Ah Yes! Divide the total cash and assets of the NZ population equally between the population. What would happen the next day? The speed with which the new rich would get poor and the new poor would get rich would leave the Americas Cup for dead as an example of power and corruption hiding behind a veil of sportsmanship.
The speed with the new rich would become poor and the new poor would become rich would have nothing to do with power or corruption. Initiative and enterprise, planning, risk taking, and hard work will do the trick.
Yes, that would apply to the "new Poor" - the hardworking individuals who worked hard to get things and have now lost them. The "New rich would behave very like lotto winners - so unaccustomed to their new status that they would, in many cases, simply blow everything in their excitement. The edge of the forest would be full of wolves, waiting for dusk and they opportunity to prey on the foolish.
Originally Posted by fungus pudding
The speed with the new rich would become poor and the new poor would become rich would have nothing to do with power or corruption. Initiative and enterprise, planning, risk taking, and hard work will do the trick.
The speed with the new rich would become poor and the new poor would become rich would have nothing to do with power or corruption. Initiative and enterprise, planning, risk taking, and hard work will do the trick.
Quite right, FP? Although I'm waiting for the penny to drop that your beloved National Party has meddled with the housing market by increasing those rent subsidies. In Auckland and other centres at the moment, potential renters are paying landlords over the asking price for accommodation, and the new subsidies will only allow more of that to occur. In other words, the landlords will get most of that cash. They'll then offset it against other income, so they don't need to pay tax on it. The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.
Many a time you have proffered a similar argument about Labour meddling in the market, what is your response sir? Especially considering National also set things up for landlords, by allowing high net migration to continue for years.
The only ones set up are Labour. They are going to have to promise more than they can afford to come in sooner than they can afford and at the same time convince Winnie and the Greens that they are really a political party and not a colony of lemmings surrounded on all sides by high cliffs that the can jump off.
The only ones set up are Labour. They are going to have to promise more than they can afford to come in sooner than they can afford and at the same time convince Winnie and the Greens that they are really a political party and not a colony of lemmings surrounded on all sides by high cliffs that the can jump off.
Not a substantive argument there, Craic. Labour have plenty of financial handling credibility, just look at the last nine years they had in office.
Not a substantive argument there, Craig. Labour have plenty of financial handling credibility, just look at the last nine years they had in office.
But that is the problem, most of the voting population can't actually remember being governed by the Labour Party, it has been so long ago. I appreciate that for all the keen political followers your points are relevant and important but unfortunately it is the masses that vote, and for them its not the relevant what happened a decade ago.
Just one example, I was horrified when my eldest, who will have the the opportunity to vote for the first time this year, recently asked me, 'so what is wrong with Winston'. At first I thought he was taking the p.... but I realised that he was actually serious, he doesn't know the history and like most of his generation isn't that interested.
But that is the problem, most of the voting population can't actually remember being governed by the Labour Party, it has been so long ago. I appreciate that for all the keen political followers your points are relevant and important but unfortunately it is the masses that vote, and for them its not the relevant what happened a decade ago.
Just one example, I was horrified when my eldest, who will have the the opportunity to vote for the first time this year, recently asked me, 'so what is wrong with Winston'. At first I thought he was taking the p.... but I realised that he was actually serious, he doesn't know the history and like most of his generation isn't that interested.
Your eldest might be more clued up than you think. Winston ran a very clever campaign to take out Northland. He's sharp, not bad with a hammer either. NZ First's policies generally look like Labour policies, so I have to agree with most of them. I had a very clever uni student working with us in 2014, he was helping out NZ First in the local electorate. In the interests of information, you could show your eldest this chart:
Quite right, FP? Although I'm waiting for the penny to drop that your beloved National Party has meddled with the housing market by increasing those rent subsidies. In Auckland and other centres at the moment, potential renters are paying landlords over the asking price for accommodation, and the new subsidies will only allow more of that to occur. In other words, the landlords will get most of that cash. They'll then offset it against other income, so they don't need to pay tax on it. The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.
Many a time you have proffered a similar argument about Labour meddling in the market, what is your response sir? Especially considering National also set things up for landlords, by allowing high net migration to continue for years.
You seem to have your wires crossed eZ. National are not my beloved party - never have been, although I've often voted for them. As previously explained, I use my vote in the most effective way to keep out the party or parties that will do most harm. This year therefore I will again vote National. That does not make them my beloved party. Of course, subsidies never help the direct recipient - no argument there. To have a noticeable effect on rents, National should immediately stop paying any rental subsidies, but you and I know no govt. will ever do that in NZ. Yes, they keep on holding up rents to the benefit of landlords, just as Labour have done when in power.
Ah Yes! Divide the total cash and assets of the NZ population equally between the population. What would happen the next day? The speed with which the new rich would get poor and the new poor would get rich would leave the Americas Cup for dead as an example of power and corruption hiding behind a veil of sportsmanship.
Takes all sorts, no need for power and corruption, just the chance of something for nothing.
Anyone old enough to remember the lunacy which accompanied the giveaways of power company shares a couple of decades or so back?
Some people thought it was great to sell 'em to get a new fridge. My mother took the opportunity to learn about the fixed interest market.
Mind you, I wouldn't be surprised to see a chunk of inherited wealth finding a new home.
But that is the problem, most of the voting population can't actually remember being governed by the Labour Party, it has been so long ago. I appreciate that for all the keen political followers your points are relevant and important but unfortunately it is the masses that vote, and for them its not the relevant what happened a decade ago.
Of course the same thing can be said of the situation 9 years ago - Labour had been in power 9 yrs etc.
It is at this stage that the current government has to stop blaming the previous crowd (of 9yrs + ago) for any ill in the country and start doing stuff.
National has been steady but NZ hasn't really moved ahead.
We still sell commodities and now have much more debt.
Originally Posted by craic
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks