyone else says the opposite. Should DHB's be inefficient, I cant really see that the amount of money they could waste will be huge, not huge enough to impact healthcare and operations, at least not a lot. The fundamental is that its been under resourced for a long time. If they get an increase that merely holds that under resourced level in place, isnt a great help. Im also surprised that neither Labour or National has proposed a wholesale shakeup of the DHB system based on the fact that funding is more than adequate and its all being wasted.

I read the news sites pretty regularly, I don't think I have seen underfunding mentioned from more than 1-2 journalists and certainly not more than once a week let alone every day? Could you provide me with 5 links that talk about under funding from a variety of sources? Maybe from the past month or something?

As others have stated, health has always complained of underfunding, my wife is a doctor, niece is a nurse, sister is a midwife in training, and we have associations with many medical people. It's a problem, but like poverty, it's a percentage issue. As much money as you throw at it, there could always be more.

You have talked about Nationals underfunding for months now, but I think personally, you have blown it into something bigger than it is, certainly not in line with normal government operations.

tdgeek

18774 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 1928950 4-Jan-2018 11:31

The underfunding I see is what I read and hear, often enough in the media, debates and so on to supposedly be an issue. All sectors want more money, but my definition of under funding is that there is not enough to manage whatever sector it is. If the health sector and traffic congestion are not actually issues, then I'm fine with that. I would probably suggest to JA to back off extra spending in those areas as it isnt needed, and to advise those sectors that it's actually fine as it is.

networkn

21759 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1928952 4-Jan-2018 11:33

tdgeek:

The underfunding I see is what I read and hear, often enough in the media, debates and so on to supposedly be an issue. All sectors want more money, but my definition of under funding is that there is not enough to manage whatever sector it is. If the health sector and traffic congestion are not actually issues, then I'm fine with that. I would probably suggest to JA to back off extra spending in those areas as it isnt needed, and to advise those sectors that it's actually fine as it is.

So no citation specifically?

tdgeek

18774 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 1928959 4-Jan-2018 11:42

networkn:

tdgeek:

The underfunding I see is what I read and hear, often enough in the media, debates and so on to supposedly be an issue. All sectors want more money, but my definition of under funding is that there is not enough to manage whatever sector it is. If the health sector and traffic congestion are not actually issues, then I'm fine with that. I would probably suggest to JA to back off extra spending in those areas as it isnt needed, and to advise those sectors that it's actually fine as it is.

So no citation specifically?

No, Im not giving 5 citations that will just be discarded!

But I did Google Health underfunding and the first 4 pages are almost all NZ so about 40. From page 5 most are NZ then it becomes some NZ, so maybe 60 or 80 citations.

https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=Health+underfunding&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=WltNWo7gNc3s8AWyha6wBw

However, there are left based articles, right based articles so they say yes and they say no. But its not a tdgeek term!

Geektastic

13764 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1932514 9-Jan-2018 07:57

When it comes to funding, I’m not sure that the government lives in the real world anyway. I saw this today

“Speaking before the third reading, Twyford said new standards would see extra costs for landlords of between $3000 and $5000, if they had to insulate from scratch and put in a heat pump.”

I was left wondering if Mr Twyford had ever got quotes for that work, as I would be surprised if it wasn’t twice as much as that unless you used a no brand heat pump, cowboy installers and the house was only the size of a shed.

tdgeek

18774 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 1932520 9-Jan-2018 08:05

Geektastic: When it comes to funding, I’m not sure that the government lives in the real world anyway. I saw this today

“Speaking before the third reading, Twyford said new standards would see extra costs for landlords of between $3000 and $5000, if they had to insulate from scratch and put in a heat pump.”

I was left wondering if Mr Twyford had ever got quotes for that work, as I would be surprised if it wasn’t twice as much as that unless you used a no brand heat pump, cowboy installers and the house was only the size of a shed.

Seems ok to me. Insulation in a house that has none will only be the ceiling. Heatpumps are not expensive if its a basic lower output one for a low area rental, which could be a unit, or it could be a character home split into small flats. If you were a landlord woudl you out in the latest and greatest heatpump that can talk? And strip the internal walls to add batts and regib? No

Geektastic

13764 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1937903 12-Jan-2018 23:33

tdgeek:

Geektastic: When it comes to funding, I’m not sure that the government lives in the real world anyway. I saw this today

“Speaking before the third reading, Twyford said new standards would see extra costs for landlords of between $3000 and $5000, if they had to insulate from scratch and put in a heat pump.”

I was left wondering if Mr Twyford had ever got quotes for that work, as I would be surprised if it wasn’t twice as much as that unless you used a no brand heat pump, cowboy installers and the house was only the size of a shed.

Seems ok to me. Insulation in a house that has none will only be the ceiling. Heatpumps are not expensive if its a basic lower output one for a low area rental, which could be a unit, or it could be a character home split into small flats. If you were a landlord woudl you out in the latest and greatest heatpump that can talk? And strip the internal walls to add batts and regib? No

Insulation should be walls, floor and ceiling. Then double glazing.

Landlords will do whatever the regulations require - or they will get busted. Every business has obligations: some landlords seem to feel theirs should be limited to "here's a shed, now give me cash"...

Hence an article in the Herald today suggesting lots of "Mom & Pop" landlords are quitting the sector due to compliance costs etc.

Providing homes for people is a serious undertaking, not a way to turn a quick buck at low overhead. Landlord's obligations in NZ are way behind Europe's so I don't personally feel terribly sorry for them now that they are being required to play a bit of catch-up.

SJB

1468 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1938140 13-Jan-2018 14:38

Twyfords $5000 is probably about right. Insulation for floor and ceiling around $2500 and the rest for a heat pump.

Insulating floor and ceiling is a no brainer but doing the walls in most properties isn't practical. It would effectively mean re-lining every room and no landlord would do that unless it was part of a complete renovation.

Double glazing is a good idea as well but whether most landlords would think it financially viable is another matter. You might be talking $15k-$20k for an average size house and your retired couple with a single rental to top up the pension won't have money like that available.

Geektastic

13764 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1938571 14-Jan-2018 13:27

SJB:

Twyfords $5000 is probably about right. Insulation for floor and ceiling around $2500 and the rest for a heat pump.

Insulating floor and ceiling is a no brainer but doing the walls in most properties isn't practical. It would effectively mean re-lining every room and no landlord would do that unless it was part of a complete renovation.

Double glazing is a good idea as well but whether most landlords would think it financially viable is another matter. You might be talking $15k-$20k for an average size house and your retired couple with a single rental to top up the pension won't have money like that available.

My point is, it isn't going to be up to landlords, it's going to be up to whoever sets the new regulations...

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

# 1938589 14-Jan-2018 14:39

Geektastic:

SJB:

Twyfords $5000 is probably about right. Insulation for floor and ceiling around $2500 and the rest for a heat pump.

Insulating floor and ceiling is a no brainer but doing the walls in most properties isn't practical. It would effectively mean re-lining every room and no landlord would do that unless it was part of a complete renovation.

Double glazing is a good idea as well but whether most landlords would think it financially viable is another matter. You might be talking $15k-$20k for an average size house and your retired couple with a single rental to top up the pension won't have money like that available.

My point is, it isn't going to be up to landlords, it's going to be up to whoever sets the new regulations...

This government seems dumb...give the students an extra $50/week and their rent goes up $45.

As for Twyford he has no credibility in my opinion. Wasnt he the one who was racist against anyone with an asian type name last year?

I see the landlords responsibility to being floor and ceiling insulation only. Anything else like heat pumps and double glazing should be up to the landlord.

Rikkitic

Lock him up!
11214 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 1938601 14-Jan-2018 14:52

That seems like a reasonable minimum standard to me. Whoever was trying to discriminate on the basis of names is both racist and dumb as far as I am concerned. Was that Twyford?

I don't think there is ever a bad time to talk about how absurd war is, how old men make decisions and young people die. - George Clooney

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

# 1938619 14-Jan-2018 15:31

Rikkitic:

That seems like a reasonable minimum standard to me. Whoever was trying to discriminate on the basis of names is both racist and dumb as far as I am concerned. Was that Twyford?

yes...it was him...it was something to do with housing in Auckland..and was trying to prove that anyone with an Asian sounding name was an overseas purchaser buying Kiwi property. He was totally wrong as usual.

and yes..if the standard is too high landlords will not want to be landlords..which will create more problems.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

# 1938669 14-Jan-2018 16:50

Geektastic: When it comes to funding, I’m not sure that the government lives in the real world anyway. I saw this today

“Speaking before the third reading, Twyford said new standards would see extra costs for landlords of between $3000 and $5000, if they had to insulate from scratch and put in a heat pump.”

I was left wondering if Mr Twyford had ever got quotes for that work, as I would be surprised if it wasn’t twice as much as that unless you used a no brand heat pump, cowboy installers and the house was only the size of a shed.

Theoretically if a rental wasn't up to your desired standard you would pass it by and find a better house. I view renting as a choice not an obligation...

Obviously the better quality homes command better rents. Making all the homes better quality will therefore increase the rents across the board. I don't know if that's the government's intention or if they even thought about that... I'm not averse to improving the "health" of rentals but imposing regulations will have a flow on effect that won't necessarily benefit the consumer in the long term. There is a risk that renting becomes the realm of the wealthy the same as home ownership... And then we're back to square one.

Geektastic

13764 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1938688 14-Jan-2018 17:26

2 people support this post

rjt123:
Geektastic: When it comes to funding, I’m not sure that the government lives in the real world anyway. I saw this today

“Speaking before the third reading, Twyford said new standards would see extra costs for landlords of between $3000 and $5000, if they had to insulate from scratch and put in a heat pump.”

I was left wondering if Mr Twyford had ever got quotes for that work, as I would be surprised if it wasn’t twice as much as that unless you used a no brand heat pump, cowboy installers and the house was only the size of a shed.

Theoretically if a rental wasn't up to your desired standard you would pass it by and find a better house. I view renting as a choice not an obligation...

Obviously the better quality homes command better rents. Making all the homes better quality will therefore increase the rents across the board. I don't know if that's the government's intention or if they even thought about that... I'm not averse to improving the "health" of rentals but imposing regulations will have a flow on effect that won't necessarily benefit the consumer in the long term. There is a risk that renting becomes the realm of the wealthy the same as home ownership... And then we're back to square one.

I agree. However, the government is introducing (somewhat overdue, by at least 50 years) minimum housing requirements for rentals.

Mr Twyford was referring to the government help that will be available to landlords to cover costs and I personally think he might have rather underestimated the amounts.

I suspect we will end up with more corporate owned rentals, where companies own tens or even hundreds of properties and those rentals are run as a proper business not a cottage industry retirement fund alternative, which should benefit tenants.

1 | ... | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | ... | 268