ACT's David Seymour - i like his style.

[Daytr]

You will continue to present confused & futile thinking whilst you formulate your opinion on corrupted premises.

Perhaps best to invert your perspective. The glass needn't be 1/2 empty, it instead COULD be 1/2 full under something similar to Act's Tax Policy. Their Tax policy doesn't 'give' anyone more money. Instead it sets the framework for the State to TAKE LESS of our money....and that's everyone by the way, not just the 'wealthy'.

In this context, what does "wealthy" mean anyway? The are many, many folk in NZ who work hard and/or smart and who earn a 'large' income, yet under many peoples definition are still on "Struggle Street' and aren't truly 'wealthy'. Anyway, i digress.

Lest keep to the facts & not forget the current travesty that reigns unabated...

The 21% (just 1 in 5 people!) of Kiwi's who earn an annual income of >$70K basically prop up the entire system by paying 68% of the country's entire INCOME TAX take.

Take some more time to properly digest that - that's over 2/3rds!

Compare that to the nearly 50% who in effect pay NO or very little income tax (through receiving various benefits supplements, rebates, etc) and it takes only a few observational skills to see why we are experiencing such large & systemic economic & societal issues in NZ.

Meanwhile & unfortunately, we still have a handful of Greedy Turkeys here who start squawking the moment a political party espouses a tax policy which allows those who work hard/smart to keep a little more of their own money.

Wake up & smell the roses!

I think it is you who requires the reality check.
46% of the population is either between ages 1 - 24 or over 65.
So it changes the perspective on your BS.
Are we going to tax children, university students & retirees more to fix the balance?

Easy to say the glass is half full if you are the one benefiting. I to will benefit but unlike yourself, I care that lower income workers are the ones that need the assistance just to get through, let alone one day possibly buy a house.

Seymour is dangerous & he appeals to those who only have self interest.
$30Bln fiscal hole!
Lower taxes at the sane time!
Does anyone see how illogical this smug little man is?

[Balance]

If an alien landed on earth and saw that a large percentage of people struggled to buy food.
I am sure they would ask, and yet you tax people to eat?

Yes, and what about milk, meat, infant formula and essentials like eggs, bread & butter - the alien would indeed ask why this Labour government is happy to tax such essentials.

And what about tax on doctor's consultation fees? Surely that's totally unconscionable as it's taxing the sick.

People like you think through your backside with your spin and BS - just like Clueless Cindy & Chip off the old Ardern block Hipkins.

[Daytr]

Yes, and what about milk, meat, infant formula and essentials like eggs, bread & butter - the alien would indeed ask why this Labour government is happy to tax such essentials.

And what about tax on doctor's consultation fees? Surely that's totally unconscionable as it's taxing the sick.

People like you think through your backside with your spin and BS - just like Clueless Cindy & Chip off the old Ardern block Hipkins.

Thanks for pointing that out.
Key raised GST.
GST imo should be scrapped altogether as it's a regressive tax that unfairly burdens the poor.

[Balance]

Thanks for pointing that out.
Key raised GST.
GST imo should be scrapped altogether as it's a regressive tax that unfairly burdens the poor.

Labour introduced GST and David Cargill (Labour Finance Minister) raised it to 12.5% first.

Now what about your BS on tax on food?

How about milk, eggs and bread? Why is Hipkins not taking GST off them?

Instead, he wants to make the supermarkets even more profitable by only taking GST off the most pricing variable of all food items - seasonal fruits and veges.

Like Clueless Cindy, it is all about the optics with this useless government - never about the substance.

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/52aca146e4b06d986ca82df3/1690835563752-YRTZ3S9YR1RD18NULOKI/Dropping+the+GST.jpg?format=500w

[Blue Skies]

Yes, and what about milk, meat, infant formula and essentials like eggs, bread & butter - the alien would indeed ask why this Labour government is happy to tax such essentials.

And what about tax on doctor's consultation fees? Surely that's totally unconscionable as it's taxing the sick.

People like you think through your backside with your spin and BS - just like Clueless Cindy & Chip off the old Ardern block Hipkins.




In answer to your questions,

Apart from eggs (due to switch from factory farming to barn laid or free range eggs) the highest increase by far has been on vegetables & fruit mainly due to weather events.

1) Vegetables increased by 23% while items like milk & cheese by 12%.

And 2) 5 fruit & vegetables per day has very significant public health benefits, with reductions in things like cancers diabetes kidney disease etc, whereas items like milk & bread don't.
Hence removing the GST on fruit & vegetables but not on other items.

And the 2nd part,
the Govt already provides the 'Community Services Card' making doctors consultations miles cheaper for low income earners.

[Balance]

In answer to your questions,

Apart from eggs (due to switch from factory farming to barn laid or free range eggs) the highest increase by far has been on vegetables & fruit mainly due to weather events.

1) Vegetables increased by 23% while items like milk & cheese by 12%.

And 2) 5 fruit & vegetables per day has very significant public health benefits, with reductions in things like cancers diabetes kidney disease etc, whereas items like milk & bread don't.
Hence removing the GST on fruit & vegetables but not on other items.

And the 2nd part,
the Govt already provides the 'Community Services Card' making doctors consultations miles cheaper for low income earners.

Garbage answers as usual from the resident Labour BS artist.

Fruit and veges prices will drop back once the weather events have abated and as summer approaches. No reason to remove GST on them to allow supermarkets to make more profits.

And BTW, my questions are in response to Daytr’s assertion about the wonderment of tax on food. Why only fruit & veges?

[ithaka]

Worth a read if you believe it to be a good idea to remove GST from food, whether all food or just some food, at least one of three things is true.
https://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2023/07/these-are-not-serious-people.html

[Panda-NZ-]

Worth a read
https://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2023/07/these-are-not-serious-people.html

Ugh its eric crampton. When does he think through any article he authors.

[Balance]

[QUOTE=Panda-NZ-;1015037]Ugh its eric crampton. When does he think through any article he authors.[/QUOTE

Yawn.

From panda who wanted Ryman to go broke by loading up on more debt.

[Aaron]

Don't patronise me that you appreciate it. Just more egg to wipe from your face. And, another assumption about me that you know nothing about.

Just because I point out your self confessed ignorance and lazy attitude to informing yourself about the most basic of things, even those that are in the public domain, which you also display on a few other threads, verbosely, doesn't conflate to my or anyone else's intentions or behaviours.

You could do a lot better, though your posting history suggests you probably won't get around to it because you're too lazy, and will carry on posting rubbish that no one can take seriously. Fancy that, on the public internet that never forgets anything, you mostly make a fool of yourself. Think about that.

Woah Woah Woah am I sensing a bit of hostility in this post???

Calm down, all I did was read an article about tax policies of different parties and recalled you seemed exasperated that I did not read all the ACT policies. I recall "Good Grief" being used in a post. I stated I did not think I would need to read all the policies as I could not look past their tax policy. After reading the article I recalled your earlier post and did some calculations based on the limited amount of information on their site and tried to provide an example of how it would work in practice, I thought you might appreciate my effort. Obviously not.

I think the figures are right in my earlier post, although I see FTG's understanding appears to conflict with mine (I will ask him as I also do not like ignorant posts). If my figures are right then I guess it depends how you interpret them. I see the ACT tax policy as mean and stupid and borderline evil but that is just my opinion.

Also I was hoping to have heard back from Entrep whether he thinks ACT's tax policy is reasonable or if he has checked my calculations.

[Aaron]

Their Tax policy doesn't 'give' anyone more money. Instead it sets the framework for the State to TAKE LESS of our money....and that's everyone by the way, not just the 'wealthy'.

In this context, what does "wealthy" mean anyway? The are many, many folk in NZ who work hard and/or smart and who earn a 'large' income, yet under many peoples definition are still on "Struggle Street' and aren't truly 'wealthy'. Anyway, I digress.

Can you give us a worked example how ACT's tax policy will take less tax from someone on a minimum wage or a pension???

I would appreciate the worked example showing how minimum wage earners and pensioners will pay less tax under ACT's tax policy, obviously I missed something when I had a look.

Lets keep to the FACTS as I know Baa Baa does not like ignorant or lazy posts.

As to the TRAVESTY that reigns unabated

Some might suggest the travesty is that less and less people are accumulating more and more of the wealth and income (pretty sure that is a fact). The only means of redistribution is through govt and taxation or possibly a third generation member blowing it all or revolution in extreme cases.

Everyone pays income tax even the beneficiaries. I think what you mean is that what they pay in tax does not match the benefits they receive such as roading and health care etc.

Very few pay any sort of capital gains tax that is the travesty that reigns unabated in my opinion.

Look forward to your worked example to increase my understanding of how ACTs tax policy will work in reality.

[Aaron]

I agree with the mean kids that taking GST off fruit and vegetables is a weak attempt to buy votes by Chris Hipkins. A weak leader who rules out a capital gains tax and tries to buy votes with a dumb idea.

There is no GST on residential rent but this does not appear to have alleviated any suffering. The view from people that seem to understand this stuff is that it will involve a lot of mucking around for no real benefit.

I agree that it "sounds" like a good idea but like FTGs understanding of ACTs tax policy the reality is quite different.

[fungus pudding]

I agree with the mean kids that taking GST off fruit and vegetables is a weak attempt to buy votes by Chris Hipkins. A weak leader who rules out a capital gains tax and tries to buy votes with a dumb idea.

There is no GST on residential rent but this does not appear to have alleviated any suffering. The view from people that seem to understand this stuff is that it will involve a lot of mucking around for no real benefit.

I agree that it "sou. nds" like a good idea but like FTGs understanding of ACTs tax policy the reality is quite different.


It doesn't even sound like a good idea It's ridiculous. If they're hell bent on messing around with gst (to pick up a few votes from the gullible) make GP visits exempt. For a several reasons it would make more sense, although still stupid

[FTG]

Can you give us a worked example how ACT's tax policy will take less tax from someone on a minimum wage or a pension???

I would appreciate the worked example showing how minimum wage earners and pensioners will pay less tax under ACT's tax policy, obviously I missed something when I had a look.



LOL. You didn't really look, did you. Don't be so lazy Aaron.

Just to be clear, I'm not your researcher or slave. I'm not doing the heavy lifting for you, or for ACT, or for any other political party for that matter.
But since you ask the question reasonably nicely I would suggest that the natural & first base for you to gather some info would be to take a proper look at ACT's website.

Do exactly that and Voila! Here's some of what you would find...

By 2023/24, the tax burden on the average New Zealander will be $1,236 per year lower under ACT than Labour. We will have delivered a tax cut for every earner.

In order to ensure that every earner would receive a tax cut, ACT would also create a new Low and Middle Income Tax Offset (LMITO), starting in fiscal year 2022/23. This tax offset would be worth $800 per annum for all earners earning between $12,000 and $48,000..

(There go your minimum wage folk you ask about Aaron).

It would gradually grow at a rate of 8% from $0 per year for taxpayers earning $2,000 to the full $800 for taxpayers earning $12,000. At incomes above $48,000, the offset would abate at a rate of 8%, reaching $0 at an income of $58,000.

Putting & keeping more money back into ALL kiwi's pockets require an all-of-State realignment. Income Tax policy is just ONE aspect of a multi-pronged approach that is required.

The State, under both Labour & National led governments has been, and continues to be, super insidious when it comes to taking Kiwi's money and then drip feeding it back; very inefficiently at that. This situation has only continued to exacerbate over the last couple of years following the reckless economic & monetary management of both Roberston & Orr.

The harder and/or smarter a Kiwi works the higher the % of their income that they are expected to dispense back into the Pig's trough.

Totally non-inspirational, non-aspirational & hence demoralising for many very good people in our society.

Enough is enough!

[Daytr]

Garbage answers as usual from the resident Labour BS artist.

Fruit and veges prices will drop back once the weather events have abated and as summer approaches. No reason to remove GST on them to allow supermarkets to make more profits.

And BTW, my questions are in response to Daytr’s assertion about the wonderment of tax on food. Why only fruit & veges?

As I said I think GST should be scrapped all together. It's a regressive tax that oppresses the lower income component of society.
So not just fruit & veg get rid of it all together & replace it with a progressive tax system that includes a CGT.

[Baa_Baa]

To paraphrase "The only thing dumber than David Seymour's face is his parties policies".

To be truthful Sir Roger did not say that as he is not an ignoramus like myself.


Like I say the only thing dumber than David Seymour’s face is ACTs tax policy.

This Aaron, is where you lost your audience. You don't like Seymour's face, so you attempt to slag ACT's policies that you also confess you haven't read, and you are also a self confessed ignoramus (you do self denigration quite effectively, believable even).

Still, you dig the hole deeper that you are already in and expect other people to validate your claims. Preposterous, look in the mirror Aaron, look at what is staring back at you ... do you like what you see?

Credibility? None. Hostility no, respect no, reputation, no not that either. Check that mirror, only you can fix it.

[Panda-NZ-]

As I said I think GST should be scrapped all together. It's a regressive tax that oppresses the lower income component of society.
So not just fruit & veg get rid of it all together & replace it with a progressive tax system that includes a CGT.

The US tax system is more progressive than NZ (even has a small inheritance tax).

[Daytr]

The US tax system is more progressive than NZ (even has a small inheritance tax).

Yep the UK has an inheritance tax as well. I think if you are going to have a CGT you need a gifting & inheritance tax so capital gains aren't just passed down through generations without paying tax.

[Blue Skies]

Yep the UK has an inheritance tax as well. I think if you are going to have a CGT you need a gifting & inheritance tax so capital gains aren't just passed down through generations without paying tax.


Death Duties as they are commonly known, and worryingly we already do have them in legislation, its just that they are set at zero so would be very simple for any govt to change that figure. They wouldn't have to go through the process of establishing them in law.
The problem is at least twofold, the wealthy are able to protect that wealth for future generations via Trusts so they tend to unfairly hit the less wealthy, and secondly again they can have a damaging impact for the countries economy when assets like farms or businesses have to be split up & parts sold off to pay for the Death Duties or even force the sale of family homes.

A CGT seems much fairer & less damaging.


Aside from this other countries like Australia, UK, Sweden have a much higher top tax rate than we do.

Australia 45%
England 45%
Scotland 47%
Sweden 52%

NZ 35%

And ACT wants ours to drop to 28%
No wonder ACT is receiving massive election donations from High Wealth families & individuals !

[fungus pudding]

Death Duties as they are commonly known, and worryingly we already do have them in legislation, its just that they are set at zero so would be very simple for any govt to change that figure. They wouldn't have to go through the process of establishing them in law.
The problem is at least twofold, the wealthy are able to protect that wealth for future generations via Trusts so they tend to unfairly hit the less wealthy, and secondly again they can have a damaging impact for the countries economy when assets like farms or businesses have to be split up & parts sold off to pay for the Death Duties or even force the sale of family homes.

A CGT seems much fairer & less damaging.


Aside from this other countries like Australia, UK, Sweden have a much higher top tax rate than we do.

Australia 45%
England 45%
Scotland 47%
Sweden 52%

NZ 35%

And ACT wants ours to drop to 28%


28% Not high enough for you?
Ever thought of getting off your butt and making your own pile?
I suspect you've never given that any serious thought.
Much easier to hold your hand out for a share of everyone else's.

[FTG]

28% Not high enough for you?
Ever thought of getting off your butt and making your own pile?
I suspect you've never given that any serious thought.
Much easier to hold your hand out for a share of everyone else's.

What the likes of BS are really saying: "Give serious thought & consideration to getting off my butt and taking responsibility for myself and being responsible for my OWN outcomes??? Yeah.....NAHHHH, no way Jose. Way too much work & effort!"

A couple points of clarification.

- NZ's top tax rate is now 39% - not 35% as incorrectly stated above.
- Pig Trough dwellers often cite the super high headline tax rates of the Scandi' countries as 'shining examples' of what we could and should do in NZ.
The reality is starkly different. There are so many & variously structured State sanctioned Rebates, Family Friendly Benefits, Supplements etc for the citizens, including for the "wealthy", that the average effective tax rate of this cohort is significantly lower than what the headline rates may make it appear. Basically making 'all & sundry' beneficiaries of the State.

NZ has been in that hideous place previously - in the early 80's for those who are too young to recall. A 66% top tax rate, but laced with various offsets.

[Balance]

What the likes of BS are really saying: "Give serious thought & consideration to getting off my butt and taking responsibility for myself and being responsible for my OWN outcomes??? Yeah.....NAHHHH, no way Jose. Way to much work & effort!"

A couple points of clarification.

- NZ's top tax rate is now 39% - not 35% as incorrectly stated above.
- Pig Trough dwellers often cite the super high headline tax rates of the Scandi' countries as 'shining examples' of what we could and should do in NZ.
The reality is starkly different. There are so many & variously structured State sanctioned Rebates, Family Friendly Benefits, Supplements etc for the citizens, including for the "wealthy", that the average effective tax rate of this cohort is significantly lower than what the headline rates may make it appear. Basically making 'all & sundry' beneficiaries of the State.

NZ has been in that hideous place previously - in the early 80's for those who are too young to recall. A 66% top tax rate, but laced with various offsets.

Thanks for the reminder, FTG about the 66% tax rate. Nobody paid that rate of course because as you wrote, there were offsets a plenty - tax avoidance schemes, subsidies, general wage orders (feeding inflation).

Re taxes, the leftists' catch cry of NZ being a low tax jurisdiction compared to other countries simply does not bear up to scrutiny.

The best measure to use is taxes as a %tage of GDP with comparative countries:

NZ 33.8%
Australia 28.5%
US 26.6%
Canada 33.2%
UK 33.5%
OECD average 34.1%

https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/revenue-statistics-highlights-brochure.pdf

All that Labour & their supporters can think of is ever more transfer-payment, non-productive & wasteful spending to be funded by ever higher taxes from the existing productive sector. Never a thought about effective and efficient spending which is what all countries must do to grow and progress towards that utopia of a happy country. Never a thought about how to grow the economy to benefit all NZers. It's always about more spending and more taxes.

Enough is enough - roll on October 2023.

[Aaron]

LOL. You didn't really look, did you. Don't be so lazy Aaron.

If you had bothered to read my earlier posts you could have seen some worked examples of ACTs tax policy. Your copying and pasting the limited information from the ACT website is not research, and it only highlights how little you understand.

Probably not much point explaining again how it works as you will have your opinions that you will stick to no matter how ignorant or stupid they are.

Just in case you have the capacity for understanding I will try one more time and you can point out where I am going wrong. In which case I will eat a big chunk of humble pie and apologies to you for all the mean things I just said.

The ACT income tax policy is a flatter system with a 17.5% rate to $70,000 and 28% over $70,000.

The Low and Middle Income Tax Offset (LMITO) which you so helpfully pasted in your post is an attempt to reduce the additional income tax burden ACT intends to impose on the unaspirational.

Anyone earning between $12,000 and $48,000 (includes pensioners and minimum wage workers) gets an $800.00 LMITO offset.

Under the current scheme they pay 10.5% on the first $14,000 that equals $1,470 tax to pay.

Under ACT the first $14,000 is at 17.5% or $2,450 but ACT will provide an LMITO of $800 to reduce the additional tax from $980.00 (2,450-1,470) to only $180.00 extra in tax.

So everyone earning between $12k to $48k will be paying $180.00 extra in income tax.

Read my earlier posts and get a better understanding of what you are talking about as it will help the discussion if you not talking a load of cr*p.

Perhaps you can also come back and explain how this is everyone paying less tax.

I would suggest you remain a quiet observer until you have something worthwhile to say.

[Aaron]

This Aaron, is where you lost your audience. You don't like Seymour's face, so you attempt to slag ACT's policies that you also confess you haven't read, and you are also a self confessed ignoramus (you do self denigration quite effectively, believable even).

Still, you dig the hole deeper that you are already in and expect other people to validate your claims. Preposterous, look in the mirror Aaron, look at what is staring back at you ... do you like what you see?

Credibility? None. Hostility no, respect no, reputation, no not that either. Check that mirror, only you can fix it.

The David Seymour's face quip was an attempt at humour, but I am sensing comedy is not your strong suit. You and FTG continue to call me lazy and ignorant (which I am) yet as far as I can tell I seem to have a better understanding of what we are discussing than both of you. Perhaps we are just talking past each other.

I have gone over my previous posts and I am guessing your anger and hostility is due to me suggesting you are an ACT voter which is much like saying you are a bit of a ****. For that I apologies as I don't know you from a bar of soap.

[nztx]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/election-2023-seymour-act-will-stop-work-on-wasteful-projects-cut-public-service-jobs/RER2ISDBEZDPBBUWTBZNLSKBZI/

Election 2023: Seymour, Act will ‘stop work’ on wasteful projects, cut public service jobs



The Act Party wants to dramatically reduce the headcount of the public service if it is in government after the election, by ordering ministries to immediately stop work on projects it wants to axe.

Act leader David Seymour promised this morning to issue “stop work notices” to public sector chief executives on day one of a government.

He claims this will “save up to $1 billion on day one of the next government”.


Usually happens after Labour get flushed and the waste and excess gets nipped in the butt

Bound to be considerable greater savings after the past 5.5+ years of Labour / Greens incompetence ripe for pruning ;)

[777]

Death Duties as they are commonly known, and worryingly we already do have them in legislation, its just that they are set at zero so would be very simple for any govt to change that figure. They wouldn't have to go through the process of establishing them in law.


That is not the case as that was changed and finally abolished in 2011.

[Baa_Baa]

That is not the case as that was changed and finally abolished in 2011.

I think you mean Gift Duties, which were abolished in 2011. Death Duties were abolished in 1993.

Perhaps BS could explain his interpretation that "Death Duties as they are commonly known, and worryingly we already do have them in legislation, its just that they are set at zero so would be very simple for any govt to change that figure. They wouldn't have to go through the process of establishing them in law."

[Panda-NZ-]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/election-2023-seymour-act-will-stop-work-on-wasteful-projects-cut-public-service-jobs/RER2ISDBEZDPBBUWTBZNLSKBZI/

Election 2023: Seymour, Act will ‘stop work’ on wasteful projects, cut public service jobs



Nah it's going to cost more to return to DHB's and give back local water assets.

Billions of dollars in sunk costs.

Should put that in the Act alternative budget... :)

[Balance]

Nah it's going to cost more to return to DHB's and give back local water assets.

Billions of dollars in sunk costs.

Should put that in the Act alternative budget... :)

Garbage & BS as usual from panda-nz who wanted Ryman to go broke by loading up with more debt.

[Blue Skies]

I think you mean Gift Duties, which were abolished in 2011. Death Duties were abolished in 1993.

Perhaps BS could explain his interpretation that "Death Duties as they are commonly known, and worryingly we already do have them in legislation, its just that they are set at zero so would be very simple for any govt to change that figure. They wouldn't have to go through the process of establishing them in law."



As I understand it & confirmed here, & I've also remember hearing this from other sources, Estate duties or Death Duties as we used to call them were set to zero in 1993 while Gift Duty was abolished in 2011.
Now you or writers can say or argue setting the amount to zero is the same thing as abolishing them.
But the difference is a govt could decide to reset the figure without having to re-establish the legislation around Estate Duties, whereas there govt would need to re-write & pass the legislation to re-establish Gift Duties.

If you read they were 'abolished', check what the writer is really saying is set to zero so consequently Estate Duties don't exist in NZ (at the moment)

Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.


https://theconversation.com/forget-a-capital-gains-tax-what-new-zealand-needs-is-a-tax-on-inherited-wealth-143604

[Baa_Baa]

As I understand it & confirmed here, & I've also remember hearing this from other sources, Estate duties or Death Duties as we used to call them were set to zero in 1993 while Gift Duty was abolished in 2011.
Now you or writers can say or argue setting the amount to zero is the same thing as abolishing them.
But the difference is a govt could decide to reset the figure without having to re-establish the legislation around Estate Duties, whereas there govt would need to re-write & pass the legislation to re-establish Gift Duties.

If you read they were 'abolished', check what the writer is really saying is set to zero so consequently Estate Duties don't exist in NZ (at the moment)

Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.


https://theconversation.com/forget-a-capital-gains-tax-what-new-zealand-needs-is-a-tax-on-inherited-wealth-143604

That article, for some reason uses the expression 'reduced to zero', which could imply that the Act remains in force. Poor choice of words, as the Act was repealed by the Estate Duty Abolition Act 1993.

"However, the rate of estate duty was reduced to zero in 1993 and gift duty was scrapped in 2011. According (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2439053) to tax law specialist Michael Littlewood:"

Interesting that if you had actually read the paper by Michael Littlewood, not only does he not say estate duties 'reduced to zero', in his very first sentence of the Introduction, he says "This article traces the rise and fall of death duties and gift duty in New Zealand from 1866 (when death duties were first introduced) until 2011 (when gift duty, the last remnant of the death duties system, was abolished)"

Estate and Gift Duties Act 1968 (https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1968/0035/latest/DLM385592.html?src=qs) - note Estate Duty repealed.

Estate Duty Abolition Act 1993 (https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0013/latest/DLM293077.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%4 0deemedreg_estate_resel_25_a&p=1)

"Estate duty abolished in respect of deaths occurring on or after 17 December 1992

No estate duty shall be payable under the Estate and Gift Duties Act 1968 (https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0013/latest/link.aspx?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deem edreg_estate_resel_25_a&p=1&id=DLM385591) in respect of the estate of any person who dies on or after 17 December 1992.

[FTG]

Just in case you have the capacity for understanding I will try one more time and you can point out where I am going wrong. In which case I will eat a big chunk of humble pie and apologies to you for all the mean things I just said.

The ACT income tax policy is a flatter system with a 17.5% rate to $70,000 and 28% over $70,000.

The Low and Middle Income Tax Offset (LMITO) which you so helpfully pasted in your post is an attempt to reduce the additional income tax burden ACT intends to impose on the unaspirational.

Anyone earning between $12,000 and $48,000 (includes pensioners and minimum wage workers) gets an $800.00 LMITO offset.

Under the current scheme they pay 10.5% on the first $14,000 that equals $1,470 tax to pay.

Under ACT the first $14,000 is at 17.5% or $2,450 but ACT will provide an LMITO of $800 to reduce the additional tax from $980.00 (2,450-1,470) to only $180.00 extra in tax.

So everyone earning between $12k to $48k will be paying $180.00 extra in income tax.

Read my earlier posts and get a better understanding of what you are talking about as it will help the discussion if you not talking a load of cr*p.

Perhaps you can also come back and explain how this is everyone paying less tax.

I would suggest you remain a quiet observer until you have something worthwhile to say.

Dear oh dear Aaron, you are behaving like a big bad Blowhard Bully-Boy. That's a lot of bluster for a self-confessed lazy ignoramus. Settle settle...please.

Believe it or not, I did elect to endure the pain of reading your previous ramblings/"workings". And that was despite you so clearly being well stuck in the weeds, thrashing around around like a baby throwing a tantrum in the bath.

Now that was a comedy!

Even though you continue to misunderstand (intentionally?.. or is it that ignoramus DNA rearing it's ugly head yet again?) I will give you ONE more chance to redeem at least SOME of your credibility
...And please don't eat that BIG chunk of Humble Pie, that you cruelly tease us with, on my account. Instead dedicate it to the many, many hard & smart working kiwi's, across multiple income & wealth tiers, to whom we should all be eternally grateful, for assisting holding this country together economically.

Yes, you have correctly pointed to the ACT party's policy of ustilising a LMITO to reduce the burden of a tax % increase to earner's income up to the current $14K income threshold.

However, that is not the full extent of their tax policy suite. There are other measures as well, and perhaps your 'Leftie confirmation biases' precluded you from seeing, learning & understanding those policies?

So, with respect, search around under things like "Carbon Tax Refund", Personal Carbon Tax Refund" (through the ETS - up to nearly $250), etc, etc.

Enjoy!

"First seek to understand, THEN be understood"

[Aaron]

Dear oh dear Aaron, you are behaving like a big bad Blowhard Bully-Boy. That's a lot of bluster for a self-confessed lazy ignoramus. Settle settle...please.

Believe it or not, I did elect to endure the pain of reading your previous ramblings/"workings". And that was despite you so clearly being well stuck in the weeds, thrashing around around like a baby throwing a tantrum in the bath.

Now that was a comedy!

Even though you continue to misunderstand (intentionally?.. or is it that ignoramus DNA rearing it's ugly head yet again?) I will give you ONE more chance to redeem at least SOME of your credibility
...And please don't eat that BIG chunk of Humble Pie, that you cruelly tease us with, on my account. Instead dedicate it to the many, many hard & smart working kiwi's, across multiple income & wealth tiers, to whom we should all be eternally grateful, for assisting holding this country together economically.

Yes, you have correctly pointed to the ACT party's policy of ustilising a LMITO to reduce the burden of a tax % increase to earner's income up to the current $14K income threshold.

However, that is not the full extent of their tax policy suite. There are other measures as well, and perhaps your 'Leftie confirmation biases' precluded you from seeing, learning & understanding those policies?

So, with respect, search around under things like "Carbon Tax Refund", Personal Carbon Tax Refund" (through the ETS - up to nearly $250), etc, etc.

Enjoy!

"First seek to understand, THEN be understood"

Plenty of Bluff and Bluster in your posts. I will wait for the actual figures though, if you can manage it.

Can't comment on the carbon credit hand out proposal, I don't like to discuss things I don't understand. But if I understand the carbon credit scheme correctly, the nz taxpayer(govt) creates and buys carbon credits off people planting forests so that they can sell them to manufacturers who put carbon into the atmosphere. Taxpayers paying people to plant forests to save the planet may have some merit except covering NZ in radiata pine so the northern hemisphere can keep consuming and pumping out the CO2, on the face of it does not seem to benefit NZ or the planet that much.

At least we can agree ACT will look to cut wasteful spending if in govt. Unbelievable that someone earning over $70,000 can still have their hand out for some welfare. Should be some low hanging fruit for David to cut wasteful spending.

Like you say demoralising for many very good people in our society. Enough is enough!

[Daytr]

Death Duties as they are commonly known, and worryingly we already do have them in legislation, its just that they are set at zero so would be very simple for any govt to change that figure. They wouldn't have to go through the process of establishing them in law.
The problem is at least twofold, the wealthy are able to protect that wealth for future generations via Trusts so they tend to unfairly hit the less wealthy, and secondly again they can have a damaging impact for the countries economy when assets like farms or businesses have to be split up & parts sold off to pay for the Death Duties or even force the sale of family homes.

A CGT seems much fairer & less damaging.


Aside from this other countries like Australia, UK, Sweden have a much higher top tax rate than we do.

Australia 45%
England 45%
Scotland 47%
Sweden 52%

NZ 35%

And ACT wants ours to drop to 28%
No wonder ACT is receiving massive election donations from High Wealth families & individuals !

The Trusts issue is easily solved.
Inheritance tax against a farm or business would need to be nuanced, probably inflation adjusted and the remaining capital gain if any to be taxed at a pro-rata rate of the life of the business.

[causecelebre]

Sorry if this is a repost. Seymour absolutely owns Simon Shepard on Nation, Newhub https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hThE13_zXWM&ab_channel=Newshub

[fungus pudding]

Sorry if this is a repost. Seymour absolutely owns Simon Shepard on Nation, Newhub https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hThE13_zXWM&ab_channel=Newshub

Every now and then parliament come up with a sharp cookie with a sharp brain. A'la - Seymour.

[Daytr]

Every now and then parliament come up with a sharp cookie with a sharp brain. A'la - Seymour.

Yep, shame he couldn't put it to good use and for the benefit of all NZ, not just the already wealthy or privileged.

[BDL]

Yep, shame he couldn't put it to good use and for the benefit of all NZ, not just the already wealthy or privileged.

He will, just wait and see, and it will be for ALL New Zealanders, not just a few woke with their hands out.

I think the wealthy and so called "privileged" (bit of envy there Daytr?) can look after themselves.

[Daytr]

He will, just wait and see, and it will be for ALL New Zealanders, not just a few woke with their hands out.

I think the wealthy and so called "privileged" (bit of envy there Daytr?) can look after themselves.

LOL! Why would I be envious?
I will benefit from the likes of Seymour, but as you said they / we can look after themselves so don't need support from ACT.
Unlike ACT supporters I also think minimum wage workers shouldn't have barriers to accessing health including dentistry and they should be able to have an affordable home.
These aspects are only going to get worse under NACT.

[BDL]

Unlike ACT supporters I also think minimum wage workers shouldn't have barriers to accessing health including dentistry and they should be able to have an affordable home.
These aspects are only going to get worse under NACT.

But I already have barriers to access healthcare as I am Pakeha, so get pushed down the list..... Thats happened under Labour.

[Daytr]

But I already have barriers to access healthcare as I am Pakeha, so get pushed down the list..... Thats happened under Labour.

Oh you poor middle class whitey. Woe is me, its such a tough life being born white
Anyway the stats say otherwise.

However what I am saying is with ACTs tax cuts will mean the likes of health, education etc will be further underfunded.

[fungus pudding]

Oh you poor middle class whitey. Woe is me, its such a tough life being born white
Anyway the stats say otherwise.

However what I am saying is with ACTs tax cuts will mean the likes of health, education etc will be further underfunded.

Not neccesarily. Where does NZ sit on the Laffer curve? Maybe sliding down the right-hand side.

[nztx]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/acts-david-seymour-jokes-he-suspected-tv-journalist-was-blazed-before-tense-interview/QSAW7W63IFBEDAZFGHJCC3AYIE/

Act’s David Seymour jokes he suspected TV journalist was ‘blazed’ before ‘tense’ interview



Act leader David Seymour has jokingly suggested Newshub Nation co-host Simon Shepherd was stoned during a tense interview between the pair.

Speaking at a media stand-up after announcing Act’s health workforce policy in Auckland today, Seymour was asked about Act’s Free Press e-newsletter which yesterday quoted feedback from Newshub Nation viewers who said Seymour “owned” Shepherd during their interview on Saturday.

Asked whether criticising the media was an election campaign strategy, Seymour laughed and said the commentary was directed at Shepherd.

“It was a pretty hefty swing at poor old Simon Shepherd, who tried to interview me on Saturday, rather haplessly I have to say,” he said.

“My suspicion is Simon misread the results of the cannabis referendum, he thought it was legal, blazed away the night before and then tried to interview me. It didn’t go well for him.”


Poor Simon :)

[SBQ]

I dunno about you guys but today's talk radio (NewstalkZB) had talk about Act's view of cutting taxes. I'm sure all the listeners jump to conclusion that we can't afford a tax cut. However no one has ever questioned why gov'ts always rack up huge budget deficits and spend and spend and spent regardless of the situation. It's not a matter that we can't afford a tax cut, what really matters is if you present too much of the tax revenue for gov'ts to procure, they're going to massive over spend. A tax cut is a way to discourage the behaviour of excesses on over gov't spending. Under inflationary times, gov'ts never reign in their spending. So it's only prudent we should remove the chips off the table.

[Aaron]

I dunno about you guys but today's talk radio (NewstalkZB) had talk about Act's view of cutting taxes. I'm sure all the listeners jump to conclusion that we can't afford a tax cut. However no one has ever questioned why gov'ts always rack up huge budget deficits and spend and spend and spent regardless of the situation. It's not a matter that we can't afford a tax cut, what really matters is if you present too much of the tax revenue for gov'ts to procure, they're going to massive over spend. A tax cut is a way to discourage the behaviour of excesses on over gov't spending. Under inflationary times, gov'ts never reign in their spending. So it's only prudent we should remove the chips off the table.

Short concise and to the point with no mention of what they do in Canada, well done SBQ.

I agree with you about cutting taxes and that more money does not equal better outcomes, but rather than taxing the bottom half more so the top half can get a tax cut. How about a tax free threshold at the bottom for everyone.

Although David Seymour gets confused when there is more than one or two tax rates so probably too difficult for ACT to work out. Is ACT Stupid or Mean hard to know.

How do we work out where we sit on the Laffer Curve FP? We don't have a capital gains tax like Australia and our top tax rate of 39% is way less than Australia's 45% so we are way below Aussie on the Laffer Curve.

If you suggest a 20% flat income tax rate I will lose all respect for you.

Also with Australia's unaspirational and uninspirational tax system why are we worried about people moving there. Obviously they must all be the bludgers looking for a handout that we hear about on this thread as the aspirational people would be attracted by our lower tax rates here in NZ.

[Balance]

Short concise and to the point with no mention of what they do in Canada, well done SBQ.

I agree with you about cutting taxes and that more money does not equal better outcomes, but rather than taxing the bottom half more so the top half can get a tax cut. How about a tax free threshold at the bottom for everyone.

Although David Seymour gets confused when there is more than one or two tax rates so probably too difficult for ACT to work out. Is ACT Stupid or Mean hard to know.

How do we work out where we sit on the Laffer Curve FP? We don't have a capital gains tax like Australia and our top tax rate of 39% is way less than Australia's 45% so we are way below Aussie on the Laffer Curve.

If you suggest a 20% flat income tax rate I will lose all respect for you.

Also with Australia's unaspirational and uninspirational tax system why are we worried about people moving there. Obviously they must all be the bludgers looking for a handout that we hear about on this thread as the aspirational people would be attracted by our lower tax rates here in NZ.

The best measure to compare taxes between countries - as a %tage of GDP with comparative countries:

NZ 33.8%
Australia 28.5%
US 26.6%
Canada 33.2%
UK 33.5%
OECD average 34.1%

https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/revenue-statistics-highlights-brochure.pdf

All that Labour & their supporters can think of is ever more transfer-payment, non-productive & wasteful spending to be funded by ever higher taxes from the existing productive sector. Never a thought about effective and efficient spending which is what all countries must do to grow and progress towards that utopia of a happy country. Never a thought about how to grow the economy to benefit all NZers. It's always about more spending and more taxes.

[Aaron]

The best measure to compare taxes between countries - as a %tage of GDP with comparative countries:

NZ 33.8%
Australia 28.5%
US 26.6%
Canada 33.2%
UK 33.5%
OECD average 34.1%

https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/revenue-statistics-highlights-brochure.pdf

All that Labour & their supporters can think of is ever more transfer-payment, non-productive & wasteful spending to be funded by ever higher taxes from the existing productive sector. Never a thought about effective and efficient spending which is what all countries must do to grow and progress towards that utopia of a happy country. Never a thought about how to grow the economy to benefit all NZers. It's always about more spending and more taxes.

Interesting but that does not answer my question why ACT did not just create a lower tax free threshold that everyone benefits from. I should not be suggesting policy but why give a hand up to those at the top and a slap in the face to those at the bottom.

Roger Douglas reserved a stinging criticism for his former party, claiming recent Act articles and policies reinforced a view among New Zealanders that it “represents only the wealthy”, citing his displeasure with Act’s opposition to ending “bracket creep”, which increases tax paid by average wage and salary earners because doing so would require higher taxes on wealthier people.

And to provide balance he also said.

He claimed Labour and the Greens promoted policies that made people dependent on the government in order to get their vote, while National “stand for very little” and didn’t introduce “new and exciting policy”, Douglas believed.

here is a good example of what happens when you have too many taxpayer dollars floating around.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/former-realtor-and-dhb-worker-alister-thorby-accused-of-dishonestly-obtaining-14m-of-miq-funding/HE3YIKYCPFE2XJ7HGYNEXMNSD4/

$1.4mill is what they found. Sickening to think that this might be going on in NZ.

[Balance]

Interesting but that does not answer my question why ACT did not just create a lower tax free threshold that everyone benefits from. I should not be suggesting policy but why give a hand up to those at the top and a slap in the face to those at the bottom.

Roger Douglas reserved a stinging criticism for his former party, claiming recent Act articles and policies reinforced a view among New Zealanders that it “represents only the wealthy”, citing his displeasure with Act’s opposition to ending “bracket creep”, which increases tax paid by average wage and salary earners because doing so would require higher taxes on wealthier people.

And to provide balance he also said.

He claimed Labour and the Greens promoted policies that made people dependent on the government in order to get their vote, while National “stand for very little” and didn’t introduce “new and exciting policy”, Douglas believed.

here is a good example of what happens when you have too many taxpayer dollars floating around.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/former-realtor-and-dhb-worker-alister-thorby-accused-of-dishonestly-obtaining-14m-of-miq-funding/HE3YIKYCPFE2XJ7HGYNEXMNSD4/

$1.4mill is what they found. Sickening to think that this might be going on in NZ.

What hand up to those at the top?

Are you asserting that governments (especially those indulging in wasteful spending) should be able to keep cranking up tax rates and tax takes until the country becomes another Venezuela?

33% top tax rate + 15% GST = already 48% tax paid on money earned & spent by the top tax bracket earners before Robertson's envy tax of 39% top rate = 54%!

A government (especially the wasteful one like this clueless yet spendthrift Labour government) should never take more than 50% off any taxpayer imo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e97kq2XflKE

By all means, introduce a CGT which I believe is well overdue in NZ as part & partial of a comprehensive tax reform package in NZ.

Then, introduce a comprehensive government spending reform as well so that the government is accountable for every $1m spent of taxpayers' funds.

NZ will then start getting somewhere back up the ladder of ever rising living standards.

[Aaron]

What hand up to those at the top?

Are you asserting that governments (especially those indulging in wasteful spending) should be able to keep cranking up tax rates and tax takes until the country becomes another Venezuela?

33% top tax rate + 15% GST = already 48% tax paid on money earned & spent by the top tax bracket earners before Robertson's envy tax of 39% top rate = 54%!

A government (especially the wasteful one like this clueless yet spendthrift Labour government) should never take more than 50% off any taxpayer imo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e97kq2XflKE

By all means, introduce a CGT which I believe is well overdue in NZ as part & partial of a comprehensive tax reform package in NZ.

Then, introduce a comprehensive government spending reform as well so that the government is accountable for every $1m spent of taxpayers' funds.

NZ will then start getting somewhere back up the ladder of ever rising living standards.

If we are still talking about ACTs income tax policy someone on $48,000 or less ends up paying an extra $180 whereas someone earning $800,000 saves $38,269. If you wanted to cut taxes why not an initial tax free threshold that everyone benefits both rich and poor?

I am not discussing govt spending, plenty of waste I imagine.

BUT ACTs income tax policy seems very mean spirited to me. Admittedly they are the party for the wealthy (according to Roger Douglas) so I guess they should provide policy that appeals to their voter base but I just do not think it is a good idea for the country as a whole.

[Balance]

If we are still talking about ACTs income tax policy someone on $48,000 or less ends up paying an extra $180 whereas someone earning $800,000 saves $38,269. If you wanted to cut taxes why not an initial tax free threshold that everyone benefits both rich and poor?

I am not discussing govt spending, plenty of waste I imagine.

BUT ACTs income tax policy seems very mean spirited to me. Admittedly they are the party for the wealthy (according to Roger Douglas) so I guess they should provide policy that appeals to their voter base but I just do not think it is a good idea for the country as a whole.

You are looking at NZ's tax regime as is where is and from there, what's the best way to adjust tax rates.

ACT to me is looking at the tax regime holistically and making the call as to what the tax regime must be for NZ to regain its competitive positioning in all matters relating to tax.

One thing is for sure - tinkering around with the tax regime since the introduction of GST has delivered bugger all in terms of fairness on the one hand and provision of incentives to work hard and take risks on the other.

“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” GB Shaw

[Aaron]

You are looking at NZ's tax regime as is where is and from there, what's the best way to adjust tax rates.

ACT to me is looking at the tax regime holistically and making the call as to what the tax regime must be for NZ to regain its competitive positioning in all matters relating to tax.

One thing is for sure - tinkering around with the tax regime since the introduction of GST has delivered bugger all in terms of fairness on the one hand and provision of incentives to work hard and take risks on the other.

“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” GB Shaw

If looking at the tax system holistically why not bring in a capital gains tax first and if it works, then flatten the progressive income tax rates. Although as a left leaning bleeding heart I would prefer to look at reducing the GST rate before the income tax rates.

I know why ACT would never do this (because their voter base would get hit hardest) but you have admitted not being adverse to the possibility of a capital gains tax.

Anyway pointless speculation on my part as we only have one vote in October and no party proposing this.

I would suggest David has looked at things the way they are, and asked why not even more?

[SBQ]

If we are still talking about ACTs income tax policy someone on $48,000 or less ends up paying an extra $180 whereas someone earning $800,000 saves $38,269. If you wanted to cut taxes why not an initial tax free threshold that everyone benefits both rich and poor?

I am not discussing govt spending, plenty of waste I imagine.

BUT ACTs income tax policy seems very mean spirited to me. Admittedly they are the party for the wealthy (according to Roger Douglas) so I guess they should provide policy that appeals to their voter base but I just do not think it is a good idea for the country as a whole.

A tax free threshold is more difficult than you think. The simplicity of NZ's income tax system would be complicated exponentially because it requires mandatory filing of tax returns every year. There requires a declaration by the individual to the tax debt how much they earned in income taxes from ALL sources. Right now there is no law in NZ to require an individual that works on hourly wages, to submit a tax return every year. It's simply taxed at the source PAYE. But a tax free threshold is to come, then IRD will need a verification process of all income sources which is complicated, and requires a lot more staff to administer.

There's a primary motive to ACT's reasoning for giving the benefit to those that earn more income. I can't think of a greater incentive for an individual to want to earn more $$$, be more productive, than by telling them they can keep more of their after tax income? Especially during times when we are experience massive brain drain (proven by what the gov't is doing now to shore up more $$$ in union disputes over pay from teachers, nurses, doctors, and most recent, the NZ Police force). The Labour Party really did a good # on causing this high inflation, through irresponsible spending, and now the people are demanding them to fix it through higher pay in social services. One thing that doesn't fit well with me is to maintain a current tax revenue for IRD that will give Labour the ticket to again, waste more $$$, spend more $$$ on unproductive programs, fueling more inflation. The only way this can be done is by simply lowering the overall tax take by the gov't. Hit it them who ever is in governing power that we simple don't have the $. But if you leave the same amount as before, then previous the behaviour will never change.

[Aaron]

A tax free threshold is more difficult than you think. The simplicity of NZ's income tax system would be complicated exponentially because it requires mandatory filing of tax returns every year. There requires a declaration by the individual to the tax debt how much they earned in income taxes from ALL sources. Right now there is no law in NZ to require an individual that works on hourly wages, to submit a tax return every year. It's simply taxed at the source PAYE. But a tax free threshold is to come, then IRD will need a verification process of all income sources which is complicated, and requires a lot more staff to administer.

There's a primary motive to ACT's reasoning for giving the benefit to those that earn more income. I can't think of a greater incentive for an individual to want to earn more $$$, be more productive, than by telling them they can keep more of their after tax income? Especially during times when we are experience massive brain drain (proven by what the gov't is doing now to shore up more $$$ in union disputes over pay from teachers, nurses, doctors, and most recent, the NZ Police force). The Labour Party really did a good # on causing this high inflation, through irresponsible spending, and now the people are demanding them to fix it through higher pay in social services. One thing that doesn't fit well with me is to maintain a current tax revenue for IRD that will give Labour the ticket to again, waste more $$$, spend more $$$ on unproductive programs, fueling more inflation. The only way this can be done is by simply lowering the overall tax take by the gov't. Hit it them who ever is in governing power that we simple don't have the $. But if you leave the same amount as before, then previous the behaviour will never change.

Right now there is no law in NZ to require an individual that works on hourly wages, to submit a tax return every year. It's simply taxed at the source PAYE. But a tax free threshold is to come, then IRD will need a verification process of all income sources which is complicated, and requires a lot more staff to administer.

Currently all wages with PAYE deducted are returned to IRD it would not be too hard to return the wages that have no PAYE deducted. IRD does an assessment on everyone, it is just that wage earners don't have to file anything as the tax is already deducted. Everyone gets the benefit of the tax cut at lower levels. A dumb or at best weak arguement SBQ.

The brain drain people are going to countries with higher tax rates so another weak arguement IMO. I think they are going for higher wages and might be sick of weak leadership in the NZ Parliament pandering to selfish ar*eholes on the left (welfare/handouts) and on the right (tax cuts/loose monetary policy)

I agree on the waste side of things.

$40,000 of taxpayer dollars for a farewell party

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/40000-ministry-spend-to-farewell-boss-falls-foul-of-public-service-rules-report/ENRIQVWMDNHQJHXN7UMGIBPYE4/

These people are living in a different world. Sounds like time to check what is actually being achieved at the Ministry of Pacific Peoples other than lavish parties. You won't hear Labour or Greens criticising this as votes are more important than integrity and you suspect they are all living in the same taxpayer funded bubble.

3 CEOs costing 2.4mill for something that has not happened yet.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/three-water-ceos-claim-salaries-despite-roles-being-disestablished#:~:text=McAnulty%20has%20disclosed% 20the%20establishment,range%20from%20%24602%2C500% 20to%20%24815%2C500.

Might pay to check their affiliations to a political party.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/former-realtor-and-dhb-worker-alister-thorby-accused-of-dishonestly-obtaining-14m-of-miq-funding/HE3YIKYCPFE2XJ7HGYNEXMNSD4/

Arrested at the airport on his way on a $92,000 taxpayer funded world holiday. Ripped off at least $1.4million

You are right the excess and waste seems endemic but I still do not see how ACT punishing poor people rectifies this.
Perhaps using your point that "there is no greater incentive for an individual to want to earn more $$$, be more productive, than by telling them they can keep more of their after tax income?"

Is ACT using a carrot and stick approach? Assuming poor people are only poor because they are lazy or stupid making life harder for them might encourage them to become more aspirational and work harder or longer hours, not sure the reasoning for such a mean spirited tax policy..

How about someone earning $800,000 saving $38,269 in tax, where is the line where aspiration becomes greed? What are they aspiring to?

And while I think about it has anyone leaving NZ said they are leaving because tax rates are too high? Even the high profile property development guy or fashion lady or Mark Ellis did not state tax as their main reason for leaving. In fact one of the reasons Marc Ellis left was because "I thought we were egalitarian and unified". I notice the likes of Bruce Cotteril fail to mention this when quoting Marc to make their point.

Repeating Neo Liberal mantras that sound reasonable is not the same as reality.

[Panda-NZ-]

Tax in almost every other OECD country except singapore is higher.

What have we got to show for our low taxes (on the wealthy)? nothing much.

[nztx]

Tax in almost every other OECD country except singapore is higher.

What have we got to show for our low taxes (on the wealthy)? nothing much.


What have we got to show for our taxes pilfered by Labour period ? nothing much. ;)

[SBQ]

Currently all wages with PAYE deducted are returned to IRD it would not be too hard to return the wages that have no PAYE deducted. IRD does an assessment on everyone, it is just that wage earners don't have to file anything as the tax is already deducted. Everyone gets the benefit of the tax cut at lower levels. A dumb or at best weak arguement SBQ.

The brain drain people are going to countries with higher tax rates so another weak arguement IMO. I think they are going for higher wages and might be sick of weak leadership in the NZ Parliament pandering to selfish ar*eholes on the left (welfare/handouts) and on the right (tax cuts/loose monetary policy)

I agree on the waste side of things.

$40,000 of taxpayer dollars for a farewell party

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/40000-ministry-spend-to-farewell-boss-falls-foul-of-public-service-rules-report/ENRIQVWMDNHQJHXN7UMGIBPYE4/

These people are living in a different world. Sounds like time to check what is actually being achieved at the Ministry of Pacific Peoples other than lavish parties. You won't hear Labour or Greens criticising this as votes are more important than integrity and you suspect they are all living in the same taxpayer funded bubble.

3 CEOs costing 2.4mill for something that has not happened yet.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/three-water-ceos-claim-salaries-despite-roles-being-disestablished#:~:text=McAnulty%20has%20disclosed% 20the%20establishment,range%20from%20%24602%2C500% 20to%20%24815%2C500.

Might pay to check their affiliations to a political party.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/former-realtor-and-dhb-worker-alister-thorby-accused-of-dishonestly-obtaining-14m-of-miq-funding/HE3YIKYCPFE2XJ7HGYNEXMNSD4/

Arrested at the airport on his way on a $92,000 taxpayer funded world holiday. Ripped off at least $1.4million

You are right the excess and waste seems endemic but I still do not see how ACT punishing poor people rectifies this.
Perhaps using your point that "there is no greater incentive for an individual to want to earn more $$$, be more productive, than by telling them they can keep more of their after tax income?"

Is ACT using a carrot and stick approach? Assuming poor people are only poor because they are lazy or stupid making life harder for them might encourage them to become more aspirational and work harder or longer hours, not sure the reasoning for such a mean spirited tax policy..

How about someone earning $800,000 saving $38,269 in tax, where is the line where aspiration becomes greed? What are they aspiring to?

And while I think about it has anyone leaving NZ said they are leaving because tax rates are too high? Even the high profile property development guy or fashion lady or Mark Ellis did not state tax as their main reason for leaving. In fact one of the reasons Marc Ellis left was because "I thought we were egalitarian and unified". I notice the likes of Bruce Cotteril fail to mention this when quoting Marc to make their point.

Repeating Neo Liberal mantras that sound reasonable is not the same as reality.

Over a decade ago there was a huge campaign by various "tax return" specialists getting people in NZ to file their tax return to IRD. These are businesses who claim that individuals are not getting their fair share of tax credit back (or in their view, IRD was taking more than their fair share). Why? Having spoke to these "get your tax refund back" specialists, despite that PAYE is taxed at the source, the problem was they're far from accurate. One example is you have individuals that have bank accounts that don't have the correct tax with-holding So during years where the individual had low income, their bank account was taxed at 33%. How about those that hold more than 2 jobs? IRD is no fool and the interest is not for them to refund the full credit to individuals despite how you assume PAYE is all that is required (because under PAYE, the correct tax deduction is not always correct or you can be sure IRD would not be fully reflective to each individual tax credit).

From a Canadian perspective, they too have the exact same PAYE system there for as long as I can remember. Yet it's by law individuals must file a tax return and because of the complexities of their tax system and how often the amounts taxable changes throughout the year, individuals usually use a tax software program to file their return and ensure they get the full credits they would be entitled to (not just the personal income threshold exemption).

Futhermore, there's a legal stance that when you file annual returns, you're signing a declaration of it's accuracy so in case of future audits, you can be held accountable. This is no different in Australia or other countries that have a minimum income exemption threshold; PAYE is not the sole source of income. Tax depts always want to factor say if a person sells an expensive painting or classic car for capital gain, or a part time tradesman that has individual income on the side.

Regarding why so much brain drain happening in NZ? The skilled are not leaving NZ for Australia because the taxes are radically different. They're leaving because the 'buying power of the Australian $' is so much more than what they would have living in NZ. Houses are cheaper and larger in Australia for what you get. Their gov't has more resources to fund more social programs like mental disabilities (autism in education), health care, and above all, they're not concern about some aboriginal cultural narrative like we have going on in NZ. Their gov't knows that investment into productive assets increase the standard of living for all Australians (so they invest heavily in mining and resource extraction). So there's no blaming those that are fleeing NZ to Australia. If my children grow up wanting to move there, I would not hesitate one bit. Just look at the stats, Australia is leaving NZ behind in standard of living.

Our gov't is weak in NZ, if they wanted to tilt the tables of fairness, they need to tax the rich in wealthy by imposing a CGT on their real estate holdings. Australia and Canada and America does this... why does NZ not do this?

[Balance]

What have we got to show for our taxes pilfered by Labour period ? nothing much. ;)

More parasites, beneficiaries, losers and peasants (like panda-nz).

More criminals.

More in state housing waiting list.

More useless and fat cat civil servants.

And ever more BS from the spendthrift and big taxing Hipkins & ministers.

[Panda-NZ-]

What have we got to show for our taxes pilfered by Labour period ? nothing much. ;)

oodles of jobs.

There's a job coming out of every sidewalk. Even one for you who spends all day posting from stuff/NZH during daytime hours.

[Balance]

oodles of jobs.

There's a job coming out of every sidewalk. Even one for you who spends all day posting from stuff/NZH during daytime hours.

Panda-nz, the Labour bred peasant who wanted Ryman to go bankrupt by loading up on more debt.

[Aaron]

Over a decade ago there was a huge campaign by various "tax return" specialists getting people in NZ to file their tax return to IRD. These are businesses who claim that individuals are not getting their fair share of tax credit back (or in their view, IRD was taking more than their fair share). Why? Having spoke to these "get your tax refund back" specialists, despite that PAYE is taxed at the source, the problem was they're far from accurate. One example is you have individuals that have bank accounts that don't have the correct tax with-holding So during years where the individual had low income, their bank account was taxed at 33%. How about those that hold more than 2 jobs? IRD is no fool and the interest is not for them to refund the full credit to individuals despite how you assume PAYE is all that is required (because under PAYE, the correct tax deduction is not always correct or you can be sure IRD would not be fully reflective to each individual tax credit).

Regarding why so much brain drain happening in NZ? The skilled are not leaving NZ for Australia because the taxes are radically different. They're leaving because the 'buying power of the Australian $' is so much more than what they would have living in NZ. Houses are cheaper and larger in Australia for what you get. Their gov't has more resources to fund more social programs like mental disabilities (autism in education), health care, and above all, they're not concern about some aboriginal cultural narrative like we have going on in NZ. Their gov't knows that investment into productive assets increase the standard of living for all Australians (so they invest heavily in mining and resource extraction). So there's no blaming those that are fleeing NZ to Australia. If my children grow up wanting to move there, I would not hesitate one bit. Just look at the stats, Australia is leaving NZ behind in standard of living.

Our gov't is weak in NZ, if they wanted to tilt the tables of fairness, they need to tax the rich in wealthy by imposing a CGT on their real estate holdings. Australia and Canada and America does this... why does NZ not do this?

SBQ don't know if you noticed but the "tax refund" companies have all but disappeared. Not even sure what your point is regarding PAYE. The tax system largely relies on honesty and maybe fear of the IRD and their powers and penalties. Wage workers largely don't need to worry about tax returns anymore it is all done for them through the employer deductions and IRD being able to calculate the tax based on the information provided. Most investment income is also taxed at source and the information and taxes forwarded to IRD.

Regarding going to Aussie "more resources to fund more social programs like mental disabilities (autism in education), health care, and above all, they're not concern about some aboriginal cultural narrative like we have going on in NZ. "

That seems to refute your earlier statement "that I can't think of a greater incentive for an individual to want to earn more $$$, be more productive, than by telling them they can keep more of their after tax income?" NZ has much lower taxes and according to you Australia has stronger public institutions (public institutions are usually funded by taxes).

Possibly you are arguing that Australia is growing the pie rather than discussing how the pie is divided. Although Aussie might have a larger pie and more of that pie goes into public institutions through taxation, so it further appears you are weakening your initial statement about taxes.

"Our gov't is weak in NZ, if they wanted to tilt the tables of fairness, they need to tax the rich in wealthy by imposing a CGT on their real estate holdings. Australia and Canada and America does this... why does NZ not do this?"

Finally something I agree with. The answer to your question might not be simple but as I am not an intellectual I would suggest a large reason this does not happen is that a large cohort of a certain voting generation that shall not be named is more concerned about setting themselves up for a comfortable retirement than the future of NZ.

Sounds like Chris Hipkins popularity is declining due to his "captains call" on capital gains tax. Good job he gets what he deserves for being weak. Although in his defence it worked for John Key and Jacinda Ardern and they were both very popular. Maybe NZ is starting to tire of weak leaders pandering to the shi*iest voters.

[SBQ]

SBQ don't know if you noticed but the "tax refund" companies have all but disappeared. Not even sure what your point is regarding PAYE. The tax system largely relies on honesty and maybe fear of the IRD and their powers and penalties. Wage workers largely don't need to worry about tax returns anymore it is all done for them through the employer deductions and IRD being able to calculate the tax based on the information provided. Most investment income is also taxed at source and the information and taxes forwarded to IRD.

Regarding going to Aussie "more resources to fund more social programs like mental disabilities (autism in education), health care, and above all, they're not concern about some aboriginal cultural narrative like we have going on in NZ. "

That seems to refute your earlier statement "that I can't think of a greater incentive for an individual to want to earn more $$$, be more productive, than by telling them they can keep more of their after tax income?" NZ has much lower taxes and according to you Australia has stronger public institutions (public institutions are usually funded by taxes).

Possibly you are arguing that Australia is growing the pie rather than discussing how the pie is divided. Although Aussie might have a larger pie and more of that pie goes into public institutions through taxation, so it further appears you are weakening your initial statement about taxes.

"Our gov't is weak in NZ, if they wanted to tilt the tables of fairness, they need to tax the rich in wealthy by imposing a CGT on their real estate holdings. Australia and Canada and America does this... why does NZ not do this?"

Finally something I agree with. The answer to your question might not be simple but as I am not an intellectual I would suggest a large reason this does not happen is that a large cohort of a certain voting generation that shall not be named is more concerned about setting themselves up for a comfortable retirement than the future of NZ.

Sounds like Chris Hipkins popularity is declining due to his "captains call" on capital gains tax. Good job he gets what he deserves for being weak. Although in his defence it worked for John Key and Jacinda Ardern and they were both very popular. Maybe NZ is starting to tire of weak leaders pandering to the shi*iest voters.

Can you explain why other countries that use a PAYE system, require individuals to file a tax return and why they're more complicated when there's an exemption income threshold / tax credits / free grants etc? I gave a clear example that PAYE does not include all sources of income and the tax dept wants to know ALL sources of income. Another example I will give is 'overseas' or foreign income. As we live in a more globalised world, the issue of PAYE becomes less relevant as more and more individuals can work abroad with overseas income. But this is just only 1 example that proves PAYE does not include all sources of income.

As for the taxation in Australia and my pro-belief of keeping as much after tax income for the individual high income earners. I'll repeat again, not all gov'ts are the same. Australia clearly has their act together in terms of extracting higher productivity for their country. Again look online of all the stats, NZ over the past 20 years has been left behind ; there's no refuting this problem. So to the tax payer living in NZ, why should they be living on the losing side? They pay just as much taxes as their neighbour Australia, but receive less benefits from the gov't? Oh did I forget to mention how much MORE the skilled migrants moving to Australia are getting paid? Preschool teachers, nurses, doctors, and recently... police officers all see a 30% increase in pay if they move to Australia. One doesn't have to consider that the tax rates are going to be different between NZ & Australia ; just by that metric alone 30% tells anyone that the extra pay is significant and a wallop improvement in their standard of living.

Again, what I don't like about NZ is we have nothing to offer to the next generation. Our tax system appeases only to the rich and wealthy as their next of kin easily accumulate wealth through owning multiple houses. How does the NZ model fit for those that start with nothing? Those that attend public schools while the rich elite population of NZ, strictly go to ritzy private schools? I see this kind of BS everyday living in NZ where on all levels of gov'ts and high paying jobs, they're dished out only to the elites. The UN has proved that countries with more equitable taxation and 'social mobility' (you will have to look that term up) yield HIGHER productivity. This is why I see NZ has fallen backwards in the past 20 years because our priorities are focused on the 'old boys club' mentality. The more of the skilled and productive that leave NZ, then what leaves behind is the lessor skilled or replacing migrants who can't get into Australia or Canada, end up in NZ (as left overs). This is not how you grow a country.

[Aaron]

Dear SBQ

Agree to disagree.

[Daytr]

Dear SBQ

Going back to your first bulls*it statement.

A tax free threshold is more difficult than you think. The simplicity of NZ's income tax system would be complicated exponentially because it requires mandatory filing of tax returns every year. There requires a declaration by the individual to the tax debt how much they earned in income taxes from ALL sources. Right now there is no law in NZ to require an individual that works on hourly wages, to submit a tax return every year. It's simply taxed at the source PAYE. But a tax free threshold is to come, then IRD will need a verification process of all income sources which is complicated, and requires a lot more staff to administer.

Tax returns are filed by everyone every year and everyone is required to declare income from all sources taxed at source or untaxed. The system relies on honesty.

Having 0% or 10.5% as your bottom tax rate makes absolutely no difference to processing tax returns every year.

You are wrong or perhaps just ignorant.

If you are just telling lies to back your view it would be good if you stopped. I appreciate people in general seem to have become more tolerant of lying but I am not one of them.

If you are making these silly incorrect statements out of ignorance then I would suggest you should do some research before posting.

Aaron, you might want to be more considered before calling out people as wrong or ignorant etc.

As SBQ said if you are on a paye salary & you have no other income to declare that is not already taxed at source, you don't have to submit a tax return.

[Aaron]

Aaron, you might want to be more considered before calling out people as wrong or ignorant etc.

As SBQ said if you are on a paye salary & you have no other income to declare that is not already taxed at source, you don't have to submit a tax return.

You don't have to submit a return but there is still an assessment done even if there is no tax to pay.

You are right though no need to be so nasty. I will delete my post.

Having a 0% lower tax rate does not make the tax system that much more complicated as SBQ suggests. No worse than changing it to two rates of 17.5% and 28%.

Having deleted my post I realise you may have immortalized it in your post.

I stand by my argument though but there is no need for nastiness.

[Daytr]

You don't have to submit a return but there is still an assessment done even if there is no tax to pay.

You are right though no need to be so nasty. I will delete my post.

Having a 0% lower tax rate does not make the tax system that much more complicated as SBQ suggests. No worse than changing it to two rates of 17.5% and 28%.

Having deleted my post I realise you may have immortalized it in your post.

I stand by my argument though but there is no need for nastiness.

Well played.

[fungus pudding]

To get back on track with the thread ........

14714

[Entrep]

One reason out of the millions to vote for a change in Govt this year: https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/123669/parliament-passes-law-reform-new-zealands-water-supply-system-nats-act-vow

[nztx]

One reason out of the millions to vote for a change in Govt this year: https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/123669/parliament-passes-law-reform-new-zealands-water-supply-system-nats-act-vow


One of the larger of many .. the dartboard is littered with a wide array of reasons for change & very little
supporting no change ..

[Logen Ninefingers]

This will be music to the ears of many….

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/132778329/act-promises-to-set-public-service-targets-and-kpis-for-government-chief-executives

‘The ACT Party, in its bid to slash the public service, is promising to set “performance benchmarks” for the likes of education and health, as well as issuing public sector chiefs “KPIs” and return them to salaries with performance pay.

ACT leader David Seymour announced the party’s public service policy at Samuel Marsden Collegiate School in Karori, Wellington, on Sunday afternoon. The party has already promised to slash government spending by $1 billion on “day one”, if a National-ACT coalition government is elected in October.

“Government departments are no longer going to be able to get away with spending billions of dollars while failing to deliver meaningful outcomes for taxpayers,” Seymour said, in a statement about the announcement.’

[Bjauck]

A low tax economy is beneficial generally only if the wealthy invest their higher net incomes and funds into productive investments (and research). You can also have a low tax system yet the tax still falls unfairly and inefficiently.

That.is where NZ has got it wrong as so much of our investable funds end up in residential land and real estate. The result is our small share market with many of our good companies and young people ending up needing to go overseas. The major parties have no appetite for major reform so long as immigration can help prop everything up.

[justakiwi]

We have "been there done that" before, and it clearly didn't work. I worked in a government department for eight years, and while the KPI system didn't affect me, in my role, it applied to local and regional management staff, but from what I observed in my job, it had zero impact on overall outcomes.


This will be music to the ears of many….

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/132778329/act-promises-to-set-public-service-targets-and-kpis-for-government-chief-executives

‘The ACT Party, in its bid to slash the public service, is promising to set “performance benchmarks” for the likes of education and health, as well as issuing public sector chiefs “KPIs” and return them to salaries with performance pay.

ACT leader David Seymour announced the party’s public service policy at Samuel Marsden Collegiate School in Karori, Wellington, on Sunday afternoon. The party has already promised to slash government spending by $1 billion on “day one”, if a National-ACT coalition government is elected in October.

“Government departments are no longer going to be able to get away with spending billions of dollars while failing to deliver meaningful outcomes for taxpayers,” Seymour said, in a statement about the announcement.’

[Logen Ninefingers]

We have "been there done that" before, and it clearly didn't work. I worked in a government department for eight years, and while the KPI system didn't affect me, in my role, it applied to local and regional management staff, but from what I observed in my job, it had zero impact on overall outcomes.

“Clearly didn’t work” could be an apt description for many currently ‘employed’ in make-work positions within the public service.

[thegreatestben]

I work in public sector currently have done for the past 5 years+ and support act and this policy. I don't think my job will get cut as a result but if it does I'll happily find a job elsewhere. I attended today in Karori and it was a good turn out and David certainly speaks well, I think Luxon will struggle to compare if we end up with a strong NACT coalition.

[Getty]

Does anyone know if the PM can be appointed from a minority party under the rules of MMP?

I know I will be howled down by the purists that the egos of other aspirants in a major party won't let it happen, but that's not the question.

[justakiwi]

Appointment

2.2The Prime Minister is appointed by warrant by the Governor-General. In making this appointment, constitutional convention requires the Governor-General to:


act on the outcome of the electoral process and subsequent discussions between political parties. These discussions ascertain which party, or group of parties, appears able to command the confidence of the House of Representatives (expressed through public statements) and therefore has a mandate to govern the country; and
act on the outcome of the political process by which the person who will lead the government as Prime Minister is identified.


"expressed through public statements" - does that refer to the statements of the members of House of Representatives OR does it refer to the "voice of the voters?" Personally, I can't imagine under this description, that a PM could ever be appointed from a minority party. But who knows. Scary thought.


Does anyone know if the PM can be appointed from a minority party under the rules of MMP?

I know I will be howled down by the purists that the egos of other aspirants in a major party won't let it happen, but that's not the question.

[iceman]

Appointment

2.2The Prime Minister is appointed by warrant by the Governor-General. In making this appointment, constitutional convention requires the Governor-General to:


act on the outcome of the electoral process and subsequent discussions between political parties. These discussions ascertain which party, or group of parties, appears able to command the confidence of the House of Representatives (expressed through public statements) and therefore has a mandate to govern the country; and
act on the outcome of the political process by which the person who will lead the government as Prime Minister is identified.


"expressed through public statements" - does that refer to the statements of the members of House of Representatives OR does it refer to the "voice of the voters?" Personally, I can't imagine under this description, that a PM could ever be appointed from a minority party. But who knows. Scary thought.

It isn't that uncommon in Europe to see a PM that is not from the biggest Parliamentary party. I don't think there is any reason why the same couldn't be done in NZ, but can't really see it myself in the near future while we have 2 parties that so far are much bigger than the others. That could however change.

[justakiwi]

I sincerely hope not. I have no desire to see Seymour as PM.


It isn't that uncommon in Europe to see a PM that is not from the biggest Parliamentary party. I don't think there is any reason why the same couldn't be done in NZ, but can't really see it myself in the near future while we have 2 parties that so far are much bigger than the others. That could however change.

[iceman]

I sincerely hope not. I have no desire to see Seymour as PM.

I don't think there is any chance of that while their MP numbers may be about 1/3 of National's, based on current polling.

Where I am currently there is a 3 party Government and 7 parties represented in Parliament. The across the political spectrum Government has 55% of MPs in Parliament where a center right party is the biggest with 25% (holds finance and few other large portfolios) a centrist party with 17% (some meaty portfolios) and the Left Greens with 13% have the PM (and 2 others including Environment).
They are half way through a 2nd term of 4 years.

So it can be done.

[Panda-NZ-]

Seymour will never be PM, finance minister or have any important portfolio.

Maybe he can be an associate finance minister & the minister of economic development.

[Balance]

Seymour will never be PM, finance minister or have any important portfolio.

Maybe he can be an associate finance minister & the minister of economic development.

Writes panda-nz who asserts that France and Australia are going back to the stone age because they have banned mobiles in schools.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/UnselfishSingleAmericanwarmblood.webp

[justakiwi]

You really need to get some new material Balance.


Writes panda-nz who asserts that France and Australia are going back to the stone age because they have banned mobiles in schools.

[iceman]

Seymour will never be PM, finance minister or have any important portfolio.

Maybe he can be an associate finance minister & the minister of economic development.

WRONG. On current polling, at least both Seymour and his Deputy will get serious portfolios. I also expect Social Development and maybe Housing to go to their well qualified MPs

[Balance]

You really need to get some new material Balance.

Why? I call fools like panda-nz for who they are when they post the BS and garbage as they have done.

Do not suffer fools like some of you do so willingly - you become the fools.

[Panda-NZ-]

Lots more media scrutiny is going to be applied nact in the next 8 weeks.

Looking forward to the spotlight being shone on this ‘govt in waiting’.

[Daytr]

Why? I call fools like panda-nz for who they are when they post the BS and garbage as they have done.

Do not suffer fools like some of you do so willingly - you become the fools.

You just reinforced Justakiwi's point here Balance.

[Balance]

You just reinforced Justakiwi's point here Balance.

12,000 state houses built by labour - Daytr.

Pass the tui.

Kiss my arse.

[Balance]

Lots more media scrutiny is going to be applied nact in the next 8 weeks.

Looking forward to the spotlight being shone on this ‘govt in waiting’.

From panda-nz who wanted Ryman to load up on more debt to do a share buyback when the company was already close to default.

Same panda-nz who asserts that France and Australia are going back to the Stone Age for banning mobiles from school.:t_up:

That’s the kind of quality assessment/scrutiny from Labour shills. :t_up:

[justakiwi]

I need to meet you some day Balance. I really do.



From panda-nz who wanted Ryman to load up on more debt to do a share buyback when the company was already close to default.

Same panda-nz who asserts that France and Australia are going back to the Stone Age for banning mobiles from school.:t_up:

That’s the kind of quality assessment/scrutiny from Labour shills. :t_up:

[Panda-NZ-]

WRONG. On current polling, at least both Seymour and his Deputy will get serious portfolios. I also expect Social Development and maybe Housing to go to their well qualified MPs

They can get serious portfolios if they overtake National.

That's the only way for a non-centre party to have large wins.

[ynot]

Lots more media scrutiny is going to be applied nact in the next 8 weeks.

’.
Only because Labour is funding the media.
Most can now see through Labour and their BS. They can say what they like, nobody is listening.

[Baa_Baa]

Only because Labour is funding the media.
Most can now see through Labour and their BS. They can say what they like, nobody is listening.

Other than the state owned media, the $50m funding thing finished in June. You reckon their allegiance has been bought in perpetuity?

[Logen Ninefingers]

One News ran with a big hit piece targeting ACT tonight. Something about candidates well down their list making ‘bad’ comments; one calling JA ‘jabcinda’ on-line, another guy who speculated that a spike in drowning deaths may have been linked to the vaccine. That sort of thing. The lefty media hacks will no doubt continue trawling through years of social media comments trying to find more ‘dirt’ on right wing candidates.

Of course, if One News wanted to find a political party chock full of anti-vaxxers & conspiracy theorists they only have to look as far as Winston First. But the agenda is to get Winston into the mix as either a potential Labour coalition partner, or as a handbrake on any right wing coalition - so Winston First don’t get a media waterboarding. On the other hand, ACT are well and truly in the media’s crosshairs.

[causecelebre]

One News ran with a big hit piece targeting ACT tonight. Something about candidates well down their list making ‘bad’ comments; one calling JA ‘jabcinda’ on-line, another guy who speculated that a spike in drowning deaths may have been linked to the vaccine. That sort of thing. The lefty media hacks will no doubt continue trawling through years of social media comments trying to find more ‘dirt’ on right wing candidates.

Of course, if One News wanted to find a political party chock full of anti-vaxxers & conspiracy theorists they only have to look as far as Winston First. But the agenda is to get Winston into the mix as either a potential Labour coalition partner, or as a handbrake on any right wing coalition - so Winston First don’t get a media waterboarding. On the other hand, ACT are well and truly in the media’s crosshairs.

Here's a thought. When (if?) ACT have any portfolios how about one of their MP's given Minister for Broadcasting?

[ynot]

Here's a thought. When (if?) ACT have any portfolios how about one of their MP's given Minister for Broadcasting?
Ha ! That would throw a spanner in the works of the red media.

[Panda-NZ-]

Here's a thought. When (if?) ACT have any portfolios how about one of their MP's given Minister for Broadcasting?

What if they're incompetent though.. none of them have any experience in being part of a govt.

[jonu]

Other than the state owned media, the $50m funding thing finished in June. You reckon their allegiance has been bought in perpetuity?

105 million in total Baa Baa. Maybe not in perpetuity, but who knows what Willie has promised them behind closed doors. He has his little huis with the owners and editors.

I hadn't realised Ardern had copied Trudeau's playbook in the media bribery. He gave hundreds of millions to Canadian media. Guess who backed him and perpetuated his lies about the Canadian truckers? It appears their funding has also run out as Canada gets the knives out for Trudeau.

Ardern had the gall to do it in the months leading up to an election.

[Aaron]

Sounds like Elaine Naidu Franz should join sharetrader and post on the political threads.

Her over the top posts would go down a treat here, rather than getting her booted out of the ACT party.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/seymour-responds-after-act-candidate-who-compared-mandates-to-concentration-camp-resigns-another-apologies-for-anti-vax-comments/ar-AA1fE35V?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=ce40b492b7de44ceb460b662ddfdf38f&ei=11

Hopefully the party culture is not coming from the top down.

[Logen Ninefingers]

What if they're incompetent though.. none of them have any experience in being part of a govt.

How could they be any worse than the motor-mouth clown Willie Jackson who wasted tens of millions of dollars on a merger that never even went ahead?

[Logen Ninefingers]

Sounds like Elaine Naidu Franz should join sharetrader and post on the political threads.

Her over the top posts would go down a treat here, rather than getting her booted out of the ACT party.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/seymour-responds-after-act-candidate-who-compared-mandates-to-concentration-camp-resigns-another-apologies-for-anti-vax-comments/ar-AA1fE35V?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=ce40b492b7de44ceb460b662ddfdf38f&ei=11

Hopefully the party culture is not coming from the top down.

Let’s now run a fine tooth comb over the Winston First list.

[Blue Skies]

105 million in total Baa Baa. Maybe not in perpetuity, but who knows what Willie has promised them behind closed doors. He has his little huis with the owners and editors.

I hadn't realised Ardern had copied Trudeau's playbook in the media bribery. He gave hundreds of millions to Canadian media. Guess who backed him and perpetuated his lies about the Canadian truckers? It appears their funding has also run out as Canada gets the knives out for Trudeau.

Ardern had the gall to do it in the months leading up to an election.



Right,.... & the lawn mowing man at the bach told me his pastor & prayer group told him, tens of thousands of babies have been killed by the vaccine in NZ & the govt bribed Media are hiding it, & that the vaccine contains a tracking device & the media are hiding that too. And apparently the vaccine magnetises you & those plane trails in the sky aren't con-trails, they're Chemical trails & the media are hiding this too.
I'd never heard of the Pastor but he & his prayer group should know about these things.... not quite sure why the pastor would know about these things, but the lawn mowing man assures me he has evidence & he knows.

[ynot]

What if they're incompetent though.. none of them have any experience in being part of a govt.
Incompetent you say. Just open your eyes if you want to understand incompetency.

[Balance]

Incompetent you say. Just open your eyes if you want to understand incompetency.

Yup … try :

Ardern - clueless and now denounced for her useless & wasted years as PM even by her beloved Labour ministers, especially Hipkins. Everything to do with what happened before his time and nothing to do with him, Hipkins keep asserting these days about the messes he finds himself in. Who was in charge before his time? Clueless Cindy! :t_up:

Kiri Allan - must be the only Minister of Justice in the Western world who tried to do a runner after crashing while driving inebriated and resisting arrest. Was going to be a potential Labour PM! :eek2:

But wait! There’s is more!

Nash,

Wood,

Twyford,

Tanetti,

Lees Galloway,

Clare Curran

Andrew Little

Poto Williams

Kris Faafoi

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/07/poto-williams-the-new-minister-with-a-new-200k-salary/_jcr_content/par/image_1326311791.dynimg.full.q75.jpg/v1562202190033/v2-Poto-Williams-Jacinda-Ardern-Getty-1120.jpg

https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/4/z/4/g/e/s/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.1420x800 .4z5xih.png/1689315121198.jpg?format=pjpg&optimize=medium

[jonu]

Right,.... & the lawn mowing man at the bach told me his pastor & prayer group told him, tens of thousands of babies have been killed by the vaccine in NZ & the govt bribed Media are hiding it, & that the vaccine contains a tracking device & the media are hiding that too. And apparently the vaccine magnetises you & those plane trails in the sky aren't con-trails, they're Chemical trails & the media are hiding this too.
I'd never heard of the Pastor but he & his prayer group should know about these things.... not quite sure why the pastor would know about these things, but the lawn mowing man assures me he has evidence & he knows.

Extraordinary rant BS. That's a very poor effort to build a strawman. I know they are designed to blow away in the wind but that doesn't even hold up under its own weight.

Besides the fact that I said none of those things, was I factually incorrect in saying that Ardern gave $105 million to media? The first tranche of it heading in to an election?

Was I incorrect about Trudeau?

What I didn't say was that some of that funding had to be spent on Labour pet issues such as Race, Identity and Gender and Global Warming.

[Daytr]

Sounds like Elaine Naidu Franz should join sharetrader and post on the political threads.

Her over the top posts would go down a treat here, rather than getting her booted out of the ACT party.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/seymour-responds-after-act-candidate-who-compared-mandates-to-concentration-camp-resigns-another-apologies-for-anti-vax-comments/ar-AA1fE35V?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=ce40b492b7de44ceb460b662ddfdf38f&ei=11

Hopefully the party culture is not coming from the top down.

Comment of the day!

[Balance]

Comment of the day!

Try these comments : :t_up:

12,000 new state houses built by Labour!

100,000 houses to be built under Kiwibuild!

https://liberation.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451d75d69e20240a4a91fdf200d-800wi

[Panda-NZ-]

Yup … try :

Trading in Megan Woods for Nicole McKee isn't an improvement.

Vaccine conspiracy theorists are likewise worse than Phil twyford. You do have to offer something better to voters.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Trading in Megan Woods for Nicole McKee isn't an improvement.

Vaccine conspiracy theorists are likewise worse than Phil twyford. You do have to offer something better to voters.

Calling someone ‘Taxinda’ or ‘Jabcinda’ is a bit of petty name-calling. Let’s also - in the interests of fairness - give the flick to any Labour or Green MP’s who ever referred to John Key as ‘Shonkey’ , ‘Donkey’ or ‘Mr Smile and Wave’.

Calling someone a name doesn’t make someone a ‘conspiracy theorist’ btw.

The bulk of the conspiracy theorist thinking I see comes from the Left: anyone who stands for election for a centre-right party is apparently selfish, amoral, working on behalf of overseas monied interests, looking to ‘sell our country to the highest bidder’ etc etc etc.

[blackcap]

Trading in Megan Woods for Nicole McKee isn't an improvement.

Vaccine conspiracy theorists are likewise worse than Phil twyford. You do have to offer something better to voters.

Trading in Megan for Nicole would be a great outcome. More so as a firearms holder, I would welcome that change.

[Aaron]

Sounds like Elaine Naidu Franz should join sharetrader and post on the political threads.

Her over the top posts would go down a treat here, rather than getting her booted out of the ACT party.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/seymour-responds-after-act-candidate-who-compared-mandates-to-concentration-camp-resigns-another-apologies-for-anti-vax-comments/ar-AA1fE35V?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=ce40b492b7de44ceb460b662ddfdf38f&ei=11

Hopefully the party culture is not coming from the top down.

Sounds worse than I thought

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/08/te-p-ti-m-ori-s-rawiri-waititi-shocks-with-comment-under-parliamentary-privilege.html

I didn't think there would have been enough selfish wealthy people to boost ACTs numbers. Sounds like we have plenty of crazy conspiracy theorists though.

[Blue Skies]

Extraordinary rant BS. That's a very poor effort to build a strawman. I know they are designed to blow away in the wind but that doesn't even hold up under its own weight.

Besides the fact that I said none of those things, was I factually incorrect in saying that Ardern gave $105 million to media? The first tranche of it heading in to an election?

Was I incorrect about Trudeau?

What I didn't say was that some of that funding had to be spent on Labour pet issues such as Race, Identity and Gender and Global Warming.


The extraordinary thing is, well to me anyway, that is all a true story, I wasn't making that up. I was in disbelief, but some ordinary nice people are being radicalised into some extreme views.

But sorry I didn't mean any offence & not suggesting you have ever said those things.
I have to disagree strongly though with your assertion the govt bribed the media. The govt has supported all sorts of organisations through the pandemic.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Sounds worse than I thought

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/08/te-p-ti-m-ori-s-rawiri-waititi-shocks-with-comment-under-parliamentary-privilege.html

I didn't think there would have been enough selfish wealthy people to boost ACTs numbers. Sounds like we have plenty of crazy conspiracy theorists though.

And here we go, like clock-work; ‘selfish’ and ‘wealthy’.
Hackneyed marxist stereotyping & ‘the politics of envy’ well and truly in evidence.

Make no mistake: the Left-wing and the media are very, very concerned about the popularity of ACT.
ACT have committed the cardinal sins of 1/ pushing back on the core racist and divisive agenda of the Left and 2/ pushing back on Labours creation of a bloated, unproductive bureaucracy which is engaged in the wasting of billions and billions of dollars.
For these two reasons, ACT will be relentlessly attacked by the Left and the media for the next 8 weeks.

[Panda-NZ-]

Sounds worse than I thought

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/08/te-p-ti-m-ori-s-rawiri-waititi-shocks-with-comment-under-parliamentary-privilege.html

I didn't think there would have been enough selfish wealthy people to boost ACTs numbers. Sounds like we have plenty of crazy conspiracy theorists though.

Add in some farmers who don't really believe Luxon who spent 20 years in overseas cities speaks for them.

[Aaron]

And here we go, like clock-work; ‘selfish’ and ‘wealthy’.
Hackneyed marxist stereotyping & ‘the politics of envy’ well and truly in evidence.

Perhaps you struggle with comprehension. I am suggesting most rich people are not selfish.

But like any crazy conspiracy theorist you just believe what you want. It is probably just the paid Labour media trying to besmirch ACT.

[blackcap]

Perhaps you struggle with comprehension. I am suggesting most rich people are not selfish.



That has been my experience as well. I know many many poor people who are selfish. I think wealth does not make one selfish.

You are or you are not irrespective of means.

[Balance]

That has been my experience as well. I know many many poor people who are selfish. I think wealth does not make one selfish.

You are or you are not irrespective of means.

The left in NZ is hell bent upon making profit a dirty word and being wealthy a sign of selfishness and exploitation.

Look at the way that Labour went after property owners and rental owners while at the same time, showing how as a government they have no clue how to provide proper housing solutions, turning a crisis into a disaster.

Proving again that Labour is all about : "Study hard, work hard and save hard so we can take from you to give to those who do not."

[jonu]

The extraordinary thing is, well to me anyway, that is all a true story, I wasn't making that up. I was in disbelief, but some ordinary nice people are being radicalised into some extreme views.

But sorry I didn't mean any offence & not suggesting you have ever said those things.
I have to disagree strongly though with your assertion the govt bribed the media. The govt has supported all sorts of organisations through the pandemic.

All the proof you need from Megan Woods spelling out how the government is propagandising TVNZ. Oh, and this is extra to the earlier 105 million dollar bribe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZu55jNoM-E

[Logen Ninefingers]

If the media are on the rampage to try and take down ACT…..then ACT must be doing something right. As the NZ Herald lose themselves in an orgy of self-congratulation over (aussie) cartoonist Rod Emmerson putting in a 20 year shift at their paper, he celebrated himself today with a typically vicious attack on David Seymour and ACT. It was drawn in his trade-mark ugly ‘style’, a real assault on the eye-balls; Minhinnick and Low would be appalled at the execrable stuff Emmerson produces.
Karma is coming for these attack dogs of the left - all that will be achieved is that people thinking of voting for ACT will become absolutely determined to do so.

[ynot]

If the media are on the rampage to try and take down ACT…..then ACT must be doing something right. As the NZ Herald lose themselves in an orgy of self-congratulation over (aussie) cartoonist Rod Emmerson putting in a 20 year shift at their paper, he celebrated himself today with a typically vicious attack on David Seymour and ACT. It was drawn in his trade-mark ugly ‘style’, a real assault on the eye-balls; Minhinnick and Low would be appalled at the execrable stuff Emmerson produces.
Karma is coming for these attack dogs of the left - all that will be achieved is that people thinking of voting for ACT will become absolutely determined to do so.
Herald can stick their subscription where the sun don't shine as long as they continue down the left path. No wonder profit is down.

[Aaron]

If the media are on the rampage to try and take down ACT…..then ACT must be doing something right. As the NZ Herald lose themselves in an orgy of self-congratulation over (aussie) cartoonist Rod Emmerson putting in a 20 year shift at their paper, he celebrated himself today with a typically vicious attack on David Seymour and ACT. It was drawn in his trade-mark ugly ‘style’, a real assault on the eye-balls; Minhinnick and Low would be appalled at the execrable stuff Emmerson produces.
Karma is coming for these attack dogs of the left - all that will be achieved is that people thinking of voting for ACT will become absolutely determined to do so.

Was that the flies to sh*t analogy? I thought it was funny but I can see how some people might be hurt or take offence. But I didn't think the people he was making fun of tended to be sensitive snow flake types. Comparing David Seymour to a pile of sh*t might also be taking things too far. But funny none the less.

Maybe it is a reaction to ACTs tax policy, that seems pretty mean to me.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Herald can stick their subscription where the sun don't shine as long as they continue down the left path. No wonder profit is down.

The NZ Herald and Stuff won’t be getting so much as a single cent from me. All they do is assist the Left in stoking division in society, then heavily gaslight those that call them and the Left out on it.

[justakiwi]

Seymour is a whack job as far as I am concerned. His latest claim that Nelson Mandala would support ACT if he were still alive, is nothing short of embarrassing. Mandela’s grandson has come out and publicly stated that would most definitely would not have been the case.

Seymour just plucks random nonsense out of thin air at times. Looks like a complete dick.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Was that the flies to sh*t analogy? I thought it was funny but I can see how some people might be hurt or take offence. But I didn't think the people he was making fun of tended to be sensitive snow flake types. Comparing David Seymour to a pile of sh*t might also be taking things too far. But funny none the less.

Maybe it is a reaction to ACTs tax policy, that seems pretty mean to me.

That was the Body cartoon. The Body cartoon was the one where the flies are following sh*t (Seymour). One fly was rigged out in the white robes and hood of the KKK.

The Emmerson cartoon was the one where Seymour is sitting in a locker room surrounded by muppets and various luminaries such as Frankensteins monster - these apparently representing the people on ACT’s list.

You might find these reprehensible attacks ‘funny’, but many will not. Opening a widely circulating newspaper and finding multiple cartoons denigrating one politician and party is not anything like the fair and balanced media we should be entitled to in this country.

[fungus pudding]

Perhaps you struggle with comprehension. I am suggesting most rich people are not selfish.

But like any crazy conspiracy theorist you just believe what you want. It is probably just the paid Labour media trying to besmirch ACT.

And I know quite a number of wealthy to extremely wealthy people. One common characteristic that I have noticed is their generosity. Another is a sense of humour.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Seymour is a whack job as far as I am concerned. His latest claim that Nelson Mandala would support ACT if he were still alive, is nothing short of embarrassing. Mandela’s grandson has come out and publicly stated that would most definitely would not have been the case.

Seymour just plucks random nonsense out of thin air at times. Looks like a complete dick.

So how did ‘Mandela’s grandson’ suddenly hone in on NZ politics with a laser-like focus? Only because our left wing media went and rung his bell.
You were never going to vote for Seymour anyway, so the media are only feeding your existing cognitive bias.

[justakiwi]

I have no idea how Mandala's grandson caught wind of it, but that's completely irrelevant anyway. My point is, why would Seymour even make a stupid comment like that? Why bring Mandala into the conversation in the first place? It was a very random, strange thing to say in my opinion.

As for your second statement - you need to get off my case. You know perfectly well (at least you would if you read my posts properly) that I did consider voting for ACT - but when I started looking into their philosophy and policies, realised they were not an option for me. You have zero tolerance for anyone who disagrees with you, not unlike your buddy Balance.

The problem with many here is, you don't actually want a "discussion." You just want to thrash anyone who isn't as right wing as you. Grow up and be an adult.



So how did ‘Mandela’s grandson’ suddenly hone in on NZ politics with a laser-like focus? Only because our left wing media went and rung his bell.
You were never going to vote for Seymour anyway, so the media are only feeding your existing cognitive bias.

[Logen Ninefingers]

I have no idea how Mandala's grandson caught wind of it, but that's completely irrelevant anyway. My point is, why would Seymour even make a stupid comment like that? Why bring Mandala into the conversation in the first place? It was a very random, strange thing to say in my opinion.

As for your second statement - you need to get off my case. You know perfectly well (at least you would if you read my posts properly) that I did consider voting for ACT - but when I started looking into their philosophy and policies, realised they were not an option for me. You have zero tolerance for anyone who disagrees with you, not unlike your buddy Balance.

The problem with many here is, you don't actually want a "discussion." You just want to thrash anyone who isn't as right wing as you. Grow up and be an adult.

He brought Mandela into it because Mandela opposed the race based Apartheid system in South Africa, and Seymour is opposing the race based separatism that is increasingly being rolled out here in New Zealand.

While on the subject of ‘trashing’ others, let’s take a second look at how you view Seymour:
‘Seymour just plucks random nonsense out of thin air at times. Looks like a complete dick.’

[ithaka]

Seymour was dead right about Mandela being revolted by the racist agenda of the left in New Zealand. Having spent many years in South Africa in the seventies, I've witnessed first hand the appalling outcome we are well on the way to embedding with our disregard for democracy. Kweku Mandela was 9 years old when Nelson Mandela became president. He also grew up in America. His opinion about democracy in New Zealand is not worth much.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Seymour was dead right about Mandela being revolted by the racist agenda of the left in New Zealand. Having spent many years in South Africa in the seventies, I've witnessed first hand the appalling outcome we are well on the way to embedding with our disregard for democracy. Kweku Mandela was 9 years old when Nelson Mandela became president. He also grew up in America. His opinion about democracy in New Zealand is not worth much.

You’re an independent thinker, and as such you’ll be an early candidate for the gulags in the coming ‘Social Democratic Republic of Aotearoa’.

[justakiwi]

If you seriously believe the situation here is even remotely the same as apartheid in South Africa, you are delusional. But before you jump down my throat, I agree that we currently have some major race related issues in this country. Of course, I see those as issues completely differently to what you do, and I have no desire to debate that. As for Seymour, the more I watch of him, the more I see a "player" who is attempting to use this kind of association with Mandela, to play to voter's emotions and suck them into the ACT void. His comments did make him look like a dick. You may disagree and that is your right.

I do not personally know any of these politicians. So all I have to go on, in what I see of them in the media, what I hear them say publicly, and what I see that they have done/achieved over time. I do not like what I see with Seymour. I do not trust him, and I think he and ACT will be a real danger in a NAT/ACT coalition.



He brought Mandela into it because Mandela opposed the race based Apartheid system in South Africa, and Seymour is opposing the race based separatism that is increasingly being rolled out here in New Zealand.

While on the subject of ‘trashing’ others, let’s take a second look at how you view Seymour:
‘Seymour just plucks random nonsense out of thin air at times. Looks like a complete dick.’

[ynot]

If you seriously believe the situation here is even remotely the same as apartheid in South Africa, you are delusional. But before you jump down my throat, I agree that we currently have some major race related issues in this country. Of course, I see those as issues completely differently to what you do, and I have no desire to debate that. As for Seymour, the more I watch of him, the more I see a "player" who is attempting to use this kind of association with Mandela, to play to voter's emotions and suck them into the ACT void. His comments did make him look like a dick. You may disagree and that is your right.

I do not personally know any of these politicians. So all I have to go on, in what I see of them in the media, what I hear them say publicly, and what I see that they have done/achieved over time. I do not like what I see with Seymour. I do not trust him, and I think he and ACT will be a real danger in a NAT/ACT coalition.
Tell me, do you trust Labour ?

[Logen Ninefingers]

If you seriously believe the situation here is even remotely the same as apartheid in South Africa, you are delusional. But before you jump down my throat, I agree that we currently have some major race related issues in this country. Of course, I see those as issues completely differently to what you do, and I have no desire to debate that. As for Seymour, the more I watch of him, the more I see a "player" who is attempting to use this kind of association with Mandela, to play to voter's emotions and suck them into the ACT void. His comments did make him look like a dick. You may disagree and that is your right.

I do not personally know any of these politicians. So all I have to go on, in what I see of them in the media, what I hear them say publicly, and what I see that they have done/achieved over time. I do not like what I see with Seymour. I do not trust him, and I think he and ACT will be a real danger in a NAT/ACT coalition.

‘But before you jump down my throat, I agree that we currently have some major race related issues in this country. Of course, I see those as issues completely differently to what you do, and I have no desire to debate that.’

Of course you don’t. You no doubt see these issues through the exact same lens that the Left purports to see them. And this explains why you trash Seymour and speak of him as seeking to ‘play with voters emotions and suck them into the….’void’’.
Seymour isn’t dog-whistling or ‘race baiting’, he says it exactly as it is: he doesn’t support co-governance, he believes in our democracy and the rule of law & that all New Zealanders should be equal when it comes to voting. He says exactly how he views these matters & many New Zealanders will agree with him. And the Left don’t like it, the Left can’t handle it, so they seek to demonise him and make out people voting for him are somehow being tricked or hoodwinked. People who voted for Labour when ‘co-governance’ was never in their manifesto are the ones who were tricked and hoodwinked.

[justakiwi]

Rational debate is clearly not your thing. I am SO tired of the continual labelling of anyone who doesn't agree with you as a "leftie." I am not a leftie. I am also not old boys right wing. I am somewhere in the middle. I would happily discuss this with you and others here, but rational discussion requires tolerance, and patience, and respect, and an acceptance that we are all different and have different views. You are not interested in having that kind of discussion.

You are starting to behave like Balance. You are always angry and defensive, antagonistic and intolerant. It seems that politics consumes every minute of your waking day. It is unhealthy. Take the weekend off and chill. There IS actually more to life than politics.



‘But before you jump down my throat, I agree that we currently have some major race related issues in this country. Of course, I see those as issues completely differently to what you do, and I have no desire to debate that.’

Of course you don’t. You no doubt see these issues through the exact same lens that the Left purports to see them. And this explains why you trash Seymour and speak of him as seeking to ‘play with voters emotions and suck them into the….’void’’.
Seymour isn’t dog-whistling or ‘race baiting’, he says it exactly as it is: he doesn’t support co-governance, he believes in our democracy and the rule of law & that all New Zealanders should be equal when it comes to voting. He says exactly how he views these matters & many New Zealanders will agree with him. And the Left don’t like it, the Left can’t handle it, so they seek to demonise him and make out people voting for him are somehow being tricked or hoodwinked. People who voted for Labour when ‘co-governance’ was never in their manifesto are the ones who were tricked and hoodwinked.

[Daytr]

Rational debate is clearly not your thing. I am SO tired of the continual labelling of anyone who doesn't agree with you as a "leftie." I am not a leftie. I am also not old boys right wing. I am somewhere in the middle. I would happily discuss this with you and others here, but rational discussion requires tolerance, and patience, and respect, and an acceptance that we are all different and have different views. You are not interested in having that kind of discussion.

You are starting to behave like Balance. You are always angry and defensive, antagonistic and intolerant. It seems that politics consumes every minute of your waking day. It is unhealthy. Take the weekend off and chill. There IS actually more to life than politics.

Nailed it. That's exactly my experience with Logen Ninefingers as well.

[Logen Ninefingers]

You can sum up JAK and Daytr with the following: ‘agree with us or we’ll throw all the toys out of the cot & accuse you of not engaging in ‘rational debate’.’
Oh the irony when these types accuse others of being ‘defensive’.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Rational debate is clearly not your thing. I am SO tired of the continual labelling of anyone who doesn't agree with you as a "leftie." I am not a leftie. I am also not old boys right wing. I am somewhere in the middle. I would happily discuss this with you and others here, but rational discussion requires tolerance, and patience, and respect, and an acceptance that we are all different and have different views. You are not interested in having that kind of discussion.

You are starting to behave like Balance. You are always angry and defensive, antagonistic and intolerant. It seems that politics consumes every minute of your waking day. It is unhealthy. Take the weekend off and chill. There IS actually more to life than politics.

JAK -

‘I have no desire to debate that.’

Also JAK -

‘Rational debate is clearly not your thing.’

[Balance]

Seymour was dead right about Mandela being revolted by the racist agenda of the left in New Zealand. Having spent many years in South Africa in the seventies, I've witnessed first hand the appalling outcome we are well on the way to embedding with our disregard for democracy. Kweku Mandela was 9 years old when Nelson Mandela became president. He also grew up in America. His opinion about democracy in New Zealand is not worth much.

Kweku Mandela can kiss my arse - look at how South Africa has descended into lawlessness, economic and social degradation after Mandela left office & the black elite reverse-racists took over.

GDP per capita is lower than in 2008. Unemployment remains high, at around 35%, and youth unemployment even exceeds 50%.

The black elite are certainly doing alright though - too bad about the rest.

What NZ can look to become if the loony left & the Maori cabal have their way for another 3 years.

[justakiwi]

"I have no desire to debate it" was a reference to the fact that I have zero desire in debating anything with you. I will however correct the comment you quoted above - I should have written "Rational discussion is clearly not your thing." That is what I meant to say. There is a difference between debate and discussion.

I do not want, or need you to agree with anything I say. It doesn't matter to me that we have differing opinions. I don't believe I have posted anything that could be considered "defensive" - I have called you out on the way you constantly label me as a leftie, and the anger that comes through in your posts. That's all.

Anyway, you can see it as "throwing my toys out of the cot" if you wish. It doesn't bother me one iota. But I am not wasting anymore of my time talking to you.

Have a lovely weekend :)


JAK -

‘I have no desire to debate that.’

Also JAK -

‘Rational debate is clearly not your thing.’

[Logen Ninefingers]

"I have no desire to debate it" was a reference to the fact that I have zero desire in debating anything with you. I will however correct the comment you quoted above - I should have written "Rational discussion is clearly not your thing." That is what I meant to say. There is a difference between debate and discussion.

I do not want, or need you to agree with anything I say. It doesn't matter to me that we have differing opinions. I don't believe I have posted anything that could be considered "defensive" - I have called you out on the way you constantly label me as a leftie, and the anger that comes through in your posts. That's all.

Anyway, you can see it as "throwing my toys out of the cot" if you wish. It doesn't bother me one iota. But I am not wasting anymore of my time talking to you.

Have a lovely weekend :)

You too buddy. 🙂

[Aaron]

You might find these reprehensible attacks ‘funny’, but many will not. Opening a widely circulating newspaper and finding multiple cartoons denigrating one politician and party is not anything like the fair and balanced media we should be entitled to in this country.

Sorry wrong cartoon.

David Seymour should be thankful for the publicity. I don't think the average voter is that bright or puts that much time into their vote (myself included). Any publicity is good publicity. Imagine how far Donald Trump would have got if the media in the States did not feel the need to pick on everything he said and does. Come election day in NZ a lot of people will be staring at their voting papers wondering who they are going to vote for and they might remember all the attention ACT and David Seymour got, anti maori, anti vax, anti a gun register (I assume this is to garner votes from dumb ar*es reading too many social media posts from America) and give him a tick.

What is even funnier to me is that the craziest thing to come out of the ACT is their tax policy and it hardly gets a mention. Sadly the insignificant bull*hit takes centre stage once more.

Now that I know how strongly you feel about cartoons, perhaps you should talk to Balance I think he has posted some cartoons some people might find offensive as well.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Sorry wrong cartoon.

David Seymour should be thankful for the publicity. I don't think the average voter is that bright or puts that much time into their vote (myself included). Any publicity is good publicity. Imagine how far Donald Trump would have got if the media in the States did not feel the need to pick on everything he said and does. Come election day in NZ a lot of people will be staring at their voting papers wondering who they are going to vote for and they might remember all the attention ACT and David Seymour got, anti maori, anti vax, anti a gun register (I assume this is to garner votes from dumb ar*es reading too many social media posts from America) and give him a tick.

What is even funnier to me is that the craziest thing to come out of the ACT is their tax policy and it hardly gets a mention. Sadly the insignificant bull*hit takes centre stage once more.

Now that I know how strongly you feel about cartoons, perhaps you should talk to Balance I think he has posted some cartoons some people might find offensive as well.

It doesn’t matter how many left wing cartoonists I high-light who get published widely by NZ’s major media outlets, still we get this one guy ‘Tremain’ thrown back at us. Tremain is not published by any major media entity, and I don’t believe Balance posting his cartoons here is equivalent to Emmerson getting published daily by The New Zealand Herald.

[dln]

You might find these reprehensible attacks ‘funny’, but many will not.

https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?11916-Labour-govt-2020-23&p=1017445&viewfull=1#post1017445

[Aaron]

https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?11916-Labour-govt-2020-23&p=1017445&viewfull=1#post1017445

dln I think you missed Logen's point. It is not the cartoons that are reprehensible (deserving censure or condemnation) it is the media they are published in.

Obviously the cartoons you highlighted are OK because they are only posted on share trader and not by the herald. It is not the cartoon itself it is the form of media in which it is presented that is reprehensible apparently.

The Tremain cartoon is funny but I would have had home/wealth owning boomers holding the leash instead, except that might be too close to the truth to be funny.

[dln]

No, didn't miss that.

[Logen Ninefingers]

dln I think you missed Logen's point. It is not the cartoons that are reprehensible (deserving censure or condemnation) it is the media they are published in.

Obviously the cartoons you highlighted are OK because they are only posted on share trader and not by the herald. It is not the cartoon itself it is the form of media in which it is presented that is reprehensible apparently.

The Tremain cartoon is funny but I would have had home/wealth owning boomers holding the leash instead, except that might be too close to the truth to be funny.

No, not quite what I was saying. I’m saying that if our mainstream media only publishes left wing cartoonists giving left wing perspectives, as is currently the case, then you can draw your own conclusions from that.

I could do a cartoon right now and self-publish it somewhere. That doesn’t make it ‘all fair & square’. This is what ‘Tremain’ is basically doing: publishing his own stuff.

[Aaron]

No, not quite what I was saying. I’m saying that if our mainstream media only publishes left wing cartoonists giving left wing perspectives, as is currently the case, then you can draw your own conclusions from that.

I could do a cartoon right now and self-publish it somewhere. That doesn’t make it ‘all fair & square’. This is what ‘Tremain’ is basically doing: publishing his own stuff.

Don't panic Logen from what I gather Steven Joyce, Mike Hosking, Richard Prebble, Bruce Cotterill, Matthew Hooton et al have a right leaning tendency and all have regular herald opinion pieces to fight the good fight for the right.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Don't panic Logen from what I gather Steven Joyce, Mike Hosking, Richard Prebble, Bruce Cotterill, Matthew Hooton et al have a right leaning tendency and all have regular herald opinion pieces to fight the good fight for the right.

Simon Wilson writes from a left wing perspective almost daily for The New Zealand Herald, and as far as I know his pieces are not marked as ‘opinion’.

[Aaron]

Simon Wilson writes from a left wing perspective almost daily for The New Zealand Herald, and as far as I know his pieces are not marked as ‘opinion’.

Just had a look this morning Simon Wilson's is an opinion piece. Hope you are not so sensitive and close minded that you can't stand to hear a differing opinion on the world even if you don't agree.

His column is usually too long and wordy for me. Here is a taste though, probably behind the paywall but you would expect opinions are free.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/election-2023-simon-wilson-on-flying-tax-profits-and-potholes/MML4NU4TRNFGFCE6LKGQ7D65MU/

In other revelations last week, RNZ reported that since 2021, National has received 7.5 times more large donations than Labour.
That’s $8,206,101 against $1,085, 563. Act received $4,236,393.
Why, really, are those big donors pouring their money into National and Act’s coffers? It’s not about personal tax, is it?
Labour has failed to introduce genuinely progressive tax reform, although they know the surveys say it would be popular. But I imagine they also know - have always known - that any attempt to do this would be met by a wall of money. Superwealthy donors would spend whatever it takes to prevent it happening.
Donors who don’t want the fairer society Labour hopes for and the Greens and Te Pāti Māori have the policies to help achieve, because it would cost them a bit more of their own money.
Labour doesn’t want anyone to build that wall. The tragedy is, it’s there anyway. The money’s in.

Reprehensible????

To quote David Seymour

The fact that they are wealthy doesn’t mean they know more about policies. It does mean that they have got the ability to put the hand in their own pocket and help others should they choose.

Looks like they are digging deep to ensure policies that will be to their own benefit.

I am constantly attacking boomers but maybe my target should be the country’s wealthiest 1% who own more than a quarter of the country’s wealth and pay about half the tax rate of the average kiwi on their overall earnings and capital gains.

The amount of money they are pouring in to their representatives at ACT might indicate that at least some wealthy people are greedy.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Just had a look this morning Simon Wilson's is an opinion piece. Hope you are not so sensitive and close minded that you can't stand to hear a differing opinion on the world even if you don't agree.

His column is usually too long and wordy for me. Here is a taste though, probably behind the paywall but you would expect opinions are free.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/election-2023-simon-wilson-on-flying-tax-profits-and-potholes/MML4NU4TRNFGFCE6LKGQ7D65MU/

In other revelations last week, RNZ reported that since 2021, National has received 7.5 times more large donations than Labour.
That’s $8,206,101 against $1,085, 563. Act received $4,236,393.
Why, really, are those big donors pouring their money into National and Act’s coffers? It’s not about personal tax, is it?
Labour has failed to introduce genuinely progressive tax reform, although they know the surveys say it would be popular. But I imagine they also know - have always known - that any attempt to do this would be met by a wall of money. Superwealthy donors would spend whatever it takes to prevent it happening.
Donors who don’t want the fairer society Labour hopes for and the Greens and Te Pāti Māori have the policies to help achieve, because it would cost them a bit more of their own money.
Labour doesn’t want anyone to build that wall. The tragedy is, it’s there anyway. The money’s in.

Reprehensible????

To quote David Seymour

The fact that they are wealthy doesn’t mean they know more about policies. It does mean that they have got the ability to put the hand in their own pocket and help others should they choose.

Looks like they are digging deep to ensure policies that will be to their own benefit.

I am constantly attacking boomers but maybe my target should be the country’s wealthiest 1% who own more than a quarter of the country’s wealth and pay about half the tax rate of the average kiwi on their overall earnings and capital gains.

The amount of money they are pouring in to their representatives at ACT might indicate that at least some wealthy people are greedy.

'the fairer society Labour hopes for and the Greens and Te Pāti Māori have the policies to help achieve'

Yeah, Simon Wilson is a paid shill for the Left.

[Aaron]

'the fairer society Labour hopes for and the Greens and Te Pāti Māori have the policies to help achieve'

Yeah, Simon Wilson is a paid shill for the Left.

Not sure he is a "paid shill". Maybe just someone with a different opinion from you. All the other opinion pieces left and right I would suggest are not from "paid shills" just opinionated people who are probably trying to achieve the same thing from different angles. A better country for as many people as possible.

David Seymour probably believes smaller govt and lower taxes will result in a better society. I would tend to disagree.

The Greens probably believe more tax and govt intervention will result in a better society. I would tend to disagree.

There might be some middle ground but I am pretty sure there is no perfect solution that will suit everyone.

What I got from the article is that it would seem really wealthy people can protect their interests through the political process by ensuring their favoured party has sufficient funding to get their message out.

[davflaws]

i am constantly attacking boomers but maybe my target should be the country’s wealthiest 1% who own more than a quarter of the country’s wealth and pay about half the tax rate of the average kiwi on their overall earnings and capital gains.



Yes! Yes! Yes!

[Logen Ninefingers]

Not sure he is a "paid shill". Maybe just someone with a different opinion from you. All the other opinion pieces left and right I would suggest are not from "paid shills" just opinionated people who are probably trying to achieve the same thing from different angles. A better country for as many people as possible.

David Seymour probably believes smaller govt and lower taxes will result in a better society. I would tend to disagree.

The Greens probably believe more tax and govt intervention will result in a better society. I would tend to disagree.

There might be some middle ground but I am pretty sure there is no perfect solution that will suit everyone.

the fairer society Labour hopes for and the Greens and Te Pāti Māori have the policies to help achieve

Simon Wilson writes daily for The New Zealand Herald and his 'articles' couldn't be clearer: he shills for the Left.

As to why wealthy donors may donate to National and ACT -
1/ They may be concerned about the crime wave occurring on Labours watch.
2/ They may believe in personal responsibility, private property ownership, and small government.
3/ They may be concerned that record government spending is driving inflation and leaving a debt legacy for future generations.
4/ They may believe that Labour is not the best party to manage the economy, and that Labours policies are not sufficiently business friendly.
5/ They may believe that the country has gone off the rails and a change of government is desperately needed.

Wilson is howling about donations and putting forward just one hackneyed motivation because he wants to build on the classic narrative of the Left: selfish wealthy people desperate to avoid paying tax, totally unwilling to help Labour help less well off Kiwi's.
It's a pathetic and myopic narrative, and one which ignores the fact that Robertson has spent like a drunken sailor and achieved absolutely nothing. If he was given more revenue he would simply waste it.

[Balance]

Yes! Yes! Yes!

Writes davflaws, the Labour shill who believes that a NZer is without culture unless he is Maori or embraces Maori culture.

Kiss my arse.

[Balance]

the fairer society Labour hopes for and the Greens and Te Pāti Māori have the policies to help achieve

Simon Wilson writes daily for The New Zealand Herald and his 'articles' couldn't be clearer: he shills for the Left.

As to why wealthy donors may donate to National and ACT -
1/ They may be concerned about the crime wave occurring on Labours watch.
2/ They may believe in personal responsibility, private property ownership, and small government.
3/ They may be concerned that record government spending is driving inflation and leaving a debt legacy for future generations.
4/ They may believe that Labour is not the best party to manage the economy, and that Labours policies are not sufficiently business friendly.
5/ They may believe that the country has gone off the rails and a change of government is desperately needed.

Wilson is howling about donations and putting forward just one hackneyed motivation because he wants to build on the classic narrative of the Left: selfish wealthy people desperate to avoid paying tax, totally unwilling to help Labour help less well off Kiwi's.
It's a pathetic and myopic narrative, and one which ignores the fact that Robertson has spent like a drunken sailor and achieved absolutely nothing. If he was given more revenue he would simply waste it.

6 years in power and Labour/Green has nothing to show for all the billions of dollars they have spent & squandered.

Now they are resorting to demonising those who are successful and are taking care of themselves as well as many others in the community.

That's what the communists in China and Russia used to do - demonise the successful, the landowners, the intellectuals and the hard working - stoking the politics of envy and jealousy.

We all know what happened to Communist China and Russia after that - miserable societies with no colour and standard of living.

So remember this well when you enter the ballot box in October :

The Left in NZ is all about "Study Hard, Work Hard and Save Hard so we can take from you to give to those who don't."

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/52aca146e4b06d986ca82df3/1691612681811-D9LMARSVE48IZHOKQCOA/Organ+grinders.jpg?format=500w

[blackcap]

Writes davflaws, the Labour shill who believes that a NZer is without culture unless he is Maori or embraces Maori culture.

Kiss my arse.

I guess that makes davflaws a racist?

I used to be neutral towards Maori culture (I am not a Maori and am very proud of my colonial culture and heritage) and can see the good in other cultures and the diversity and different views on life as being interesting.

Now that it is seemingly being forced on us and rammed down our throats, I have somehow found I am resenting Maori culture. Not a good place to be and I know many people who feel the same. It is divisive and not good for cohesive society.

[Logen Ninefingers]

6 years in power and Labour/Green has nothing to show for all the billions of dollars they have spent & squandered.

Now they are resorting to demonising those who are successful and are taking care of themselves as well as many others in the community.

That's what the communists in China and Russia used to do - demonise the successful, the landowners, the intellectuals and the hard working - stoking the politics of envy and jealousy.

We all know what happened to Communist China and Russia after that - miserable societies with no colour and standard of living.

So remember this well when you enter the ballot box in October :

The Left in NZ is all about "Study Hard, Work Hard and Save Hard so we can take from you to give to those who don't."

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/52aca146e4b06d986ca82df3/1691612681811-D9LMARSVE48IZHOKQCOA/Organ+grinders.jpg?format=500w

The only thing that the Left are capable of doing is breeding envy and hate and violence, all based on Karl Marx's flawed misunderstanding of human society.

[justakiwi]

I'm starting to think you and Balance are the same person. Either that, or his negative personality traits have worn off on you.


The only thing that the Left are capable of doing is breeding envy and hate and violence, all based on Karl Marx's flawed misunderstanding of human society.

[Balance]

The only thing that the Left are capable of doing is breeding envy and hate and violence, all based on Karl Marx's flawed misunderstanding of human society.

NZ has had nearly 6 years now of Labour/Green attacking anyone and whole sectors of NZ societies for the failings of Ardern, Hipkins and Robertson to deliver on the huge promises they made to get elected.

Those who are successful and contribute greatly to NZ by providing jobs, uplifting living standards and providing shelter & food have been the targets of the obscene attacks :

Farmers

Property owners

Landlords

Industrialists

And what has this Labour led government delivered?

Nothing but worse outcomes for the hundreds of billions of dollars spent. Money taken from hard working and successful NZers paying their taxes, and being Labour, a lot of borrowings.

And we have Labour shills here pushing the message that those who are wealthy and are successful are somehow greedy and selfish!

If that is not communist ideology, what is?

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/52aca146e4b06d986ca82df3/1691100335060-VCWQ5NZMSCF2M6DZKW7L/The+Book.jpg?format=500w

https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/4/z/1/v/m/m/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.1420x800 .25oafb.png/1668638184632.jpg?format=pjpg&optimize=medium

https://files.libcom.org/files/styles/wide/public/images/history/flag-lenin-stalin.png?itok=5QIgS4vA

[Logen Ninefingers]

I'm starting to think you and Balance are the same person. Either that, or his negative personality traits have worn off on you.

You may be stoked at the crime ridden, divided, economically screwed place New Zealand has become thanks to the Left, but I’m not.

[justakiwi]

It is not your political views I have an issue with. It is the intolerance and disrespect you direct at people who do not agree with your views. Just stop with the nasty lefty comments. They are unnecessary and do nothing for your credibility or argument. You both just make yourselves look pathetic, like a certain deranged ex President does.



You may be stoked at the crime ridden, divided, economically screwed place New Zealand has become thanks to the Left, but I’m not.

[Aaron]

It is not your political views I have an issue with. It is the intolerance and disrespect you direct at people who do not agree with your views. Just stop with the nasty lefty comments. They are unnecessary and do nothing for your credibility or argument. You both just make yourselves look pathetic, like a certain deranged ex President does.

I was thinking with all Logen's emotional and emotive language he might consider a career in the main stream media. Making mountains out of molehills seems to be a requirement these days.

[Balance]

I'm starting to think you and Balance are the same person. Either that, or his negative personality traits have worn off on you.

Where have Hipkins, Ardern, Robertson and the Labour Party made a big positive difference to the lives of NZers in the last 6 years since the likes of you, JAK, voted them into power?

Education?

Health?

Law & Order?

Housing?

Race relations?

Cost of living?

And we have Labour shills here with their shameless & bankrupt audacity to try & poison public opinion against those who contribute year in, year out to the betterment of NZers?

The ideology of communism in full display.

[justakiwi]

Go back and read my post properly. I said, I have no issue with your views. I even agree with some of them. My issue is with the way you make things personal, with constant disrespectful comments directed at those you perceive as lefties. Your language is downright nasty at times, and it is not necessary.

Be a grown up.


Where have Hipkins, Ardern, Robertson and the Labour Party made a big positive difference to the lives of NZers in the last 6 years since the likes of you, JAK, voted them into power?

Education?

Health?

Law & Order?

Housing?

Race relations?

Cost of living?

And we have Labour shills here with their shameless & bankrupt audacity to try & poison public opinion against those who contribute year in, year out to the betterment of NZers?

The ideology of communism in full display.

[Balance]

And note how Hipkins now shy away from any mention of COVID?

Wasn’t that the huge positive which landed them a landslide in 2020?

Why isn’t Hipkins talking up his and Labour’s Covid ‘successes’?

History will judge the actions taken by the Ardern government harshly - it was all about the optics to the detriment of NZers.

[Balance]

Go back and read my post properly. I said, I have no issue with your views. I even agree with some of them. My issue is with the way you make things personal, with constant disrespectful comments directed at those you perceive as lefties. Your language is downright nasty at times, and it is not necessary.

Be a grown up.

Your choose, JAK, to suffer fools. That’s your choice.

I do not and I have no intention to overlook the sort of garbage which comes from the Labour shills on ST.

Examples :

‘Ban mobiles in schools and go back yo the Stone Age.’

‘Embrace Maori culture as NZ has no other culture to identify with.’

‘12,000 new state houses built by Labour.’

‘Right due to TOW’

Etc

Etc

Can you point to any BS or lies written by other than the Labour shills?

[justakiwi]

You literally never actually address the comments I make to you. Your response is to always deflect back to your own agenda without ever acknowledging the points I make.

I honestly do not understand you Balance. Once in a blue moon I get a fleeting glimpse of somebody I could actually like, but those glimpses are like warm breath on a frosty day. Gone in a puff of wind. The rest of the time you are obnoxious, mean, disrespectful, rude and arrogant, with zero empathy, tolerance or perspective. You seem incapable of seeing your own behaviour the way others see it. I don't know why you are like this, but this negative/unlikeable side of you, completely annihilates the "good" stuff you sometimes have to contribute here. I just don't get it.

I keep doing this, in the completely ridiculous hope that I can find just a little bit of humanity buried deep within your angry soul. That maybe, just maybe, I will find a modicum of genuine niceness in you. But I am always disappointed. I am such an idiot for continuing to hope for that. It is a personality fault - mine, not yours.

You have a nice day my friend.


Your choose, JAK, to suffer fools. That’s your choice.

I do not and I have no intention to overlook the sort of garbage which comes from the Labour shills on ST.

Examples :

‘Ban mobiles in schools and go back yo the Stone Age.’

‘Embrace Maori culture as NZ has no other culture to identify with.’

‘12,000 new state houses built by Labour.’

‘Right due to TOW’

Etc

Etc

Can you point to any BS or lies written by other than the Labour shills?

[Logen Ninefingers]

It is not your political views I have an issue with. It is the intolerance and disrespect you direct at people who do not agree with your views. Just stop with the nasty lefty comments. They are unnecessary and do nothing for your credibility or argument. You both just make yourselves look pathetic, like a certain deranged ex President does.

Mate, its you calling people ‘pathetic’ and ‘deranged’, and perhaps you should go back and review the comments you’ve made about David Seymour. ‘None so blind’ and all that….

Nothing nasty about calling someone a ‘lefty’, many will actually be very proud to be called a lefty.

I have no idea what you stand for. You seem to flip flop all over the place and probably won’t make up your mind until a nanosecond before the marker touches the ballot paper. If I think that’s wishy washy, so be it. At least I’m not calling you ‘pathetic’.

[ithaka]

Just had a look this morning Simon Wilson's is an opinion piece. Hope you are not so sensitive and close minded that you can't stand to hear a differing opinion on the world even if you don't agree.

His column is usually too long and wordy for me. Here is a taste though, probably behind the paywall but you would expect opinions are free.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/election-2023-simon-wilson-on-flying-tax-profits-and-potholes/MML4NU4TRNFGFCE6LKGQ7D65MU/

In other revelations last week, RNZ reported that since 2021, National has received 7.5 times more large donations than Labour.
That’s $8,206,101 against $1,085, 563. Act received $4,236,393.
Why, really, are those big donors pouring their money into National and Act’s coffers? It’s not about personal tax, is it?
Labour has failed to introduce genuinely progressive tax reform, although they know the surveys say it would be popular. But I imagine they also know - have always known - that any attempt to do this would be met by a wall of money. Superwealthy donors would spend whatever it takes to prevent it happening.
Donors who don’t want the fairer society Labour hopes for and the Greens and Te Pāti Māori have the policies to help achieve, because it would cost them a bit more of their own money.
Labour doesn’t want anyone to build that wall. The tragedy is, it’s there anyway. The money’s in.

Reprehensible????

To quote David Seymour

The fact that they are wealthy doesn’t mean they know more about policies. It does mean that they have got the ability to put the hand in their own pocket and help others should they choose.

Looks like they are digging deep to ensure policies that will be to their own benefit.

I am constantly attacking boomers but maybe my target should be the country’s wealthiest 1% who own more than a quarter of the country’s wealth and pay about half the tax rate of the average kiwi on their overall earnings and capital gains.

The amount of money they are pouring in to their representatives at ACT might indicate that at least some wealthy people are greedy.
"In 2020, the big money went to Labour rather than National, with National only declaring $285,000 of big donations."

https://democracyproject.nz/2023/08/25/bryce-edwards-who-is-funding-national-to-victory/

[Aaron]

"In 2020, the big money went to Labour rather than National, with National only declaring $285,000 of big donations."

https://democracyproject.nz/2023/08/25/bryce-edwards-who-is-funding-national-to-victory/


Interesting link blows my selfish wealthy person theory out of the water. Well sort of... according to Bryce Edwards the big donors tend to back the party most likely to win. I guess you can't buy influence if the party you backed is in opposition.

Also in April 2019 Jacinda had already declared there would be no capital gains tax while she is prime minister, much like John Key before her. Chris Hipkins left his run too late to make the same declaration, David Parker had already scared them off and co governance and govt waste may have also sealed their fate.

Also the point that Labour should be campaigning on their successes is valid. Why aren't they highlighting these. What are they??

Nationals tax policy out tomorrow I think. Lets see what tinkering they can come up with to make them sound more appealing. Something better than taking GST off fruit and vegetables I hope.

[davflaws]

Writes davflaws, the Labour shill who believes that a NZer is without culture unless he is Maori or embraces Maori culture.

Kiss my arse.
I guess that makes davflaws a racist?

It might if that was actually my position. It isn't, and never has been, and Balance has repeatedly been told so and asked to justify his claim. He couldn't, and in truth, he isn't interested in any real engagement on any political or social topic.

His hatred of and contempt for the majority of ordinary New Zealanders overwhelms his rationality and blinds him to any information favourable to any position to the left of his own. He is not stupid, and (I suspect) not particularly racist except insofar as he is convinced (rightly) that racebaiting, attacking "woke" ideas, and dogwhistling about transgender and rainbow issues have become potent political weapons for the right. Effectively, he is a troll,and I try not to feed him.


I used to be neutral towards Maori culture (I am not a Maori and am very proud of my colonial culture and heritage) and can see the good in other cultures and the diversity and different views on life as being interesting.



I currently describe myself as a racist in recovery.

I grew up with lots of racist attitudes and beliefs without realising it, but I don't feel guilty about that. As a middle class pakeha born in 1945, that was inevitable.

I was educated in an overwhelmingly pakeha culture and I grew up believing I knew all about Maoris. After all - we had three at Wellington College and my mother had taught in Ruatoria, and I knew the words of the school haka (ka mate) and could sing Pokarekare ana. But I knew a hell of a lot more about one great great grandfather as a judge in the raj and another as a colonial property developer than I did about NZ History or Maori culture.

It was not until my mid twenties that I actually got to meet a significant number of Maori. They were very tolerant of my ignorance and arrogance, and very gentle in their attempts to teach me something of their culture and to show me something of the reality of their lives.

Twenty years later, when I found myself dealing with problems of social disadvantage on a policy level as well as at the "pain face", I saw very clearly that many of the problems faced by the brown majority of our underclass cannot be successfully addressed (and were not despite over a hundred years of trying) in a monocultural pakeha framework.

I am proud (just a bit 'cos I am prone to arrogant prickery) to have been part of the change in direction towards devolution of governance and resources to tangata whenua, and the success that that particular change in policy direction has brought about. I hope it continues, and I would encourage you to try to decouple "race issues" from your (perfectly reasonable and understandable) desire to see a change of Govt. Unless ACT have a big influence, nothing much will change except emphasis and some of the words, because devolution of governance and resources works, and people who work at a policy level know it.

[causecelebre]

And note how Hipkins now shy away from any mention of COVID?

Wasn’t that the huge positive which landed them a landslide in 2020?

Why isn’t Hipkins talking up his and Labour’s Covid ‘successes’?

History will judge the actions taken by the Ardern government harshly - it was all about the optics to the detriment of NZers.

Yes interesting. It will be equally interesting to see the turnout of the voting ex-pats who were not part of the "team of 5 million"

[causecelebre]

... according to Bryce Edwards the big donors tend to back the party most likely to win. I guess you can't buy influence if the party you backed is in opposition.

Indeed, so much so that Helen Clarke is running a personal telethon to drum up donations. Given she needs to do this has the whiff of desperation and doesn't bode well given your (correct) theory above

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/election-2023-helen-clark-backed-labour-donation-drive-hits-400k-in-a-week/OMRAK7KFNNHWVEWII2MZ3HWJIA/

[Logen Ninefingers]

Indeed, so much so that Helen Clarke is running a personal telethon to drum up donations. Given she needs to do this has the whiff of desperation and doesn't bode well given your (correct) theory above

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/election-2023-helen-clark-backed-labour-donation-drive-hits-400k-in-a-week/OMRAK7KFNNHWVEWII2MZ3HWJIA/

The wealthy ex-PM Helen Clark wants to ensure a Labour government so that she can enjoy GST-free fruit and vegetables.

[Logen Ninefingers]

The hit pieces on ACT continue. One News has been trawling through old social media comments, digging for dirt. And they’ve found that Mark Cameron from ACT has previously said a bunch of things including calling JA ‘an IQ lightweight’. He was made to give a grovelling apology, David Seymour was hounded for comment, and Keiran McAnulty was allowed to chip in with a couple of comments as was Gorrilaz Golriman.

Then it was on to Rawiri Waititi and his suspension from Parliament….a story given the once-over-lightly in a 5 second piece.

The bias is clear and obvious, sadly.

[jonu]

The hit pieces on ACT continue. One News has been trawling through old social media comments, digging for dirt. And they’ve found that Mark Cameron from ACT has previously said a bunch of things including calling JA ‘an IQ lightweight’. He was made to give a grovelling apology, David Seymour was hounded for comment, and Keiran McAnulty was allowed to chip in with a couple of comments as was Gorrilaz Golriman.

Then it was on to Rawiri Waititi and his suspension from Parliament….a story given the once-over-lightly in a 5 second piece.

The bias is clear and obvious, sadly.

Ardern is a lightweight. Why on earth would he apologise?

[dln]

TBF, he looked like he'd turned up unarmed, to a battle of wits.

[Balance]

Ardern is a lightweight. Why on earth would he apologise?

She is not fit to kiss his arse.

The most useless and clueless PM NZ was cursed with. And when she ran out of BS and spin, she said she ran out of gas and fled. What a loser.

[fungus pudding]

She is not fit to kiss his arse.

The most useless and clueless PM NZ was cursed with. And when she ran out of BS and spin, she said she ran out of gas and fled. What a loser.

Let me guess. Did you not like her?

[Logen Ninefingers]

Let me guess. Did you not like her?

These days you can be crucified if found to have called (Saint) JA an ‘IQ lightweight’ some years ago, but Te Pati claiming that Maori are genetically superior is met with a yawn. Strange times we are living through.

[Daytr]

These days you can be crucified if found to have called (Saint) JA an ‘IQ lightweight’ some years ago, but Te Pati claiming that Maori are genetically superior is met with a yawn. Strange times we are living through.

And yet Ardern ran rings around her opposites in the debating chamber. She consistantly made Bridges, Collins, Muller & Luxon look like fools in question time.

Love or hate Ardern she was no intellectual lightweight as some scum peddlers on here espouse.

She also led a world leading response to the pandemic again despite what the conspiracy reabbit warren dwellers want you to think. If National had been in power under their leadership at the time it would have been a complete disaster and many more people would have lost their lives.

I find it amasing six months after she has left office, which I agree needed to happen as she couldn't get out of crisis mode, that the ferals are still harping on about her.

It's a pity people can't criticise whilst showing due respect. This ugly character assassination and in Ardern's case its obvious misogyny, as she has copped it far more than anyone else, says more about the poster than the subject.

[Logen Ninefingers]

And yet Ardern ran rings around her opposites in the debating chamber. She consistantly made Bridges, Collins, Muller & Luxon look like fools in question time.

Love or hate Ardern she was no intellectual lightweight as some scum peddlers on here espouse.

She also led a world leading response to the pandemic again despite what the conspiracy reabbit warren dwellers want you to think. If National had been in power under their leadership at the time it would have been a complete disaster and many more people would have lost their lives.

I find it amasing six months after she has left office, which I agree needed to happen as she couldn't get out of crisis mode, that the ferals are still harping on about her.

It's a pity people can't criticise whilst showing due respect. This ugly character assassination and in Ardern's case its obvious misogyny, as she has copped it far more than anyone else, says more about the poster than the subject.

Nah, calling someone an ‘IQ lightweight’ is pretty mild, and a handful of people would have read the comment when it was posted. Trust a lefty like you to start shrieking about ‘misogyny’.

[ynot]

And yet Ardern ran rings around her opposites in the debating chamber. She consistantly made Bridges, Collins, Muller & Luxon look like fools in question time.

Love or hate Ardern she was no intellectual lightweight as some scum peddlers on here espouse.

She also led a world leading response to the pandemic again despite what the conspiracy reabbit warren dwellers want you to think. If National had been in power under their leadership at the time it would have been a complete disaster and many more people would have lost their lives.

I find it amasing six months after she has left office, which I agree needed to happen as she couldn't get out of crisis mode, that the ferals are still harping on about her.

It's a pity people can't criticise whilst showing due respect. This ugly character assassination and in Ardern's case its obvious misogyny, as she has copped it far more than anyone else, says more about the poster than the subject.
Ardern is a lightweight. No more than an oppourtunist who acted well beyond her mandates. Dangerous is a description she well deserves.

[iceman]

And yet Ardern ran rings around her opposites in the debating chamber. She consistantly made Bridges, Collins, Muller & Luxon look like fools in question time.

Love or hate Ardern she was no intellectual lightweight as some scum peddlers on here espouse.

She also led a world leading response to the pandemic again despite what the conspiracy reabbit warren dwellers want you to think. If National had been in power under their leadership at the time it would have been a complete disaster and many more people would have lost their lives.

I find it amasing six months after she has left office, which I agree needed to happen as she couldn't get out of crisis mode, that the ferals are still harping on about her.

It's a pity people can't criticise whilst showing due respect. This ugly character assassination and in Ardern's case its obvious misogyny, as she has copped it far more than anyone else, says more about the poster than the subject.

She ran rings around the nation with lies and misinformation. She was a terrible PM as she herself realised and did a runner and her "world leading response to the pandemic" was madness that we are paying for dearly at the moment. It achieved absolutely nothing other than misery after the first year or so.

[fizzletop]

Due respect is earned. Ardern did not earn it. Whilst she was good at communicating and spin, she was a completely ineffectual PM. Calling her a lightweight is being generous.

[fungus pudding]

Due respect is earned. Ardern did not earn it. Whilst she was good at communicating and spin, she was a completely ineffectual PM. Calling her a lightweight is being generous.

Aw - come on. Compared to Wallace Rowling she wasn't all that bad!

[Balance]

Aw - come on. Compared to Wallace Rowling she wasn't all that bad!

Whatever Rowling was, he was not a BS artist and spin merchant unlike Ardern.

He also did not make huge promises and failed to deliver on the promises unlike Ardern.

In other words, she is not fit to lick his arse.

[Daytr]

Ardern is a lightweight. No more than an oppourtunist who acted well beyond her mandates. Dangerous is a description she well deserves.


She ran rings around the nation with lies and misinformation. She was a terrible PM as she herself realised and did a runner and her "world leading response to the pandemic" was madness that we are paying for dearly at the moment. It achieved absolutely nothing other than misery after the first year or so.


As expected the rabbit warren dwellers have been triggered.

[Balance]

As expected the rabbit warren dwellers have been triggered.

Daytr - once an arsehole Labour shill, always an arsehole.

[Daytr]

Due respect is earned. Ardern did not earn it. Whilst she was good at communicating and spin, she was a completely ineffectual PM. Calling her a lightweight is being generous.

So you don't think she managed the pandemic well? The rest of the world look at us with envy.

[Balance]

So you don't think she managed the pandemic well? The rest of the world look at us with envy.

Not any more they don’t.

In fact, Hipkins is so embarrassed about how Ardern (& he & Labour) handled the pandemic that he does not even want to mention it in the lead up to the election.

Daytr - once an arsehole, always an arsehole.

[davflaws]

In other words, she is not fit to lick his arse.

I normally try to ignore Balance's bile and nastiness, but a disturbing number of his recent posts refer to arse licking and kissing. Has he recently developed a new interest?

[Balance]

I normally try to ignore Balance's bile and nastiness, but a disturbing number of his recent posts refer to arse licking and kissing. Has he recently developed a new interest?

From davflaws who believes that a NZer has no culture or heritage unless they are a Maori or adopt Maori culture.

[fizzletop]

Not sure how you compare these two. Sir Bill was an affable good guy who certainly didn't have evil intent. More harmless than lightweight. Ardern is in a completely different category. I will leave it there.

[Daytr]

Whatever Rowling was, he was not a BS artist and spin merchant unlike Ardern.

He also did not make huge promises and failed to deliver on the promises unlike Ardern.

In other words, she is not fit to lick his arse.


Daytr - once an arsehole Labour shill, always an arsehole.


Not any more they don’t.

In fact, Hipkins is so embarrassed about how Ardern (& he & Labour) handled the pandemic that he does not even want to mention it in the lead up to the election.

Daytr - once an arsehole, always an arsehole.

Three posts in a row of insults & drivel.
Your posts are starting to become filthy.
Reported.

[Daytr]

Nah, calling someone an ‘IQ lightweight’ is pretty mild, and a handful of people would have read the comment when it was posted. Trust a lefty like you to start shrieking about ‘misogyny’.

Mild in comparison to some of the filth put out on here.

Trying to undermine someone's intelligence especially someone who is clearly intelligent, whether you like them or not, is real classy.
And yes representative of the barrage of misogynistic hate against Ardern that is trotted out here on a regular basis.

It's amasing what people think is OK to say when they think their identity is hidden. Note I said "think" as some people have clearly identified themselves through their posts.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Mild in comparison to some of the filth put out on here.

Trying to undermine someone's intelligence especially someone who is clearly intelligent, whether you like them or not, is real classy.
And yes representative of the barrage of misogynistic hate against Ardern that is trotted out here on a regular basis.

It's amasing what people think is OK to say when they think their identity is hidden. Note I said "think" as some people have clearly identified themselves through their posts.

Calling someone an IQ lightweight is very mild, and probably an honest personal opinion. People are allowed to have opinions.

[Balance]

Clueless Cindy has done more damage to NZ in 5 years than any leader has done to NZ ever.

So much so that even the ‘chip off Ardern block’ Hipkins is distancing himself from her, her legacy and has nothing good to say anymore about her. In fact, he has been busy setting fire to her failed policies and initiatives.

NZers saw through her fortunately in 2022 and even the empty headed BS artist that she is, she could see the writing on the wall.

Nothing left in the tank, she pleaded as she fled. There was nothing there except BS and spin in the first place!

[Daytr]

Calling someone an IQ lightweight is very mild, and probably an honest personal opinion. People are allowed to have opinions.

No honesty in it at all.
Yes we are allowed opinions including me. 😉

But no I can't because I'm a Labour shill...🙄

One judging another's intellect when in all likelihood their own intellect is far inferior to the one being judged, is hardly an opinion worth consideration.

[Logen Ninefingers]

No honesty in it at all.
Yes we are allowed opinions including me. 😉

But no I can't because I'm a Labour shill...🙄

One judging another's intellect when in all likelihood their own intellect is far inferior to the one being judged, is hardly an opinion worth consideration.

It is still an opinion, it is still mild, and we still have free speech in New Zealand.

[Daytr]

It is still an opinion, it is still mild, and we still have free speech in New Zealand.

Yes as daft as they maybe.

And trying to undermind someone's mental capability is not mild, it's sinister & devious & in this case many of the posters have displayed their misogyny. If you want to be part of that ilk so be it but you will be tarred with the same brush for defending them.

Honestly the base level of these political threads is embarrassingly low.
There you go, there's an opinion.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Yes as daft as they maybe.

And trying to undermind someone's mental capability is not mild, it's sinister & devious & in this case many of the posters have displayed their misogyny. If you want to be part of that ilk so be it but you will be tarred with the same brush for defending them.

Honestly the base level of these political threads is embarrassingly low.
There you go, there's an opinion.

You are becoming hysterical again, unfortunately.

[Daytr]

You are becoming hysterical again, unfortunately.

Interesting choice of words.
Hysteria is another term that is used to undermine women

[Balance]

Interesting choice of words.
Hysteria is another term that is used to undermine women

Who cares?

Hipkins does not know what a woman is so is Ardern even a woman?

One thing for sure - she is clueless and useless.

And Hipkins is cursing her daily.

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/52aca146e4b06d986ca82df3/1691960708600-UG26J14Z1R0980UEVHNN/Bedtime.jpg?format=2500w

[iceman]

So you don't think she managed the pandemic well? The rest of the world look at us with envy.

Utter nonsense. Talk about “rabbit warren dwellers”. Take your blinkers off and go travelling. You’ll be disappointed that nobody remembers who Jacinda is and the NZ pandemic response is joked about.

[Daytr]

Utter nonsense. Talk about “rabbit warren dwellers”. Take your blinkers off and go travelling. You’ll be disappointed that nobody remembers who Jacinda is and the NZ pandemic response is joked about.

Quite well traveled before & after thank you & have many friends all around the world that I regularly correspond with & no that's not the feedback I get at all.
Many parts of Australia & Europe were in lockdown for the best part of a year.

[westerly]

I normally try to ignore Balance's bile and nastiness, but a disturbing number of his recent posts refer to arse licking and kissing. Has he recently developed a new interest?

The man, if he is one, obviously has serious mental health problems.

westerly

[dobby41]

The man, if he is one, obviously has serious mental health problems.

westerly

He's off his meds again unfortunately.

[Balance]

He's off his meds again unfortunately.

Yawn - from dobby41 whose one source of truth is Clueless Cindy.

Very very satisfying to see Cindy being sidelined by Hipkins who is blaming the useless red witch for all the disasters bedevilling Labour & NZ. :t_up:

[dobby41]

Yawn - from dobby41 whose one source of truth is Clueless Cindy.

Very very satisfying to see Cindy being sidelined by Hipkins who is blaming the useless red witch for all the disasters bedevilling Labour & NZ. :t_up:
You said it yourself best when you said

Does not matter what I think.

[Balance]

Clueless Cindy is my hero and my one source of truth

Yawn.

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/52aca146e4b06d986ca82df3/1691100335060-VCWQ5NZMSCF2M6DZKW7L/The+Book.jpg?format=500w

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/52aca146e4b06d986ca82df3/1640045900608-C3KLVP6AU2G0VNQSH571/glove+puppet.jpg?format=500w

[Panda-NZ-]

He's off his meds again unfortunately.

Best give him a colouring book with all his tremain favourites.

Paint by numbers :)

[Balance]

Best give him a colouring book with all his tremain favourites.

Paint by numbers :)

Panda-nz - Labour shill (& BS artist) who asserts that France & Australia are going back to the stone age because they ban mobiles from schools.

Yawn.

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/52aca146e4b06d986ca82df3/1691612681811-D9LMARSVE48IZHOKQCOA/Organ+grinders.jpg?format=500w

[Aaron]

Hilarious cartoon in the herald this morning.

Did you see it Logen or have you stopped your herald subscription?

I wonder why Dilbert was there as he is always fighting against the corporation. I would have thought Scrooge McDuck would have been funnier and more appropriate.

[Entrep]

David Seymour stands for COMMON SENSE.


“People are tired of accusations of racism. It is a very serious accusation and people who make it need to explain what it is that I have ever said or done they believe is racist,” the Act leader said.

“Racism is treating someone differently because of their race. It is a strange irony that we are called racist for criticising Government policies that treat people differently because of their race.

“There are Māori and Pacific people who are doing extremely [well] and there are non-Maori and non-Pacific people who are having problems.”

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/willie-jackson-david-seymour-is-aotearoas-most-dangerous-man/XHKGEOU36RC35AFEU2T3JBOWTI/

[ithaka]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/willie-jackson-david-seymour-is-aotearoas-most-dangerous-man/XHKGEOU36RC35AFEU2T3JBOWTI/
"Māori Development Minister Willie Jackson says in his opinion Act leader David Seymour - who he once described as a useless Māori - is the country’s most dangerous man"
There are a growing number of people who believe Willie Jackson is the country's most dangerous man.

[Balance]

"Māori Development Minister Willie Jackson says in his opinion Act leader David Seymour - who he once described as a useless Māori - is the country’s most dangerous man"
There are a growing number of people who believe Willie Jackson is the country's most dangerous man.

Excellent stuff!

This will galvanize more and more fair minded white middle class NZers to vote ACT so that these Maori elites are put in their place.

Roll on October 2023!

[Aaron]

David Seymour stands for COMMON SENSE.

Reminds me of Winston Peters and NZ first.

Thanks to a commonsense ACT supporter I know to be careful this summer as I am vaccinated. "Gilchrist apologised when comments he'd made linking a spate of drownings to the Covid vaccine resurfaced online."

Although I agree with the anti Maori stuff the selfish tax policy puts me off. Not sure that smaller govt and lower taxes and trickle down economics is the answer to everything, but neither is higher taxation and more govt waste a solution.

I suspect weak leaders pandering to the most selfish, deluded and angry people is putting a lot of people off these elections altogether.

Regarding co-governance and race base policy for hospital waiting lists. It makes me feel a bit like a second class citizen in my own country. If this is how Maori have felt for the last 200 years I can now understand why they are so angry. Unfortunately two wrongs don't make a right.

[whatsup]

Todays N Z Herald ( fishnchip wrapper lefty rag ) has a so called cartoon, very poor taste, for balance I wonder when the cartoon artist will produce one of the labour lackies, Ive been waiting for 6 years now of this current mob and nothing produced so far. NOT CONSISTANT imo.

Always remember, " the left is a lie " !!

[fungus pudding]

Todays N Z Herald ( fishnchip wrapper lefty rag ) has a so called cartoon, very poor taste, for balance I wonder when the cartoon artist will produce one of the labour lackies, Ive been waiting for 6 years now of this current mob and nothing produced so far. NOT CONSISTANT imo.

Always remember, " the left is a lie " !!

I suppose we have to take your word for it as it's obviously too much trouble to post it.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Reminds me of Winston Peters and NZ first.

Thanks to a commonsense ACT supporter I know to be careful this summer as I am vaccinated. "Gilchrist apologised when comments he'd made linking a spate of drownings to the Covid vaccine resurfaced online."

Although I agree with the anti Maori stuff the selfish tax policy puts me off. Not sure that smaller govt and lower taxes and trickle down economics is the answer to everything, but neither is higher taxation and more govt waste a solution.

I suspect weak leaders pandering to the most selfish, deluded and angry people is putting a lot of people off these elections altogether.

Regarding co-governance and race base policy for hospital waiting lists. It makes me feel a bit like a second class citizen in my own country. If this is how Maori have felt for the last 200 years I can now understand why they are so angry. Unfortunately two wrongs don't make a right.

I’ve never understood the Left and their insistence on calling everything ‘trickle down’. Surely a prosperous society is one that pays more tax overall, and can better afford a social welfare support system. I would have thought that was evident, but apparently not. Or does the left expect that every welfare beneficiary would be living like a millionaire if so-called ‘trickle down’ worked well?
Rather that use these hackneyed terms like ‘selfish’, ‘fair’, and ‘trickle down’, perhaps the left could elaborate on what they truly expect, and is it really their expectation that a long-term beneficiary would live in the lap of luxury?

Secondly, when has Grant Robertson ever said that he needs more revenue. My understanding is that - prior to the recent post-budget slump of this year - the government had been collecting an extra $100 million a day due to bracket creep and a healthy corporate tax take. (‘Trickle down’ seemingly working well). And we know that Labour are borrowing huge amounts of money. So isn’t it a total fallacy to suggest that Labour would have delivered something akin to utopia ‘if only there was a wealth tax’?

[Logen Ninefingers]

I suppose we have to take your word for it as it's obviously too much trouble to post it.

Something about Seymours real friends including such luminaries as evil Springfield magnate Monty Burns. Yes, it’s a full-on left wing attack on ACT and National for 7 days out of every week. ‘Stuff’ you’d expect it of, but the editor at the Herald is truly gutless and steering his paper towards ruin.

(Somewhere a left winger is yowling “TREEEMAAAIIIIN!!!!)

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/rod-emmersons-cartoons-week-of-september-4-10/YMA4FG6WK5AW7BQ7HLUR2NYSSI/

[Logen Ninefingers]

Hilarious cartoon in the herald this morning.

Did you see it Logen or have you stopped your herald subscription?

I wonder why Dilbert was there as he is always fighting against the corporation. I would have thought Scrooge McDuck would have been funnier and more appropriate.

I’ll never give so much as a single dollar to the Herald, and if Stuff ever disappears behind a paywall then I think Stuff itself will disappear in short order as well.

[Panda-NZ-]

Fair is at a minimum paying at least the same percentage tax rate on all income compared to an average worker. Though, ideally more if a tax system is progressive.

Not making an already regressive tax system like NZ's worse.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Fair is at a minimmum paying at least the same percentage tax rate on all income compared to an average worker. Though, ideally more if a tax system is progressive.

Not making an already regressive tax system like NZ's worse.

I gather the Left want to tax *unrealised* capital gains. This is how they calculate that the system is ‘unfair’. Anyway, Lefty’s spend their whole lives fretting over ‘fair’ and yearning for revolution; with every intervention left wing governments do to try to make things ‘fair’, the law of unintended consequences kicks in and you get greater distortions and problems.

Let’s also consider that you’re average ‘wealthy’ property owner has to shoulder the burden for funding local government themselves, while the ‘poor’ renter does not. Hey, is that ‘fair’? Is it fair that an elderly person on govt superannuation sees their rates bill go up by 14% while they struggle with a cost of living crisis? What’s ‘fair’ about that?

[Panda-NZ-]

I would be OK with National's tax plan..

IF it was funded by a CGT with a 2% one off solidarity surchage (ie wealth tax ;) ) on Net assets over $5m to cover the revenue gap until it kicks in.

[Panda-NZ-]

Though they're not interested in any new ideas just the same old stuff we've heard for 40 years.

Their only environmental agenda is recycling bad policies.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Though they're not interested in any new ideas just the same old stuff we've heard for 40 years.

Their only environmental agenda is recycling bad policies.

NZ is responsible for 0.17% of global emissions. China is set to increase its emissions all the way up to 2030 (7 years away). But blame National for global climate change if it makes you feel better.

[Aaron]

I’ve never understood the Left and their insistence on calling everything ‘trickle down’. Surely a prosperous society is one that pays more tax overall, and can better afford a social welfare support system. I would have thought that was evident, but apparently not. Or does the left expect that every welfare beneficiary would be living like a millionaire if so-called ‘trickle down’ worked well?
Rather that use these hackneyed terms like ‘selfish’, ‘fair’, and ‘trickle down’, perhaps the left could elaborate on what they truly expect, and is it really their expectation that a long-term beneficiary would live in the lap of luxury?

Secondly, when has Grant Robertson ever said that he needs more revenue. My understanding is that - prior to the recent post-budget slump of this year - the government had been collecting an extra $100 million a day due to bracket creep and a healthy corporate tax take. (‘Trickle down’ seemingly working well). And we know that Labour are borrowing huge amounts of money. So isn’t it a total fallacy to suggest that Labour would have delivered something akin to utopia ‘if only there was a wealth tax’?

Maybe if I answer the second question first. A capital gains tax is not a panacea for everything wrong in the world (I appreciate you are prone to hyperbole though). It is a way to broaden the tax base so we can reduce the burden on hard working people running businesses or trading their time for money as we currently tax income not wealth. Maybe we could lower the GST rate.

One thing that has been happening is that a smaller and smaller amount of people are accruing a greater and greater amount of the wealth and income from society. I would suggest they are being amply rewarded despite what David Seymour and Richard Prebble think by the fact that the disparity in wealth and income continues to grow. I don't think it can be all put down to good looks and hard work as FP might suggest. In fact if they are just collecting rents or dividends then they are probably contributing very little to society other than providing the consumption for the people who are producing the goods and services. Do rentiers add much to productivity? I want to be a rentier but I don't think holding existing assets adds much to society. maybe if I had built the business myself but not just holding wealth and collecting rents and dividends.

Rather than trickle down we could call it the wealth effect. Do you think Adrian Orr did the country any favours pushing house prices to where they are? He explained why he did it, the "wealth effect" has this made the country better off? Has the wealth effect provided greater opportunities for our young people or has it entrenched the wealth divide and reduced social mobility?

Sorry to hear you can't afford a herald subscription, it is the preeminent source of information in NZ based on the awards it earns.

I need to stop posting now, like the main stream media, constantly talking about ACT and David Seymour only makes them more popular.

[ithaka]

I’ve never understood the Left and their insistence on calling everything ‘trickle down’. Surely a prosperous society is one that pays more tax overall, and can better afford a social welfare support system. I would have thought that was evident, but apparently not. Or does the left expect that every welfare beneficiary would be living like a millionaire if so-called ‘trickle down’ worked well?
Rather that use these hackneyed terms like ‘selfish’, ‘fair’, and ‘trickle down’, perhaps the left could elaborate on what they truly expect, and is it really their expectation that a long-term beneficiary would live in the lap of luxury?

Secondly, when has Grant Robertson ever said that he needs more revenue. My understanding is that - prior to the recent post-budget slump of this year - the government had been collecting an extra $100 million a day due to bracket creep and a healthy corporate tax take. (‘Trickle down’ seemingly working well). And we know that Labour are borrowing huge amounts of money. So isn’t it a total fallacy to suggest that Labour would have delivered something akin to utopia ‘if only there was a wealth tax’?

Left = Equality of outcome
Right = Equality of opportunity

Equality of outcome
- eliminates personal responsibility.
- diminishes the value of discipline, persistence and hard work.
- involves coercion by government by necessity.

[Panda-NZ-]

The best explanation I've come across is


Simplistic statements makes you the target demographic of phrases like "Back on Track", "Teaching the basics" etc. Congratulations :)

[Logen Ninefingers]

Maybe if I answer the second question first. A capital gains tax is not a panacea for everything wrong in the world (I appreciate you are prone to hyperbole though). It is a way to broaden the tax base so we can reduce the burden on hard working people running businesses or trading their time for money as we currently tax income not wealth. Maybe we could lower the GST rate.

One thing that has been happening is that a smaller and smaller amount of people are accruing a greater and greater amount of the wealth and income from society. I would suggest they are being amply rewarded despite what David Seymour and Richard Prebble think by the fact that the disparity in wealth and income continues to grow. I don't think it can be all put down to good looks and hard work as FP might suggest. In fact if they are just collecting rents or dividends then they are probably contributing very little to society other than providing the consumption for the people who are producing the goods and services. Do rentiers add much to productivity? I want to be a rentier but I don't think holding existing assets adds much to society. maybe if I had built the business myself but not just holding wealth and collecting rents and dividends.

Rather than trickle down we could call it the wealth effect. Do you think Adrian Orr did the country any favours pushing house prices to where they are? He explained why he did it, the "wealth effect" has this made the country better off? Has the wealth effect provided greater opportunities for our young people or has it entrenched the wealth divide and reduced social mobility?

Sorry to hear you can't afford a herald subscription, it is the preeminent source of information in NZ based on the awards it earns.

I need to stop posting now, like the main stream media, constantly talking about ACT and David Seymour only makes them more popular.

I agree with you that a CGT - had it been brought in 2 decades ago - would have broadened the tax base and resulted in a significant revenue windfall that *could* (though it may not have been) have been used to build much needed infrastructure. Sadly, the horse bolted with the gains many years ago. Today we have young people buying bog standard houses through raiding their KiwiSaver and a few other tricks and stretches - with an eye-popping mortgage by the way - and finding themselves in negative equity & on the sharp end of interest rate rises.

The ‘wealth effect’ was very much central bank driven and was very much the rage after the GFC when the Fed was coming up with creative ways to stave off a second ‘Great Depression’. So we got QE, ultra-low interest rates, and the focus on creating the ‘wealth effect’ artificially through boosting asset prices. The ‘wealth effect’ was about making people *feel* richer so that they went out and kept spending. And that’s the issue and the problem with the wealth effect: you are boosting peoples wealth ‘on paper’. And when they felt richer, they borrowed more to spend on consumer goods & they chucked cars and boats and travel on the mortgage by way of a ‘top up’. But now with real estate prices falling that ‘paper wealth’ is exposed & the consequences of that spending and borrowing are coming home to roost. The risk involved in the decisions these individuals (and households) took was much greater than what they had calculated it to be.

This is the issue with taking a risk - and maybe it’s something that the left wing mind finds it hard to consider as well; todays ‘rich prick’ might be tomorrows bankrupt.

I’m not paying anything to the Herald because I don’t support their clear political bias. Nothing to do with what I can and can’t afford. The number of awards a big fish in a small pool may or may not win is also not a factor for me. Emmerson is apparently an ‘award winning’ cartoonist: I find his style to be ugly, his humour to be as weak as water, and his bias to be readily apparent and over-bearing.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Simplistic statements makes you the target demographic of phrases like "Back on Track", "Teaching the basics" etc. Congratulations :)

Simplistic? Like ‘Let’s do this!’ (Let’s do what?) and ‘In it for YOU’ (in it for WHO?’) perhaps?

[Panda-NZ-]

Simplistic? Like ‘Let’s do this!’ (Let’s do what?) and ‘In it for YOU’ (in it for WHO?’) perhaps?

Yeah but it's everywhere for National.

Some are even supposed to be a policy. Let's also remember the silly pledge card.

[Aaron]

I agree with you that a CGT - had it been brought in 2 decades ago - would have broadened the tax base and resulted in a significant revenue windfall that *could* (though it may not have been) have been used to build much needed infrastructure. Sadly, the horse bolted with the gains many years ago. Today we have young people buying bog standard houses through raiding their KiwiSaver and a few other tricks and stretches - with an eye-popping mortgage by the way - and finding themselves in negative equity & on the sharp end of interest rate rises.

The ‘wealth effect’ was very much central bank driven and was very much the rage after the GFC when the Fed was coming up with creative ways to stave off a second ‘Great Depression’. So we got QE, ultra-low interest rates, and the focus on creating the ‘wealth effect’ artificially through boosting asset prices. The ‘wealth effect’ was about making people *feel* richer so that they went out and kept spending. And that’s the issue and the problem with the wealth effect: you are boosting peoples wealth ‘on paper’. And when they felt richer, they borrowed more to spend on consumer goods & they chucked cars and boats and travel on the mortgage by way of a ‘top up’. But now with real estate prices falling that ‘paper wealth’ is exposed & the consequences of that spending and borrowing are coming home to roost. The risk involved in the decisions these individuals (and households) took was much greater than what they had calculated it to be.

This is the issue with taking a risk - and maybe it’s something that the left wing mind finds it hard to consider as well; todays ‘rich prick’ might be tomorrows bankrupt.

I’m not paying anything to the Herald because I don’t support their clear political bias. Nothing to do with what I can and can’t afford. The number of awards a big fish in a small pool may or may not win is also not a factor for me. Emmerson is apparently an ‘award winning’ cartoonist: I find his style to be ugly, his humour to be as weak as water, and his bias to be readily apparent and over-bearing.

Ask a first home buyer whether the "paper" gains on real estate has mattered to them.

What really f*cks me off is when central banks keep stepping in every time the "risk takers" look like losing. Instead of "risk takers" suffering any downside in NZ we have a "cost of living" crisis whereby average conservative savers in term deposits are getting their wealth stolen from them through inflation to bail out the "risk takers" and the average hard working person's life is getting tougher through the inflation tax as we are all paying to bail out the "risk takers".

And as it turns out the risk takers are doing OK as long as the asset inflation stays ahead of the cost of living crisis.

[whatsup]

So what is wrong with being hard working, honest, successful , diligent , caring focused, generous AND rich ?

[Aaron]

So what is wrong with being hard working, honest, successful , diligent , caring focused, generous AND rich ?

Are you asking me???

Nothing is wrong with that. Why ask a stupid question or is it just rhetorical?

[Logen Ninefingers]

Ask a first home buyer whether the "paper" gains on real estate has mattered to them.

What really f*cks me off is when central banks keep stepping in every time the "risk takers" look like losing. Instead of "risk takers" suffering any downside in NZ we have a "cost of living" crisis whereby average conservative savers in term deposits are getting their wealth stolen from them through inflation to bail out the "risk takers" and the average hard working person's life is getting tougher through the inflation tax as we are all paying to bail out the "risk takers".

And as it turns out the risk takers are doing OK as long as the asset inflation stays ahead of the cost of living crisis.

In a nutshell, the central banks extended ‘too big to fail’ to encompass global property markets, thereby co-opting a much, much larger people into their dangerous monetary game than just the cabal of banksters of the GFC.

As I touched on, central bankers and people who went ‘all in’ on property didn’t actually think there was any *risk* at all involved with the deliberate inflating of asset prices: the central banks & governments had their back, and the belief was that asset prices would never (could never be allowed to) fall. The one event that brought the whole scheme undone was the kryptonite of the system: inflation. Inflation was thought to be dead and buried, a problem in previous decades but ‘this time is different’. Then it rose from the grave and made a massive comeback, and proved that history does always repeat.

[Panda-NZ-]

Inflation was thought to be dead and buried, a problem in previous decades but ‘this time is different’. Then it rose from the grave and made a massive comeback, and proved that history does always repeat.

It increased for one year, maybe two. It's only a big deal "today" because the middle class can afford to take even less of a hit than back then thanks to their more precarious situation .

[Logen Ninefingers]

It increased for one year, maybe two. It's only a big deal "today" because the middle class can afford to take even less of a hit than back then thanks to their more precarious situation .

Still running at 6%.

[whatsup]

Are you asking me???

Nothing is wrong with that. Why ask a stupid question or is it just rhetorical?

No Im not unless your part of the loonie left ?

[nztx]

It increased for one year, maybe two. It's only a big deal "today" because the middle class can afford to take even less of a hit than back then thanks to their more precarious situation .


The same Middle Class that are likely to now deliver the current desperate mob of Labour Incompetents and Green Clingons a king shot of massive proportions that won't be forgotten for decades ? ;)


Bring it on .. Labour have been just begging that Greater NZ deliver up something substantial, so the Comrades
can hide in peace unseen in the bottom of the large holes & potholes around now :)

[moka]

ACT's housing policy promises to scrap consent process again.

ACTS’s housing policy is definitely a backward step in my opinion. Allowing builders to opt out of building consents will do nothing to improve the quality of housing.

Builders would be able to opt out of council building consents too, which Seymour said would increase affordability and innovation. Innovation - yeah right! Cost cutting and lowering standards.

Seymour’s comment that “most of the time, people are trying to build houses in an old horse paddock where there is no biodiversity," ignores the fact that most protests are in established housing areas when there is redevelopment and intensification. As this headline in Stuff says 'Future slums' coming to your neighbourhood, residents' petition warns.’

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/300817211/future-slums-coming-to-your-neighbourhood-residents-petition-warns
(https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/300817211/future-slums-coming-to-your-neighbourhood-residents-petition-warns)
The ACT Party says it will allow builders to opt out of council building consents to improve the supply, quality and cost of housing.
Party leader David Seymour announced the housing policy today, which would also include scrapping the reformed Resource Management Act and using building insurance as an alternative to building consent authorities.

"Housing is still in crisis and Labour and National are equally responsible, it's time to stop demand-side policies that aren't working and set a target for supply," he said.

ACT calculated the country needed to build 51,000 homes annually for the next five years to meet demand, he said.
What we need is an overhaul of resource management law in New Zealand based on the assumption that you can do what you like on your property, so long as you are not harming your neighbours," Seymour said.

"We say if you can get it privately insured, you can build it. If you can't, maybe someone's trying to tell you something, but having the government trying to zone various parts of the country in or out and then making itself the de facto insurer is less efficient and counter-productive for everybody," Seymour said.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/497692/act-s-housing-policy-promises-to-scrap-consent-process-again

[fungus pudding]

ACT's housing policy promises to scrap consent process again.

ACTS’s housing policy is definitely a backward step in my opinion. Allowing builders to opt out of building consents will do nothing to improve the quality of housing.

Builders would be able to opt out of council building consents too, which Seymour said would increase affordability and innovation. Innovation - yeah right! Cost cutting and lowering standards.

Seymour’s comment that “most of the time, people are trying to build houses in an old horse paddock where there is no biodiversity," ignores the fact that most protests are in established housing areas when there is redevelopment and intensification. As this headline in Stuff says 'Future slums' coming to your neighbourhood, residents' petition warns.’

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/300817211/future-slums-coming-to-your-neighbourhood-residents-petition-warns
(https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/300817211/future-slums-coming-to-your-neighbourhood-residents-petition-warns)
The ACT Party says it will allow builders to opt out of council building consents to improve the supply, quality and cost of housing.
Party leader David Seymour announced the housing policy today, which would also include scrapping the reformed Resource Management Act and using building insurance as an alternative to building consent authorities.

"Housing is still in crisis and Labour and National are equally responsible, it's time to stop demand-side policies that aren't working and set a target for supply," he said.

ACT calculated the country needed to build 51,000 homes annually for the next five years to meet demand, he said.
What we need is an overhaul of resource management law in New Zealand based on the assumption that you can do what you like on your property, so long as you are not harming your neighbours," Seymour said.

"We say if you can get it privately insured, you can build it. If you can't, maybe someone's trying to tell you something, but having the government trying to zone various parts of the country in or out and then making itself the de facto insurer is less efficient and counter-productive for everybody," Seymour said.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/497692/act-s-housing-policy-promises-to-scrap-consent-process-again

I can't see anything against the insurance scheme. It gives developers an option, and a better option IMO. If they don't like it they can still run to the council, but I doubt many would.


"We say if you can get it privately insured, you can build it. If you can't, maybe someone's trying to tell you something"

[thegreatestben]

ACT housing policy not my favourite, my concern here would low quality social outcomes because developers bear no responsibility here (incl. Kainga Ora).
Also what's going to stop insurers from ending up taking the same position as Councils and refusing to insure for "innovative design and materials"?

[fungus pudding]

ACT housing policy not my favourite, my concern here would low quality social outcomes because developers bear no responsibility here (incl. Kainga Ora).
Also what's going to stop insurers from ending up taking the same position as Councils and refusing to insure for "innovative design and materials"?

Then you could try the council - as now. If they both reject it - it was probably for a good reason.

[Panda-NZ-]

Seymour floats a Confidence only partnership with no supply.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/election-2023/497636/act-s-david-seymour-floats-confidence-only-partnership-no-supply

Which means a minority government and brings with it a risk of govt collapse during each budget.

Luckily we don't have a debt ceiling eh? ;)

[moka]

I can't see anything against the insurance scheme. It gives developers an option, and a better option IMO. If they don't like it they can still run to the council, but I doubt many would.


"We say if you can get it privately insured, you can build it. If you can't, maybe someone's trying to tell you something"I wouldn’t be surprised if private insurance was more expensive. Insuring against the risk of something like leaky homes. Cost cutting is common practice.

Leaky-home bill estimated at $6.3b in 2010. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/leaky-home-bill-estimated-at-63b/HQNWIDY7SI6ZNPOB4RV6EO4RHY/
(https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/leaky-home-bill-estimated-at-63b/HQNWIDY7SI6ZNPOB4RV6EO4RHY/)
2014 - The systemic failure by cost-cutting apartment developers to build fire-safe apartment blocks in New Zealand's major city is being kept under wraps by secret legal settlements. Lawyers for leaky building claimants say around one in five claims for defective and shoddily-constructed apartment blocks also involve claims to fix faulty and sub-standard fire systems.

Leaky building litigator Paul Grimshaw says the problems with apartment buildings would be better described as construction defects rather than weathertightness issues.
"Leaking doesn't really cover it . . . There are fire issues, there are structural issues, there are cladding issues."
He says builders and developers have cut corners by not correctly fire rating buildings.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9700298/Secret-fire-safety-deals

[moka]

https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/early-edition/audio/ashley-church-property-commentator-says-acts-housing-policy-sounds-good-in-theory-but-a-step-too-far-in-reality/
(https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/early-edition/audio/ashley-church-property-commentator-says-acts-housing-policy-sounds-good-in-theory-but-a-step-too-far-in-reality/)
A view ACT's new housing policy sounds good in theory - but is a step too far in reality.
The party's unveiled its housing policy - which would see builders able to use insurance companies as an alternative authority for consenting - to speed up the process.
It aims to cut local councils out of the consenting process.

Property commentator Ashley Church told Kate Hawkesby he believes in getting rid of bureaucracy - but this policy is all over the place.
“I think there’s a risk with this that you’ll end up with shoddy housing – you'll end up with some equivalent of what happened with leaky homes back in the late 90s and we’ll be right back in that space again.”

[thegreatestben]

Then you could try the council - as now. If they both reject it - it was probably for a good reason.

You're missing my point, which is that it potentially just moves the same problem to a different place. Lack of innovation (there's a big area between today's building material choices and dodgy materials/methods) could still be a problem if the insurers are equally as unwilling to move away from fletchers range of products.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Seymour floats a Confidence only partnership with no supply.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/election-2023/497636/act-s-david-seymour-floats-confidence-only-partnership-no-supply

Which means a minority government and brings with it a risk of govt collapse during each budget.

Luckily we don't have a debt ceiling eh? ;)

Sounds ok to me, infinitely better than the LABGREETEPATI monster with the weak-kneed Chipkins making all sorts of horrible concessions up front so he can present his seething pack of radicals as ‘stable government’.

[nztx]

Sounds ok to me, infinitely better than the LABGREETEPATI monster with the weak-kneed Chipkins making all sorts of horrible concessions up front so he can present his seething pack of radicals as ‘stable government’.


Did someone say Labour are crashing .. or was that about to be washed out in the mother of large avalanches ? ;)