Survey from the National Party

Forums › Off topic › Survey from the National Party

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

5814 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#660272 23-Jul-2012 11:04

networkn: Wow people are sometimes quite surprising in this country. We have plenty of comments around the place that how can people who can't feed there kids spend $1000 on shares? Uh... You don't. Those families who have $1000 spare can do it, just like they can holiday and do other things, which they should be able to do guilt free since they put themselves in a position to do it.

Kiwi's seem so over entitled these days. Someone posted in a comment on an article.. "I haven't been able to pay my bills for the last 5 years, how will I have $1000 for shares, will the Government give it to me?

Good grief.

Yes, I'm not sure where the sense of entitlement came from. It has got the country into a bit of poop IMO. Government spending needs to reigned in because of it, hence why they are partially selling State Owned Assets.

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#660277 23-Jul-2012 11:10

Well it's possible I am wrong here, but from my perspective, Labour pandered to a lot of the lower economic groups, to get votes and took away a lot of the need for them to be personally responsible which helped them in the very short term but I believe has made things harder in the long term. I believe there are genuine hard luck cases out there, and therefore a benefit system is something I support in a limited capacity, however it's become an entitlement which indicates to some people that it's ok to stay on this system, even if they have low paid work as an alternative. My own sister complained the other day that her job wasn't paying much more than a benefit would, so she is considering going back on a benefit. Yes I am horrified. My mother would be rolling in her grave!

I always think it would be nice to suggest to long term beneficiaries, "If your benefit was permanently ending in 3 months and there was going to be no state provided income for you, what choices would you make to secure income to cover your needs"

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#660278 23-Jul-2012 11:16

networkn:
BlueShift:
networkn: More details today, or a clarification. For those who want, it's possible for for YOU to own a chunk of shares from some of these asset sales as every day NZ'rs will be able to buy upto $2000 shares, which is $2000 which won't go to overseas ownership (If that is your concern).

Are overseas investors limited to $2000 shares each as well?

I am not sure on that. I am not certain why they would limit it to $2000 even for NZ Investors, there must be something else I can't see related to this.

My understanding is this:

It is not limited to $2,000. If a person applies for up to $2,000 worth of shares they are guaranteed to get those even if the offer is oversubscribed. If they apply for more than $2,000 worth of shares and the offer is oversubscribed they will get $2,000 worth.

EDIT: I have confirmed the above is the intention. I think it was clear, but in case not the "person" has to be a NZ citizen.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#660299 23-Jul-2012 11:48

Well you get an F- for your knowledge of investment strategies so I would be wasting my time responding to your rather lengthy and nonsensical post except to point out the following where you claim an error in my data:

Regarding point [6] referring to Kiwibank, my data is not 2 years out of date as you claim. I did key "end of 2010" as the year and that was a typo on my part, as I meant "2011". As at end of 2011 Kiwibank had never returned a dividend and had been in existance for a smidgin under 10 years. At that time it had over half a billion dollars pumped into it by the government either in cash or forgone Post dividend (believe as at November 2011 the figure was $550 million, $50 million having been pumped in during November or thereabouts).

Brendan:
John2010:
Brendan:

I am not impressed by them or by you.

While that is just as I thought you would feel about me, it is a relief that you have confirmed it to be so as I would have felt insulted otherwise.

I've been busy with some work, but despite this I will attempt to answer some of your questions.

If you think that you have anything to add apart from just stating in much bandwidth that you are opposed to asset sales, how about having a try at my later post where I ask that the opponents of asset sales comment on the management of the stock portfolio - why you think it is optimum now and if not what should be bought or sold?

I'll do better: I'll answer you why other people DON'T answer you.

Despite this, and foolishly (of me), I will now answer your 'stock portfolio' question/attack:

And the same loud minorities turn up wherever there is a cause that suits them to promote. Usual irrational activist stuff and puff, and the followers with a ring in their nose and no economic, social or business sense get led to the cleaners by them.

You have de-humanized the people you disagree with. In your mind they are mentally retarded.

[1]I'll give them credit that on the "assets" matter they have given up claiming there is any social need to keep them, [2]in the main now claiming they should be kept for their dividends. [3]Should that argument have any merit then [4]any sensible investor will know that if one is going to hold a portfolio of stocks then it should be diversified to mamage risk and maximise the return. [5]At the moment the portfolio is not diversified it being strongly energy biased (and that predominantly electricity generation), risky (Air NZ), and a dog [6](Kiwibank, which in over 10 years has never returned a dividend and soaked over half a billion dollars - as of end 2010 - out of taxpayers' pockets to keep it going, and still crying out for more).

And here, you attempt to frame the argument in terms favorable to your position. You further use strawman arguments to bolster this position. I will deconstruct it step by step:

1. I have not seen it claimed from any credible official source that 'them' have given up claiming a societal benefit to keeping the assets.

2. The 'keeping them for the dividends' argument has never been declared the main argument, but in itself is a sound argument.

3. You next make the classic move of taking your previous strawman argument, and proceeding as if it was an incontestable fact.

4. You then have another strawman argument. It has not been shown that retaining the Assets would constitute a 'non-diversified portfolio' when considered against all state assets. Your point of mitigating risk is therefore invalid and pointless. (It would have been invalid anyway as NZ lacks many viable alternative energy generation systems that would compete with hydro; therefore monopolizing hydro is a sound investment).

5. A bald assertion lacking in official references; additionally, it is predominantly Right supporters that argue that government should not be running companies: you cannot therefore complain if they aren't diverse enough for you.

6. No references and your 'facts' are 2 years out of date. It also ignores the importance the public put on having our own bank, and after all it is their money - not yours. Additionally, even if unprofitable in finance, it is profitable in influence - it has successfully kept the other banks from raising prices too much.

So lets hear from them, if they think their argument is rational and not just based on emotional attachment (a guaranteed failure attitude for an investor to hold), as to how the "asset" portfolio should be managed to maximise return with appropriate risk - what should be sold and what should be purchased (or for the far left what should be nationalised), and how big to create such a sound portfolio.

Now you have heard. Sadly enough you do not actually make any good points or sound arguments, most of your debate is strawman and artificially framing the debate. Along with far too many presumptive or insulting assertions.

We can all do that John. You are not clever, just loud and immature.

I have a question for you: instead of telling us all how stupid the Left is with every breath, who don't you show us an outline of YOUR big plan to save the economy. Yes, we want to hear how you will make more jobs and deal with social issues. How you will save the environment, preserve our way of life and make us all rich.

Fire ahead. Start a new thread if you like. It might even be fun!

When I have asked that question privately of the "don't sell our family silver" claimers I have just got a blank stare, they have no concept whatever as to what was meant, so their claim was irrational .

They just don't like you John. And it is easy to see why.

Or are you just like the other naysayers and have no reason to be opposed except that it makes you feel good?

I see attitudes like yours among the religious. Maybe that is why religious fundamentalists and right wing fascists are so commonly bed mates in history.

Now, if you will excuse me I have some work to do. I do not have a lot of time for these long convoluted debates with people who will never expand their point of view.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#660685 23-Jul-2012 23:27

Ahh, I think we have a sock puppet here:

Idiot:
1. What is a credible official source? What is their argument for keeping 100% ownership of these assets? And why would there be a credible official source on what the argument against a partial sale of state assets is?

Statistics NZ is the only source for statistics that NZ Government may officially use. By Law.

The rest of your comment is barely intelligible.

You also attempt to use ad hominem, but you actually discredit yourself, since you're the only person who misused "them".

You clearly do not even know what "ad hominem" means.

Given that your user name is very clearly accurate, I'll not bother with the rest. It made no more sense than the above.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#660691 23-Jul-2012 23:41

networkn: Wow people are sometimes quite surprising in this country. We have plenty of comments around the place that how can people who can't feed there kids spend $1000 on shares? Uh... You don't.

I think the point is that as tax payers, we ALL already own equal shares in these assets.

We are now being told we have to pay for them all again. Up to 49%.

But it's worse than this: it constitutes a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

At the moment, a poor person owns a percentage of these Assets through being a taxpayer in NZ (along with everyone else).

These same poor people will own 49% LESS after the sales, and others will own 49% MORE. In effect, they are being stolen from - but it SOUNDS legitimate because it's couched in legal and financial terms.

But at the end of the day they will own 49% less, and they had no choice.

If it was done fairly, everyone in this country will be given an equal share of the 49%, in the form of shares in the new company. They could then sell them or hang on to them. After all, as a taxpayer, they owned them in the first place.

Those families who have $1000 spare can do it, just like they can holiday and do other things, which they should be able to do guilt free since they put themselves in a position to do it.

And by implication the people who do NOT have a spare $1000 are to blame for their position? Universally?

Kiwi's seem so over entitled these days. Someone posted in a comment on an article.. "I haven't been able to pay my bills for the last 5 years, how will I have $1000 for shares, will the Government give it to me?
Good grief.

Despite there being more wealth in the world today than at any time in history, it is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. This is bad in very many ways and the chances and consequences of mismanagement increase exponentially. We are already seeing the results of that.

The current 'financial crisis' was not the work of poor people. It was the work of rich and greedy people.

Ragnor

8222 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#660694 23-Jul-2012 23:53

Brendan: Ahh, I think we have a sock puppet here

Brendan: You clearly do not even know what "ad hominem" means.

Geekzone doesn't appear to have and eye rolling emoicon but I believe it's use would be appropriate here so you'll just have to imagine one.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#660697 23-Jul-2012 23:53

trig42:
Yes, I'm not sure where the sense of entitlement came from.

It came from NZ LAW. I believe it even uses the words ENTITLED and GUARANTEED.

It is part of the Human Rights Act and the Social Security Act. May be others.

You see, the Government brought these laws into being because at the time, the results of NOT having them were readily apparent and FAR worse: disease pandemics, organised crime, poverty and death.

And that was with only a few people and in an environment of high employment.

It would be much, much worse now if the welfare state disappeared tomorrow. If you think paying for WINZ is expensive, get your calculator out and add up the cost of dozens of new prisons, hospitals, insurance, police, and staff and equipment for all of them.

Welfare looks like a bargain.

And strangely, the poor just wont go away and be quiet. They get quite violent when they are starving.

If you want New Zealand to end up like Syria/Haiti/Bagladesh/etc, keep up with the poor bashing.

It has got the country into a bit of poop IMO. Government spending needs to reigned in because of it, hence why they are partially selling State Owned Assets.

Load of crap. The alternative is even worse. Think about it.

You want to know why the country is going through a rough patch? Read up about Fractional Reserve Banking.

Hey: I could be mega rich too if I was allowed to lend the same $1 out 9 times at once!

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#660699 23-Jul-2012 23:57

I think the point is that as tax payers, we ALL already own equal shares in these assets.

We are now being told we have to pay for them all again. Up to 49%.

But it's worse than this: it constitutes a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

At the moment, a poor person owns a percentage of these Assets through being a taxpayer in NZ (along with everyone else).

These same poor people will own 49% LESS after the sales, and others will own 49% MORE. In effect, they are being stolen from - but it SOUNDS legitimate because it's couched in legal and financial terms.

But at the end of the day they will own 49% less, and they had no choice.

If it was done fairly, everyone in this country will be given an equal share of the 49%, in the form of shares in the new company. They could then sell them or hang on to them. After all, as a taxpayer, they owned them in the first place.

Based on your other nonsensical responses, I doubt my response will bring you to reality, however...

They DID have a choice, they could have voted another party in. In your "fair" scenario, what would be the benefit of this? What you are failing to take into account in your suggestion, is that the taxpayer gets the proceeds of the sale, in the same way they currently "own" the shares! The money isn't vanishing, it's going to other places that the country requires it. It certainly is NOT a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor, it's just a transfer in place, since what proceeds are generated by the sale will be returned to the countries coffers to benefit everyone, including the poor.

And by implication the people who do NOT have a spare $1000 are to blame for their position? Universally?

You didn't read my post above. I never said that. People make choices, they prioritize. Some people make better choices than others. There will always be rich and poor people.

The current 'financial crisis' was not the work of poor people. It was the work of rich and greedy people.

I think you will find that the biggest losers in the Financial Crisis were both the rich and middle class, the poor didn't really lose that much. They didn't have shares, stocks, bonds, investments, houses to lose etc.

Ragnor

8222 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#660700 24-Jul-2012 00:05

Brendan:

But it's worse than this: it constitutes a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

At the moment, a poor person owns a percentage of these Assets through being a taxpayer in NZ (along with everyone else).

These same poor people will own 49% LESS after the sales, and others will own 49% MORE. In effect, they are being stolen from - but it SOUNDS legitimate because it's couched in legal and financial terms.

No it isn't and no they don't.

Most poor people are net transfer recipients not net tax payers, really they haven't contributed anything to the government funds that built/maintain these assets that the government owns.

Even more well off people who actually pay more tax then they receive in benefits in NZ aren't owners of SOE's, the Government/crown is still the owner.

When the government taxes you you don't mystically own things, the money is gone and the government does whatever it wants with it.

When the elected government sells it's shares until you buy some you are not an owner.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#660704 24-Jul-2012 00:10

networkn: Well it's possible I am wrong here,

You are.

but from my perspective, Labour pandered to a lot of the lower economic groups,

If not the majority of people, certainly a very large and legitimate block. Are they not entitled to a vigorous representation in Parliament?

Surely you are not referring to Beneficiaries? They only represent about 300,000 people I think? Hardly a election winner...

to get votes and took away a lot of the need for them to be personally responsible which helped them in the very short term but I believe has made things harder in the long term.

I hear a lot about this "personal responsibility" and it is code for blaming the victims.

We do not see the same demands for "personal responsibility" of executives that cost a country billions, then hold their hand out to the tax payer for bail outs and use it to give themselves multi-million dollar bonuses.

No, when I see a National supporter demand "personal responsibility" I know what he really means is kick them while they're down and blame them for things they have no control over (like the economy).

I believe there are genuine hard luck cases out there, and therefore a benefit system is something I support in a limited capacity, however it's become an entitlement which indicates to some people that it's ok to stay on this system, even if they have low paid work as an alternative. My own sister complained the other day that her job wasn't paying much more than a benefit would, so she is considering going back on a benefit. Yes I am horrified. My mother would be rolling in her grave!

I think you are missing the larger problem.

I always think it would be nice to suggest to long term beneficiaries, "If your benefit was permanently ending in 3 months and there was going to be no state provided income for you, what choices would you make to secure income to cover your needs"

They would turn to crime because they do not have the skills or opportunities you did.

But that's their fault too isn't it? In fact, I think if we tried hard enough I reckon would could find a way of blaming them for everything.

Easier than admitting the System is faulty. That'd be heresy.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#660705 24-Jul-2012 00:13

John2010: Well you get an F- for your knowledge of investment strategies so I would be wasting my time responding to your rather lengthy and nonsensical post except to point out the following where you claim an error in my data:

well, I knew I was wasting my time, but I didn't expect you to completely miss the point: it wasn't about "investment strategies" - that was YOUR assertion. Your attempt to frame the argument, not mine.

Regarding point [6] referring to Kiwibank, my data is not 2 years out of date as you claim. I did key "end of 2010" as the year and that was a typo on my part, as I meant "2011". As at end of 2011 Kiwibank had never returned a dividend and had been in existance for a smidgin under 10 years. At that time it had over half a billion dollars pumped into it by the government either in cash or forgone Post dividend (believe as at November 2011 the figure was $550 million, $50 million having been pumped in during November or thereabouts).

I can not be blamed for your "typos". You should just have said "sorry, i meant 2011" instead of your pointless attack.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#660706 24-Jul-2012 00:16

Ragnor:
Brendan: Ahh, I think we have a sock puppet here

Brendan: You clearly do not even know what "ad hominem" means.

Geekzone doesn't appear to have and eye rolling emoicon but I believe it's use would be appropriate here so you'll just have to imagine one.

lol, pretty mild though. Still, this guy appears out of no where, registered on the same day, quotes a whole screed of stuff and adds a few witless lines?

He's a sock puppet.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#660710 24-Jul-2012 00:23

Ragnor:
Brendan:

But it's worse than this: it constitutes a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

At the moment, a poor person owns a percentage of these Assets through being a taxpayer in NZ (along with everyone else).

These same poor people will own 49% LESS after the sales, and others will own 49% MORE. In effect, they are being stolen from - but it SOUNDS legitimate because it's couched in legal and financial terms.

No it isn't and no they don't.

Most poor people are net transfer recipients not net tax payers, really they haven't contributed anything to the government funds that built/maintain these assets that the government owns.

How the hell could you possibly prove that? Most poor people have at various times been "net tax payers". I can't find that stat, but I recall it was a WINZ one.

Even more well off people who actually pay more tax then they receive in benefits in NZ aren't owners of SOE's, the Government/crown is still the owner.

When the government taxes you you don't mystically own things, the money is gone and the government does whatever it wants with it.

When the elected government sells it's shares until you buy some you are not an owner.

Actually, it's the Governor General. But that is more an artifact of history than a meaningful practicality.

But what you say isn't right anyhow, otherwise there would be no need for public records and transparency in governance. e.g. If the Government owned it all itself, it wouldn't have to tell use what it wants to do in the Budget, or in Acts.

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#660712 24-Jul-2012 00:35

But what you say isn't right anyhow, otherwise there would be no need for public records and transparency in governance. e.g. If the Government owned it all itself, it wouldn't have to tell use what it wants to do in the Budget, or in Acts.

Wow! Just wow!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9