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.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
Rikkitic
Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #1685681 10-Dec-2016 12:12
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

frankv:

 

Geektastic:

 

Death Duties were responsible for the loss of so many wonderful country houses - it was criminal. The unfortunate owners who were faced with the taxes sometimes ended up demolishing the houses because after paying the tax they had nothing left to run them. Britain lost a significant chunk of it's built heritage.

 

 

Was it Death Duties? Or was it that a wealthy man built an ostentatious country house that was unsustainable long-term, being dependent on (a) an enormous ongoing income from tea or cotton or slaves or raiding Spanish galleons, and/or (b) an endless supply of cheap labour for servants, farm workers, gardeners, and house maintainers/repairers, and/or (c) the owners having skills to manage the house and servants and income, and/or (d) no owner ever doing stupid stuff like gambling/wenching/boozing/ostentation/getting scammed/supporting a treasonous plot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not that this leftist rant especially needs dignifying with a response, but no, it was death duties. It was a working farm, not a vast estate.

 

 

What makes this a 'leftist' rant, and why do you have such a need to pin that meaningless label on everything you disapprove of? All the points made are perfectly valid, and can be linked to historical examples. Just because they don't apply in your specific case doesn't make them untrue.

 

 





Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

 


 




Handle9
11393 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1685683 10-Dec-2016 12:25
Send private message

Rikkitic: What makes this a 'leftist' rant, and why do you have such a need to pin that meaningless label on everything you disapprove of? All the points made are perfectly valid, and can be linked to historical examples. Just because they don't apply in your specific case doesn't make them untrue.


 



If you are going to throw epithets like Tory around you're going to get a few back. I have no sympathy with Geektastics point of view here but please try not to be hypocritical.

dejadeadnz
2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  #1685684 10-Dec-2016 12:37
Send private message

Handle9: 

 


If you are going to throw epithets like Tory around you're going to get a few back. I have no sympathy with Geektastics point of view here but please try not to be hypocritical.

 

Quite right. There's also the not-so-small issue that discussions like these inevitably turn into nothing more than repetitive statements of position, with limited (at best) to next to zero arguments in support. The following is an illustrative example:

 

 

 

MikeB4: We don't need to subsidise the wealthy we also do not need to fleece them with excessive taxes and other charges. Everyone should pay a flat equal rate of taxation. To do the opposite would wreck our economy, drive up unemployment, kill investment, job creation and growth.

A person on $35,000 doesn't invest in business and new ventures but someone on say $300,000 does.

 

In two lines, Mike has told everybody what is clearly so inarguably wrong with progressive systems of taxation which, in case most mature adults are unaware, is still the predominant system in the western, liberal-democratic world. This in and of itself doesn't prove that Mike is wrong but should cause him to at least consider whether his position should be more nuanced. But, nope, despite NZ currently having a pretty robust economic growth (such growth admittedly being apparently driven by unsustainable growth in immigration and property speculation, at least according to some economists) despite the non-flat and unequal rates of taxation, Mike is still certain of his position.

 

I'll readily concede the point that this is a discussion board and mostly people just want to have a few idle rants and chats. But the off-topic forum and some of these more controversial threads are increasingly being driven into the abyss of being intolerable for people who want to see some actual discussions, rather than repeated shouting of pre-determined positions by the same few people.

 

 

 

 




JayADee
2148 posts

Uber Geek


  #1685688 10-Dec-2016 13:05
Send private message

Geektastic:

mudguard:


Geektastic:


 


 Is there a correction? Work hard and join that 3% so it grows and is no longer only 3%...wink



That's fine in theory, but if you're chasing that 3% and they're busy pulling the ladder up behind them then there probably aren't enough hours in the week. 


How do teachers and police increase their income? I think secondary school salaries top out at about $75k, so for maybe a couple that's $150k pa, less 12% for 5-10 years to knock off possible student loan, another 4% for Kiwisaver (as there will be no super). So that's about $4000 in the hand per month once you reach the highest salary. More likely is $50k when starting out. That's about $2964 per month in the hand. So a couple might have about $6k per month. They could probably save one salary provided there is no external debt, share a flat etc.


$3k per month, so $100k deposit in less than 3 years which is pretty good, only the prices are going up quicker than they can save the 20% deposit. 


 


I don't know what police earn, but I've had ex's who were school teachers!



 


Just don't pick them as careers.


Then there will be a recruitment shortage and salaries will go up.


Personally if I wanted to join the 3% I would pick a career than stood a chance of getting me there.



For some people there is no 'picking'.

Rikkitic
Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #1685693 10-Dec-2016 13:21
Send private message

Handle9:
Rikkitic: What makes this a 'leftist' rant, and why do you have such a need to pin that meaningless label on everything you disapprove of? All the points made are perfectly valid, and can be linked to historical examples. Just because they don't apply in your specific case doesn't make them untrue.

 

 

 



If you are going to throw epithets like Tory around you're going to get a few back. I have no sympathy with Geektastics point of view here but please try not to be hypocritical.

 

Point taken. You are right. I am wrong.

 

 





Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

 


 


frankv
5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #1685699 10-Dec-2016 13:48
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

frankv:

 

Geektastic:

 

Death Duties were responsible for the loss of so many wonderful country houses - it was criminal. The unfortunate owners who were faced with the taxes sometimes ended up demolishing the houses because after paying the tax they had nothing left to run them. Britain lost a significant chunk of it's built heritage.

 

 

Was it Death Duties? Or was it that a wealthy man built an ostentatious country house that was unsustainable long-term, being dependent on (a) an enormous ongoing income from tea or cotton or slaves or raiding Spanish galleons, and/or (b) an endless supply of cheap labour for servants, farm workers, gardeners, and house maintainers/repairers, and/or (c) the owners having skills to manage the house and servants and income, and/or (d) no owner ever doing stupid stuff like gambling/wenching/boozing/ostentation/getting scammed/supporting a treasonous plot.

 

 

Not that this leftist rant especially needs dignifying with a response, but no, it was death duties. It was a working farm, not a vast estate.

 

 

The reason I deleted the reference to your farm was because I wasn't commenting on your specific example, just on the bit that I did actually quote.

 

 


Fred99
13684 posts

Uber Geek


  #1685703 10-Dec-2016 13:50
Send private message

 Labels like "leftist" and "Tory" don't have much relevance any more IMO.

 

Probably since Thatcher/Reagan era, conservative governments have managed to subvert truth to convince a good number of what I'll call "blue collar" folks - to vote directly against their own economic interests.  Subsequent liberal governments then rallied support on conservative populist policies - Blair and "new" labour, Rogernomics albeit watered down through the Clark government, Bill Clinton got into power based on a "law and order" platform that was every bit as draconian as what was on offer from GOP hard liners.

 

Ultimately it's possibly best summed up by Warren Buffett - the "Sage of Omaha" stating the obvious:

 

“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

 

Through quite legally rorting "loopholes" our new PM got pinged with a bit of negative publicity earning him the nick "Double Dipton".  But oops, the Green Party and Labour were full of politicians doing exactly the same thing.  And why not?  A backbench MP is automatically a "three percenter", a Minister a "one percenter", you've got to look after yourself.

 

Yes - that's a pretty cynical view for sure.  I find it hard to be optimistic about the future of liberal social democracy.  Many comments in this thread convince me that we're either doomed to subservience - ot there's going to be a bloody physical class war in the end.


 
 
 

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.
JayADee
2148 posts

Uber Geek


  #1685705 10-Dec-2016 13:58
Send private message

dejadeadnz:

Handle9: 



If you are going to throw epithets like Tory around you're going to get a few back. I have no sympathy with Geektastics point of view here but please try not to be hypocritical.


Quite right. There's also the not-so-small issue that discussions like these inevitably turn into nothing more than repetitive statements of position, with limited (at best) to next to zero arguments in support. The following is an illustrative example:


 


MikeB4: We don't need to subsidise the wealthy we also do not need to fleece them with excessive taxes and other charges. Everyone should pay a flat equal rate of taxation. To do the opposite would wreck our economy, drive up unemployment, kill investment, job creation and growth.

A person on $35,000 doesn't invest in business and new ventures but someone on say $300,000 does.


In two lines, Mike has told everybody what is clearly so inarguably wrong with progressive systems of taxation which, in case most mature adults are unaware, is still the predominant system in the western, liberal-democratic world. This in and of itself doesn't prove that Mike is wrong but should cause him to at least consider whether his position should be more nuanced. But, nope, despite NZ currently having a pretty robust economic growth (such growth admittedly being apparently driven by unsustainable growth in immigration and property speculation, at least according to some economists) despite the non-flat and unequal rates of taxation, Mike is still certain of his position.


I'll readily concede the point that this is a discussion board and mostly people just want to have a few idle rants and chats. But the off-topic forum and some of these more controversial threads are increasingly being driven into the abyss of being intolerable for people who want to see some actual discussions, rather than repeated shouting of pre-determined positions by the same few people.


 


 



I think progressive tax rates are fairer. This is IRDs tax calculator, I've put in an income of $100 000. to show how the progressive rates work for someone who might be unfamiliar.

Income Tax Rate Income Tax
Income up to $14000, taxed at 10.5% $14,000.00 $1,470.00
Income over $14000 and up to $48000, taxed at 17.5% $34,000.00 $5,950.00
Income over $48000 and up to $70000, taxed at 30% $22,000.00 $6,600.00
Remaining income over $70000, taxed at 33% $30,000.00 $9,900.00
Total $100,000.00 $23,920.00

Surely you wouldn't want to take over a third of someone's income who is only making $14 000? Or $34 000?

Just from a practical standpoint alone you'd have to start paying a lot more employees in government departments to redistribute tax income back to people in lower income brackets who can no longer afford to live whereas on a progressive tax they can with no intervention.






JayADee
2148 posts

Uber Geek


  #1685713 10-Dec-2016 14:28
Send private message

Fred99:

 Labels like "leftist" and "Tory" don't have much relevance any more IMO.


Probably since Thatcher/Reagan era, conservative governments have managed to subvert truth to convince a good number of what I'll call "blue collar" folks - to vote directly against their own economic interests.  Subsequent liberal governments then rallied support on conservative populist policies - Blair and "new" labour, Rogernomics albeit watered down through the Clark government, Bill Clinton got into power based on a "law and order" platform that was every bit as draconian as what was on offer from GOP hard liners.


Ultimately it's possibly best summed up by Warren Buffett - the "Sage of Omaha" stating the obvious:


“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”


Through quite legally rorting "loopholes" our new PM got pinged with a bit of negative publicity earning him the nick "Double Dipton".  But oops, the Green Party and Labour were full of politicians doing exactly the same thing.  And why not?  A backbench MP is automatically a "three percenter", a Minister a "one percenter", you've got to look after yourself.


Yes - that's a pretty cynical view for sure.  I find it hard to be optimistic about the future of liberal social democracy.  Many comments in this thread convince me that we're either doomed to subservience - ot there's going to be a bloody physical class war in the end.



When everybody including those at the very bottom are doing well the entire society (including the ones at the top) does better.

Pulling yourself up by the bootstraps is a myth. As someone upthread pointed out, you get ahead largely through a combination of which country, which class, which ethnic background, which genes, what influences on your life and plain dumb luck you have as well as which decisions you make.

Otherwise do you think those couples working three jobs between them to make ends meet would be doing that willingly?

People don't all have the same choices to make. Circumstances play a role.

Even let's say they didn't- do you want to live in a society with poverty and the social problems that come with that?

Plus all those careers people here might not pick are still absolutely necessary to society you know. Somebody has to teach kids, pick up the garbage, make coffee, deliver the mail, wash dishes, direct traffic etc. and they should be able to comfortably live working decent hours like other careers.

Edit: not directed at you, Fred99 as to some other comments.

Geektastic
17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1685727 10-Dec-2016 16:18
Send private message

JayADee:
dejadeadnz:

 

Handle9: 

 

 

 


If you are going to throw epithets like Tory around you're going to get a few back. I have no sympathy with Geektastics point of view here but please try not to be hypocritical.

 

 

 

Quite right. There's also the not-so-small issue that discussions like these inevitably turn into nothing more than repetitive statements of position, with limited (at best) to next to zero arguments in support. The following is an illustrative example:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MikeB4: We don't need to subsidise the wealthy we also do not need to fleece them with excessive taxes and other charges. Everyone should pay a flat equal rate of taxation. To do the opposite would wreck our economy, drive up unemployment, kill investment, job creation and growth.

A person on $35,000 doesn't invest in business and new ventures but someone on say $300,000 does.

 

 

 

In two lines, Mike has told everybody what is clearly so inarguably wrong with progressive systems of taxation which, in case most mature adults are unaware, is still the predominant system in the western, liberal-democratic world. This in and of itself doesn't prove that Mike is wrong but should cause him to at least consider whether his position should be more nuanced. But, nope, despite NZ currently having a pretty robust economic growth (such growth admittedly being apparently driven by unsustainable growth in immigration and property speculation, at least according to some economists) despite the non-flat and unequal rates of taxation, Mike is still certain of his position.

 

 

 

I'll readily concede the point that this is a discussion board and mostly people just want to have a few idle rants and chats. But the off-topic forum and some of these more controversial threads are increasingly being driven into the abyss of being intolerable for people who want to see some actual discussions, rather than repeated shouting of pre-determined positions by the same few people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



I think progressive tax rates are fairer. This is IRDs tax calculator, I've put in an income of $100 000. to show how the progressive rates work for someone who might be unfamiliar.

Income Tax Rate Income Tax
Income up to $14000, taxed at 10.5% $14,000.00 $1,470.00
Income over $14000 and up to $48000, taxed at 17.5% $34,000.00 $5,950.00
Income over $48000 and up to $70000, taxed at 30% $22,000.00 $6,600.00
Remaining income over $70000, taxed at 33% $30,000.00 $9,900.00
Total $100,000.00 $23,920.00

Surely you wouldn't want to take over a third of someone's income who is only making $14 000? Or $34 000?

Just from a practical standpoint alone you'd have to start paying a lot more employees in government departments to redistribute tax income back to people in lower income brackets who can no longer afford to live whereas on a progressive tax they can with no intervention.





 

 

 

Could you not achieve this by having an amount that is not subject to tax at all?

 

The UK has a tax free personal allowance which everyone gets. Using a conversion rate of $2 to the GBP it equates to about $20,000.

 

After you earn approx $200,000 the allowance is reduced by the equivalent of $2 for every $4 of income.

 

The US has a similar tax system to that you outline above, but theirs is far more generous to the earning citizen - they do not get the top rate of 39% until over NZ$650,000 equivalent.






JayADee
2148 posts

Uber Geek


  #1685952 11-Dec-2016 09:01
Send private message

Geektastic:

JayADee:
dejadeadnz:


Handle9: 


 



If you are going to throw epithets like Tory around you're going to get a few back. I have no sympathy with Geektastics point of view here but please try not to be hypocritical.


 


Quite right. There's also the not-so-small issue that discussions like these inevitably turn into nothing more than repetitive statements of position, with limited (at best) to next to zero arguments in support. The following is an illustrative example:


 


 


 


MikeB4: We don't need to subsidise the wealthy we also do not need to fleece them with excessive taxes and other charges. Everyone should pay a flat equal rate of taxation. To do the opposite would wreck our economy, drive up unemployment, kill investment, job creation and growth.

A person on $35,000 doesn't invest in business and new ventures but someone on say $300,000 does.


 


In two lines, Mike has told everybody what is clearly so inarguably wrong with progressive systems of taxation which, in case most mature adults are unaware, is still the predominant system in the western, liberal-democratic world. This in and of itself doesn't prove that Mike is wrong but should cause him to at least consider whether his position should be more nuanced. But, nope, despite NZ currently having a pretty robust economic growth (such growth admittedly being apparently driven by unsustainable growth in immigration and property speculation, at least according to some economists) despite the non-flat and unequal rates of taxation, Mike is still certain of his position.


 


I'll readily concede the point that this is a discussion board and mostly people just want to have a few idle rants and chats. But the off-topic forum and some of these more controversial threads are increasingly being driven into the abyss of being intolerable for people who want to see some actual discussions, rather than repeated shouting of pre-determined positions by the same few people.


 


 




 


 




I think progressive tax rates are fairer. This is IRDs tax calculator, I've put in an income of $100 000. to show how the progressive rates work for someone who might be unfamiliar.

Income Tax Rate Income Tax
Income up to $14000, taxed at 10.5% $14,000.00 $1,470.00
Income over $14000 and up to $48000, taxed at 17.5% $34,000.00 $5,950.00
Income over $48000 and up to $70000, taxed at 30% $22,000.00 $6,600.00
Remaining income over $70000, taxed at 33% $30,000.00 $9,900.00
Total $100,000.00 $23,920.00

Surely you wouldn't want to take over a third of someone's income who is only making $14 000? Or $34 000?

Just from a practical standpoint alone you'd have to start paying a lot more employees in government departments to redistribute tax income back to people in lower income brackets who can no longer afford to live whereas on a progressive tax they can with no intervention.






 


Could you not achieve this by having an amount that is not subject to tax at all?


The UK has a tax free personal allowance which everyone gets. Using a conversion rate of $2 to the GBP it equates to about $20,000.


After you earn approx $200,000 the allowance is reduced by the equivalent of $2 for every $4 of income.


The US has a similar tax system to that you outline above, but theirs is far more generous to the earning citizen - they do not get the top rate of 39% until over NZ$650,000 equivalent.




A Universal Basic Income is what Morgan calls that and I like the idea. Unfortunately Morgan would set it at $11 000. including to pensioners (halving their income) which is no way enough. I'd like to see it set at what pensioners get now or closer to at least. If you set it too low it's the same punitive system it is now. Yes, punitive. We punish people who don't earn enough (or paternalistically top them up with WFF because our families can't earn enough) which has exactly the opposite effect we want, which is to encourage the fellowship and productivity of working and the pride and security of providing. Instead we grudgingly make people feel like crap with 'handouts' that are too small. You don't beat a dog to make it pee outdoors, you praise it when it goes, to be crass. Give people positive experiences and reward work and they work.

Look at 30 kids in a primary classroom, they all work, it's in human nature. It isn't until they get beaten up by the system they start to lose faith.

A UBI still low enough that people would aspire to more IMHO but enough to give a no frills life with dignity is what we want.

Morgan would say his tax cuts would make up the difference. (Which again would not help those with no income)

I like the idea of UBI because volunteers could be firemen, caregivers etc. full time or close to, it would cut beneficiaries bureaucracy and therefore admin costs (no need to calculate separate benefits of various types), elevate self esteem (bye current style WINZ), let people take more risks in starting businesses by supporting them to get started and mitigating fear of failure, help cut crime and therefore the need to pay for prisons and prisoner upkeep, eliminate child poverty and give the next gen a more level playing field to achieve and keep them out of trouble in future and it's also just a humane thing to do.

The UBI would still be low enough that most people would want to work (not that I think they really need external incentive once they know the difference) to achieve a better lifestyle, have more stuff, be able to travel, enjoy the esteem and fellowship...

If the more desperate parts of society were no longer desperate with crap self esteem would we have gangs, would kids steal bikes and scooters, wouldn't all of us live in a safer, more pleasant society? Would a bunch of people leave because they didn't like helping pay for it? Would a whole bunch of other worthy people like to live here because of it? Is it affordable?

When you have a no hoper lower class and a floundering and declining middle class and no way for especially your lowest class to get a leg up and when you have increasingly more child poverty then you are on your road to a crap society for everybody including the rich. Who wants to live like South Africa?

Add progressive taxes on anything over the UBI so people have more in their pocket the more they choose to work in paid employment.

You could possibly for the first generation under the system require a certain number of volunteer hours if the person was totally unemployed (as an education on the benefits of work) with the unable due to illness exempt.

I don't consider it a soft option either because there'd be no excuses with a decent UBI.

I think our brains are stuck in a rut of not wanting to give 'undeserving' people money for 'free'.
I can understand that because I have been working paid employment since I was 13 and before that if you count cashing in recycling, babysitting etc. My grandparents worked into their 70s and my Mum is still working at 67.

IMO our little Godzone could be a utopia for all of us and it could be achieved partly by having a reasonable UBI.

Geektastic
17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1685971 11-Dec-2016 10:23
Send private message

The danger is that too many decide UBI and a few cash in hand jobs is adequate and then you start running out of money for paying UBI.

It would also make NZ a serious target for immigration so you'd have to really get stricter on that. Skilled migrant class is already pretty strict, speaking from personal experience, but you'd certainly need some sort of restriction on family members of migrants under that visa category for example.

Also you need a plan as to what happens if you get to a point where the country just can't afford it.





Rikkitic
Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #1685983 11-Dec-2016 11:32
Send private message

JayADee:

 

 

 

 

 


IMO our little Godzone could be a utopia for all of us and it could be achieved partly by having a reasonable UBI.

 

This a a great post. All I can do is applaud.

 

 





Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

 


 


JayADee
2148 posts

Uber Geek


  #1686035 11-Dec-2016 14:21
Send private message

Geektastic: The danger is that too many decide UBI and a few cash in hand jobs is adequate and then you start running out of money for paying UBI.

It would also make NZ a serious target for immigration so you'd have to really get stricter on that. Skilled migrant class is already pretty strict, speaking from personal experience, but you'd certainly need some sort of restriction on family members of migrants under that visa category for example.

Also you need a plan as to what happens if you get to a point where the country just can't afford it.


Agreed. If it were me I'd ban foreign ownership of kiwi houses (I know stats say it is fairly low but why have to compete with foreigners in our own country?) and use the skilled migrant criteria and only allow immediate family members, not extended at least for some time (a generation?) until the system was ticking along.

You'd need a plan to afford UBI to start with and it would be painful too especially at first. But the overall goal would be to better the entire country as a place to live from rich to UBI-only recipients. Hard-chargers could still have more than average if they wanted but at the same time I'd like to see business owners able to relax a bit more too if they chose knowing they didn't have to kill themselves to be ok in the future and their kids too.

I think with the right redistribution system it could work but the transition could be a b----.

But without some kind of change in the long run if disparity continues there will be no middle class to buy anything anyway. Trickle down doesn't work.

And as long as I'm declaring my politics I don't care what people do in the bedroom so I'm ok with gay marriage, I believe women control their own bodies so I am not anti abortion, I am ok with doctor assisted suicide in certain circumstances as I would like that choice myself.

JayADee
2148 posts

Uber Geek


  #1686037 11-Dec-2016 14:22
Send private message

Rikkitic:

JayADee:


 


 



IMO our little Godzone could be a utopia for all of us and it could be achieved partly by having a reasonable UBI.


This a a great post. All I can do is applaud.


 



This is a great country, with great people and a terrific base to start with!

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic





News and reviews »

Air New Zealand Starts AI adoption with OpenAI
Posted 24-Jul-2025 16:00


eero Pro 7 Review
Posted 23-Jul-2025 12:07


BeeStation Plus Review
Posted 21-Jul-2025 14:21


eero Unveils New Wi-Fi 7 Products in New Zealand
Posted 21-Jul-2025 00:01


WiZ Introduces HDMI Sync Box and other Light Devices
Posted 20-Jul-2025 17:32


RedShield Enhances DDoS and Bot Attack Protection
Posted 20-Jul-2025 17:26


Seagate Ships 30TB Drives
Posted 17-Jul-2025 11:24


Oclean AirPump A10 Water Flosser Review
Posted 13-Jul-2025 11:05


Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7: Raising the Bar for Smartphones
Posted 10-Jul-2025 02:01


Samsung Galaxy Z Flip7 Brings New Edge-To-Edge FlexWindow
Posted 10-Jul-2025 02:01


Epson Launches New AM-C550Z WorkForce Enterprise printer
Posted 9-Jul-2025 18:22


Samsung Releases Smart Monitor M9
Posted 9-Jul-2025 17:46


Nearly Half of Older Kiwis Still Write their Passwords on Paper
Posted 9-Jul-2025 08:42


D-Link 4G+ Cat6 Wi-Fi 6 DWR-933M Mobile Hotspot Review
Posted 1-Jul-2025 11:34


Oppo A5 Series Launches With New Levels of Durability
Posted 30-Jun-2025 10:15









Geekzone Live »

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



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.