Greens' Proposed restrictions in Kiwi Saver?

Forums › Off topic › Greens' Proposed restrictions in Kiwi Saver?

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1618433 27-Aug-2016 19:31

JimmyH:

we now have $100B more debt than we did in 2008, thanks in part to Christchurch and the GFC.

Don't label ChCh thanks

Its been funded by EQC levies over many years. As will Welly when that goes bang, as will the West Coast of the SI when that goes bang, let alone areas near Napier and Edgecumbe.

And whoever posted 100 billion needs to re read what they read. 100 Billion? NZ?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1618435 27-Aug-2016 19:36

Rikkitic:

At least you're specific about it. Points for that. I can't imagine what Greens policy is left for you to agree with, though. If I invert the things you disapprove of, your redneck jungle doesn't sound like a particularly pleasant place to live, but to each their own, I guess. Enjoy your deer heart.

Calling a poster a redneck jungle???

I prefer commentary not derogatory.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41070

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1618439 27-Aug-2016 19:39

Your, not you. Pass.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1618445 27-Aug-2016 19:48

freitasm:

Your, not you. Pass.

Sorry MF, don't follow.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41070

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1618449 27-Aug-2016 19:53

He says "your redneck jungle" as in your (possessive) not as in "you're". A place, not a person.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Lias

5655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3978

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1618551 28-Aug-2016 01:39

BarTender:

Anti truck / anti diesel policies - Since oil is an unlimited resource and air pollution isn't something to worry about.

Anti offshore oil drilling - Deepwater Horizon meets NZ Tourism. What have we got to loose?

Anti building new Hydro Dams - Erm wasn't that link mostly about making sure our rivers are safe to swim in. Pfft who wants to do that, crazy talk. Plus when Tiwai shuts down in a few years we will have more generation than we know what to do with. Transmission may be a problem but Transpower certainly isn't sitting on their hands as they know it's pretty much a certainty.

Emissions taxation - Hang on didn't we sign up to Kyoto and Paris? Let's just ignore we did that right as agriculture emissions aren't a problem? As you said below perhaps we need to suck it up buttercup on that one?

Wasting money on cyclists - Can't argue with you on Island Bay as that was a unmitigated disaster. But light rail to the airport and Newtown does make a lot of sense IMHO.

Increasing petrol taxes - Same as #1, oil's unlimited right so burn baby burn?

Anti GMO/GE - I think GMO/GE jury is still out as I am personally on the fence. If they were 100% safe then why have such an issue with labeling them as such? Nothing to fear, nothing to hide right?

Anti Vivisection - My view on this is if you want to do it, make sure you publicly express you do with associated videos of it being done. If people are happy to buy products much like cigarettes then full 'ya boots. As above, nothing to fear, nothing to hide.

Destroy our armed forces - Since we have bottomless pits of money to fund overseas wars?

As a parent my view is hopefully this world could at least be left in the same or better state that inherited it from my parents. I'm also of the view that as a society you are judged by how you treat your sick and destitute. Plus internationally it's well known that the better the bottom 10% of your population does the better the whole country does. You seem to be of a slightly different view to that. For that I pity you.

Oil isn't an unlimited resource, but no air pollution from truck emissions is not something we should be worrying about in NZ. Transportation makes up only 14% of global emissions [1] and NZ's contribution is only a rounding error on that. We need more oil, we already pay a fortune for petrol in NZ, to me it's a no brainer that we should be drilling for it anywhere we can find it. Other people view it differently.

Kyoto and Paris are but one of many treaties NZ needs to renounce.

I'm open to the idea of rail to the airport, but I think it should be a continuation of the existing commuter lines, not a new light rail implementation. It also can't interfere with building some proper roading infrastructure. We need to get rid of the nimbies that killed off the basin flyover and get "4 lanes to the planes".

I think more scientists agree that GMO/GE food is safer than agree on climate change, yet the greens (and assorted unwashed hippies) always point blank ignore the scientific evidence and consensus on this issue.

In my view, animals are resources to be used. Some people use them for food, some for wool/fur, some for companionship, etc. I don't see why medical testing shouldn't be a perfectly legitimate use.

I think even National have greatly underfunded our defence force, and wasted money on other unimportant things, let alone what Labour and the Greens have done. Our defence spending should easily be double it's current level, maybe triple for a decade or two to catch up. We no longer even have combat aircraft or tanks FFS.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup. Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

Quic Broadband

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.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1618569 28-Aug-2016 06:52

@Lias arguments can be couched without the denigrations

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1618616 28-Aug-2016 09:52

tdgeek:

JimmyH:

we now have $100B more debt than we did in 2008, thanks in part to Christchurch and the GFC.

Don't label ChCh thanks

Its been funded by EQC levies over many years. As will Welly when that goes bang, as will the West Coast of the SI when that goes bang, let alone areas near Napier and Edgecumbe.

And whoever posted 100 billion needs to re read what they read. 100 Billion? NZ?

The EQC reserves aren't part of the current account anyway. Government has repeatedly used a headline figure which included the EQC total of reserves, reinsurance, and top-up to meet liability as a political tool / excuse. Say it often enough, and people believe it. Truth is that demand from the Chch quakes/rebuild, and high dairy export prices boosted GDP growth, insulating NZ economy from the worst of the GFC.

It's been argued that the net cost of the Chch quakes to govt coffers is $0. (15% GST on ~$40 billion of insurance payouts being spent = $6 billion, plus PAYE and company tax on economic activity on the back of the rebuild. Most of that insurance money has come from offshore reinsurers).

How's it going with government calling all the shots on how the city is rebuilt?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1618621 28-Aug-2016 10:34

Lias:

I think even National have greatly underfunded our defence force, and wasted money on other unimportant things, let alone what Labour and the Greens have done. Our defence spending should easily be double it's current level, maybe triple for a decade or two to catch up. We no longer even have combat aircraft or tanks FFS.

Complicated responding to so many points in quotes, especially when I disagree with most, so I will start with just this one. I am curious to know what a small nation like New Zealand would do with a beefed-up defence force. Declare war on Fiji? What on earth would we ever need tanks for?

I can see the point of an improved Coast Guard, assuming a government with some guts actually takes action against illegal fishing, but the rest is just a war monger's fantasy. If China ever decides to move in, no tanks or combat aircraft we could ever possess are going to make the slightest bit of difference. We would not even be able to defend ourselves against Australia. Defence for small countries means diplomacy and international agreements. If you are hopelessly outclassed by your enemy, waving a spear at them may not be the brightest strategy.

I am aware that our 'defence' alliances expect us to make a token contribution of some kind, but I cannot imagine the odd tank or plane is going to impress anyone much. Others are going to be much better at that kind of thing than we can ever be. Why don't we agree to supply the hospitals instead?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1618652 28-Aug-2016 12:18

Lias: Oil isn't an unlimited resource ....We need more oil, we already pay a fortune for petrol in NZ, to me it's a no brainer that we should be drilling for it anywhere we can find it. Other people view it differently.

So it's a limited resource that one day will run out. Don't you think it would be prudent to work on a plan b? As oil prices are going to go in one direction.
There is also plenty of examples where due to human failure and various reasons that they create massive environmental disasters.
I suspect if you asked the residents of Havelock North if they would support fracking after the last few weeks they may feel a little different.
You obviously think the risk is worth it. I'm personally think as a country we have too much to loose.

Also good not to lower yourself to insults with baseless generalisations. Doesn't help to further your argument and looks poorly on you.

I think even National have greatly underfunded our defence force, and wasted money on other unimportant things, let alone what Labour and the Greens have done. Our defence spending should easily be double it's current level, maybe triple for a decade or two to catch up. We no longer even have combat aircraft or tanks

So you must be advocating for an increase of some sort of tax to pay for all of that. Or is borrowing to pay for the one off capex expense of a few billion to buy new tanks then an opex year on year increase for a larger military in the way of maintenance and wages.
As money doesn't grow on trees. Unless your suggesting quantitative easing?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1618653 28-Aug-2016 12:21

Rikkitic:

Lias:

I think even National have greatly underfunded our defence force, and wasted money on other unimportant things, let alone what Labour and the Greens have done. Our defence spending should easily be double it's current level, maybe triple for a decade or two to catch up. We no longer even have combat aircraft or tanks FFS.

Complicated responding to so many points in quotes, especially when I disagree with most, so I will start with just this one. I am curious to know what a small nation like New Zealand would do with a beefed-up defence force. Declare war on Fiji? What on earth would we ever need tanks for?

I can see the point of an improved Coast Guard, assuming a government with some guts actually takes action against illegal fishing, but the rest is just a war monger's fantasy. If China ever decides to move in, no tanks or combat aircraft we could ever possess are going to make the slightest bit of difference. We would not even be able to defend ourselves against Australia. Defence for small countries means diplomacy and international agreements. If you are hopelessly outclassed by your enemy, waving a spear at them may not be the brightest strategy.

I am aware that our 'defence' alliances expect us to make a token contribution of some kind, but I cannot imagine the odd tank or plane is going to impress anyone much. Others are going to be much better at that kind of thing than we can ever be. Why don't we agree to supply the hospitals instead?

Fully agree. I believe, and feel free to correct, much of our work in overseas conflicts are peacekeeper roles, support roles. Ive never heard of masses of infantry being sent to front lines, or tanks etc being deployed. Small number os SAS being an exception.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Lias

5655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3978

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1618655 28-Aug-2016 12:29

Rikkitic:

Complicated responding to so many points in quotes, especially when I disagree with most, so I will start with just this one. I am curious to know what a small nation like New Zealand would do with a beefed-up defence force. Declare war on Fiji? What on earth would we ever need tanks for?

I can see the point of an improved Coast Guard, assuming a government with some guts actually takes action against illegal fishing, but the rest is just a war monger's fantasy. If China ever decides to move in, no tanks or combat aircraft we could ever possess are going to make the slightest bit of difference. We would not even be able to defend ourselves against Australia. Defence for small countries means diplomacy and international agreements. If you are hopelessly outclassed by your enemy, waving a spear at them may not be the brightest strategy.

I am aware that our 'defence' alliances expect us to make a token contribution of some kind, but I cannot imagine the odd tank or plane is going to impress anyone much. Others are going to be much better at that kind of thing than we can ever be. Why don't we agree to supply the hospitals instead?

We're getting pretty off topic here, but here goes :-)

I don't think we should be geared towards invading countries, I think we should be geared towards defence against an invasion (most like source of which is Indonesia). We should have a strong air combat contingent, with a particular focus on anti shipping strike capability to destroy any potential invasion fleet.

Tanks are really an essential part of any combined arms strategy. Infantry, even supported by LAV's, simply don't cut it if the opposition have much in the way of armoured vehicles.

I do agree somewhat that we are hopelessly outgunned, but we could have a vastly larger armed force for minimal outlay, we need to bring back compulsory national service, and also change benefits to a form of "work for the dole" which is in reality "work for the armed forces". Israel and Switzerland are two great examples of national service working well.

We should be as reliant and self dependent as possible.

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1618659 28-Aug-2016 12:36

Lias: We should be as reliant and self dependent as possible.

Meets

Lias: Oil isn't an unlimited resource ....We need more oil, we already pay a fortune for petrol in NZ, to me it's a no brainer that we should be drilling for it anywhere we can find it. Other people view it differently.

Along with beefing up the defense force with no plans on how to fund it.
I'm waiting to hear the next buzz word about our current government being fiscally responsible.
Oh the irony of such conflicting statements. Such ideology makes me chuckle.

Lias

5655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3978

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1618663 28-Aug-2016 12:58

BarTender:
Lias: We should be as reliant and self dependent as possible.

Meets
Lias: Oil isn't an unlimited resource ....We need more oil, we already pay a fortune for petrol in NZ, to me it's a no brainer that we should be drilling for it anywhere we can find it. Other people view it differently.

Along with beefing up the defense force with no plans on how to fund it.
I'm waiting to hear the next buzz word about our current government being fiscally responsible.
Oh the irony of such conflicting statements. Such ideology makes me chuckle.

If we had more domestic oil supply, we'd be less dependent on foreign oil.

As for funding it.. I can think of plenty of ways, perhaps the easiest would be ending free health care for non citizens, and means testing public health care for everyone.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1618667 28-Aug-2016 13:12

Lias:

We're getting pretty off topic here, but here goes :-)

I don't think we should be geared towards invading countries, I think we should be geared towards defence against an invasion (most like source of which is Indonesia). We should have a strong air combat contingent, with a particular focus on anti shipping strike capability to destroy any potential invasion fleet.

Tanks are really an essential part of any combined arms strategy. Infantry, even supported by LAV's, simply don't cut it if the opposition have much in the way of armoured vehicles.

I do agree somewhat that we are hopelessly outgunned, but we could have a vastly larger armed force for minimal outlay, we need to bring back compulsory national service, and also change benefits to a form of "work for the dole" which is in reality "work for the armed forces". Israel and Switzerland are two great examples of national service working well.

We should be as reliant and self dependent as possible.

This is an intelligent, reasoned, polite reply which I appreciate and respect. I don't agree with it, but I can see the point being argued. I think self-reliance is important, but I think there are other and better ways of ensuring that than guns and planes. There are many problems with a militaristic hardware approach, expense and escalation being only two. If you rely on more and bigger guns for your self-reliance, you are committing yourself to a permanent contest with any and all opponents. As soon as one of them outguns you, which will inevitably happen, you are vulnerable. This strategy only works if you happen to be the biggest dog in the yard, which we most definitely are not and never will be.

How about moral superiority instead? We forget about more guns but expand our role in the world as a negotiator and bringer of peace. We build trust with all sides by demonstrating scrupulous honesty and neutrality, so they will take our word when we say we can offer a solution. We become so highly regarded by the rest of the world as a beacon of hope that no-one dares bully us because that would be like stomping on a kitten and the offending party would simply die of shame. And if they didn't, the rest of the world would be so outraged that it would stomp on them for us.

Or to put it another way, an effective strategy for survival as a little dog is to make yourself so valuable to your bigger neighbours, that no-one wants to stomp on you in the first place because the loss would be greater than the gain.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12