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 | 13 | 14 | 15
Lock him up!
10679 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  # 1685681 10-Dec-2016 12:12
One person supports this post
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.

 

 





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


2496 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  # 1685683 10-Dec-2016 12:25
3 people support this post
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.

 
 
 
 


1562 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

  # 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.

 

 

 

 


1695 posts

Uber Geek


  # 1685688 10-Dec-2016 13:05
One person supports this post
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'.

Lock him up!
10679 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.

 

 





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


2987 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.

 

 


8719 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.


 
 
 
 


1695 posts

Uber Geek


  # 1685705 10-Dec-2016 13:58
One person supports this post
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.






1695 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.

13317 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.






1695 posts

Uber Geek


  # 1685952 11-Dec-2016 09:01
2 people support this post
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.

13317 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.





Lock him up!
10679 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.

 

 





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


1695 posts

Uber Geek


  # 1686035 11-Dec-2016 14:21
One person supports this post
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.

1695 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 | ... | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 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



Twitter and LinkedIn »



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:





News »

Microsoft New Zealand Partner Awards results
Posted 18-Oct-2019 10:18


Logitech introduces new Made for Google keyboard and mouse devices
Posted 16-Oct-2019 13:36


MATTR launches to accelerate decentralised identity
Posted 16-Oct-2019 10:28


Vodafone X-Squad powers up for customers
Posted 16-Oct-2019 08:15


D Link ANZ launches EXO Smart Mesh Wi Fi Routers with McAfee protection
Posted 15-Oct-2019 11:31


Major Japanese retailer partners with smart New Zealand technology IMAGR
Posted 14-Oct-2019 10:29


Ola pioneers one-time passcode feature to fight rideshare fraud
Posted 14-Oct-2019 10:24


Spark Sport new home of NZC matches from 2020
Posted 10-Oct-2019 09:59


Meet Nola, Noel Leeming's new digital employee
Posted 4-Oct-2019 08:07


Registrations for Sprout Accelerator open for 2020 season
Posted 4-Oct-2019 08:02


Teletrac Navman welcomes AI tech leader Jens Meggers as new President
Posted 4-Oct-2019 07:41


Vodafone makes voice of 4G (VoLTE) official
Posted 4-Oct-2019 07:36


2degrees Reaches Milestone of 100,000 Broadband Customers
Posted 1-Oct-2019 09:17


Nokia 1 Plus available in New Zealand from 2nd October
Posted 30-Sep-2019 17:46


Ola integrates Apple Pay as payment method in New Zealand
Posted 25-Sep-2019 09:51



Geekzone Live »

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


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



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.