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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12


4952 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2010


  Reply # 1618967 29-Aug-2016 09:30
One person supports this post
Send private message

gzt:
MikeAqua:

 

Labelling of GMO food is an example of a requirement based on public concern, where that concern is not supported by scientific evidence of health effects.

 

 

You are implying the consumer concern is entirely about health effects. It isnt entirely.

 

I'm implying (now saying directly) that consumers in general, lack understanding of the topic.  Most don't make use of reliable information that is readily available and base their understanding on over-simplified and/or skewed sound bytes.

 

GMO food has been in widespread use in commercial crops since the 1960s.  Most modern crop varieties were developed by the deliberate genetic mutation of plant material, using for example radiation and/or toxins.

 

The notion that genetic boundaries between species are stable in the absence of GMO is simply not true.  DNA is continually being copied and pasted between species via natural processes.

 

Something like 10% of the human genome is currently understood to be exogenous DNA.





Mike

11831 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3836

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1618975 29-Aug-2016 09:51
Send private message

MikeAqua:

 

gzt:
MikeAqua:

 

Labelling of GMO food is an example of a requirement based on public concern, where that concern is not supported by scientific evidence of health effects.

 

 

You are implying the consumer concern is entirely about health effects. It isnt entirely.

 

I'm implying (now saying directly) that consumers in general, lack understanding of the topic.  Most don't make use of reliable information that is readily available and base their understanding on over-simplified and/or skewed sound bytes.

 

GMO food has been in widespread use in commercial crops since the 1960s.  Most modern crop varieties were developed by the deliberate genetic mutation of plant material, using for example radiation and/or toxins.

 

The notion that genetic boundaries between species are stable in the absence of GMO is simply not true.  DNA is continually being copied and pasted between species via natural processes.

 

Something like 10% of the human genome is currently understood to be exogenous DNA.

 

 

 

 

Yes, but than 10% is from aliens. It says so in my copy of Tin Foil Hat Monthly.








4952 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2010


  Reply # 1618978 29-Aug-2016 09:54
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

MikeAqua:

 

gzt:
MikeAqua:

 

Labelling of GMO food is an example of a requirement based on public concern, where that concern is not supported by scientific evidence of health effects.

 

 

You are implying the consumer concern is entirely about health effects. It isnt entirely.

 

I'm implying (now saying directly) that consumers in general, lack understanding of the topic.  Most don't make use of reliable information that is readily available and base their understanding on over-simplified and/or skewed sound bytes.

 

GMO food has been in widespread use in commercial crops since the 1960s.  Most modern crop varieties were developed by the deliberate genetic mutation of plant material, using for example radiation and/or toxins.

 

The notion that genetic boundaries between species are stable in the absence of GMO is simply not true.  DNA is continually being copied and pasted between species via natural processes.

 

Something like 10% of the human genome is currently understood to be exogenous DNA.

 

 

 Yes, but than 10% is from aliens. It says so in my copy of Tin Foil Hat Monthly.

 

 

Viruses actually. 





Mike

11831 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3836

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1619028 29-Aug-2016 11:21
Send private message

Are the Greens actually proposing anything to change the worst aspect of Kiwisaver?

 

 

 

"Employees on PAYE can receive contributions into their KiwiSaver accounts, which can be opened from July 1, directly from their employer. A tax break rushed in as a late amendment to the KiwiSaver Act means firms pay just 67c to make a contribution of $1.

 

The self- employed can open KiwiSaver accounts, but their problem is that there is no employment relationship. In effect, though they are their own employers, their contributions do not qualify as "employer contributions" under tax laws, so the tax exemption is not available."








4952 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2010


  Reply # 1619197 29-Aug-2016 15:53
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

"Employees on PAYE can receive contributions into their KiwiSaver accounts, which can be opened from July 1, directly from their employer. A tax break rushed in as a late amendment to the KiwiSaver Act means firms pay just 67c to make a contribution of $1.

 

 

So that's the net contribution rate after tax anyway. 

 

Are employers paying the PAYE to govt and the contribution (fully taxed) directly into the KS account?





Mike

169 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Subscriber

  Reply # 1619215 29-Aug-2016 16:41
Send private message

MikeAqua:

 

Geektastic:

 

"Employees on PAYE can receive contributions into their KiwiSaver accounts, which can be opened from July 1, directly from their employer. A tax break rushed in as a late amendment to the KiwiSaver Act means firms pay just 67c to make a contribution of $1.

 

 

So that's the net contribution rate after tax anyway. 

 

Are employers paying the PAYE to govt and the contribution (fully taxed) directly into the KS account?

 

 

I thing Geektastic's got the wrong end of the stick on that.

 

Employer contributions to any Super scheme (not just KiwiSaver) are subject to Employer Superannuation Contribution Tax [ESCT], which is levied at the marginal PAYE rate applicable to the sum of the employee's salary and the employer's super contributions.

 

The 33% fixed rate was removed years and years ago when it was appreciated that it was unfair to tax someone 33% on their ESCT when they earned only little enough money to have the lower PAYE tax rates.
Then a couple of years later they added in the "sum of the employee's salary and the employer's super contributions" bit after some smart guy arranged to pay all their 6-figure salary except $2/fortnight Social Club contribution as 'Employer Super Subsidy' thereby getting his ESCT at 18% (IIRC at the time), paying the early withdrawal tax of 5% and paying way less tax than he should have.

 

But the self-employed can't make Employer Contributions, so that limits them to only putting in 8% maximum.
However, as I understand it, there is now no tax disadvantage for the self-employed - but I only wrote the code to do ESCT calculations for salaried employees, I haven't been self-employed for many years.




4952 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2010


  Reply # 1619222 29-Aug-2016 16:51
Send private message

As I understand it the universal advantages of Kiwisaver are: -

 

1) Annual tax credit.

 

2) Employer contributions.

 

If you work full time you will get the tax credit, and there is no advantage to Kiwisaver contributions beyond the level matched by your employer.

 

In fact other investment instruments may offer more flexibility.

 

 





Mike

11831 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3836

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1619229 29-Aug-2016 17:07
Send private message

MikeAqua:

 

As I understand it the universal advantages of Kiwisaver are: -

 

1) Annual tax credit.

 

2) Employer contributions.

 

If you work full time you will get the tax credit, and there is no advantage to Kiwisaver contributions beyond the level matched by your employer.

 

In fact other investment instruments may offer more flexibility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That sounds about right. Given that we are a nation with a reasonably significant number of self-employed people, they could all be helped if the government allowed them to be 'employees' of themselves.

 

The info I quoted may be out of date - it was from 2007. 






3030 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 466

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1619233 29-Aug-2016 17:13
Send private message

PolicyGuy:

 

I thing Geektastic's got the wrong end of the stick on that.

 

Employer contributions to any Super scheme (not just KiwiSaver) are subject to Employer Superannuation Contribution Tax [ESCT], which is levied at the marginal PAYE rate applicable to the sum of the employee's salary and the employer's super contributions.

 

 

Ah, my pet hate when I still lived in NZ. There was actually a point when you crossed a marginal tax rate threshold where your net KiwiSaver contribution was actually less than when you earned less money. Have they fixed that idiocy yet?


2536 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1197


  Reply # 1619266 29-Aug-2016 18:44
3 people support this post
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

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? 

 

 

The world is a big place, not always a nice place, and we are a small country.

 

We have legitimate interests that need to be protected - our fisheries, our citizen's lives (anti-terrorism etc), and our economic well being (keeping trade routes open etc). This can be inherently messy - sometimes we have to put people in harms way, sometimes they will get killed, and sometimes they will have to kill others. But this is the real world, not a Dr Seuss book.

 

We can't do this on our own - we are far too small. We need friends and alliances, to get access to equipment, training, inter-operablity and pool resources to achieve goals. We need to rely on our friends to help us (eg we befit from the international anti-piracy efforts off Africa and in East Asia, sharing of intelligence, and access to specialised training). Which means we have to make at least a token contribution in return - a ship here, a radio monitoring station there, and the the SAS mucking in over somewhere else.

 

Some of the people I have met (who seem dis-proportionally Green supporters) seem to think that we should unilaterally disarm and will be left alone in return, and that "peacekeeping" is the only  legitimate use of the armed services. But the real world isn't that simple or forgiving, and we can't defend our citizens by scrapping our capability to do so and merely sitting round a campfire, linking arms, and singing a rousing chorus of Kumbaya. (Except they probably wouldn't allow us the campfire, as that emits carbon. Maybe sitting round an image of a fire scratched into a rock. Unless that's prohibited too as the act of scratching the rock probably disturbs the sacred spirit of Gaia the Earth Mother....)

 

And yes, this costs money. Which means that taxes have to be higher than they would otherwise have been, and less money is available to be spent on other things.


Glurp
7990 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3715

Subscriber

  Reply # 1619299 29-Aug-2016 19:49
One person supports this post
Send private message

The problem with this discussion is that there are two points of view, each supported by unproven assumptions. Those who want to give peace a chance, who may or may not be Green supporters, cannot prove that we won’t be overrun by the yellow peril if we scrap the last token war machine. Those who want to dress up as Rambo cannot prove our way of life will end if they don’t lock and load. Both sides make assumptions and propose them as fact, but that is not necessarily the case. 

 

Is it inevitable that we would become vassals of another power if we had no military? Maybe that is already the case. We are not exactly free as it is to go our own way if that seriously impedes the perceived self-interest of Australia, the USA, China, or any number of other countries much more powerful than we will ever be. I cannot imagine the possession of a few warships or combat aircraft would make much practical difference to that. 

 

Some might point to examples from history as warnings to be prepared, but as far as I know, every single act of aggression that has ever occurred, happened because the aggressor thought they could get away with it. That might sound like an argument to arm yourself, but it only works if you can muster so much strength that no potential aggressor thinks it is worth the trouble. A small country like New Zealand is incapable of that. We could never face down anyone who seriously wanted to do us harm. For countries like ours, armaments are a waste of money, apart from the morals involved. 

 

In contrast to those countries that arm themselves to the teeth and get flattened anyway, are those who say ‘why bother’ and spend their money instead on more useful things. Costa Rica has done quite well without any military at all (yes, they do have a miniscule paramilitary police force). Andorra, Liechtenstein and Tuvalu are other examples of a dozen or so small countries that don’t see the point of playing with guns. We don’t have to look only to macho countries for an example of how to conduct ourselves. Clearly, not having a military does not equate to loss of independence and identity. There are other ways to walk tall. Don’t knock it until you try it.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


12872 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6079

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1619318 29-Aug-2016 20:24
Send private message

Our Defense Force is big enough, some divisions need some equipment reviews, for example the Navy and the useless patrol boats. I also believe that our command structure should be unified and the Navy, AirForce and Army be merged into a single force.

 

@Rikkitic the armed forces are not just for military action, they are for disaster assistance both internally and abroad, they also serve important search and rescue duties. I don't believe we should disband our military.

 

 





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


11831 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3836

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1619370 29-Aug-2016 22:28
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

Our Defense Force is big enough, some divisions need some equipment reviews, for example the Navy and the useless patrol boats. I also believe that our command structure should be unified and the Navy, AirForce and Army be merged into a single force.

 

@Rikkitic the armed forces are not just for military action, they are for disaster assistance both internally and abroad, they also serve important search and rescue duties. I don't believe we should disband our military.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do think you could combine the whole thing into a force similar in concept to the US Marines if you intend to participate in global conflicts, or the US Coastguard if you do not.






Glurp
7990 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3715

Subscriber

  Reply # 1619371 29-Aug-2016 22:40
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

Our Defense Force is big enough, some divisions need some equipment reviews, for example the Navy and the useless patrol boats. I also believe that our command structure should be unified and the Navy, AirForce and Army be merged into a single force.

 

@Rikkitic the armed forces are not just for military action, they are for disaster assistance both internally and abroad, they also serve important search and rescue duties. I don't believe we should disband our military.

 

 

 

 

I think folding our military into a civil defense force dedicated to fisheries and resource protection, disaster assistance and search and rescue, is an excellent idea. I would have no problem with that at all.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


11831 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3836

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1619373 29-Aug-2016 22:51
Send private message

Kyanar:

 

PolicyGuy:

 

I thing Geektastic's got the wrong end of the stick on that.

 

Employer contributions to any Super scheme (not just KiwiSaver) are subject to Employer Superannuation Contribution Tax [ESCT], which is levied at the marginal PAYE rate applicable to the sum of the employee's salary and the employer's super contributions.

 

 

Ah, my pet hate when I still lived in NZ. There was actually a point when you crossed a marginal tax rate threshold where your net KiwiSaver contribution was actually less than when you earned less money. Have they fixed that idiocy yet?

 

 

 

 

Probably not....

 

Nor the idiocy of taxing retirement saving!






1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



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.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.