ACT's David Seymour - i like his style.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Lots of people don’t agree with David Seymour even though he says there's not different world views. Other people are just wrong he reckons.

Disruption and division: Seymour denies using beneficiaries, Māori as political punching bag (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/disruption-and-division-seymour-denies-using-beneficiaries-m%C4%81ori-as-political-punching-bag/ar-AA1gPJGy?rc=1&ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=ffd6b0eff0334691db00ef19ede38a9f&ei=93)

The political discourse is divided but Seymour says that's nothing to do with him.
"I don't take responsibility for the actions of other people that are wrong."
But he did of course double down on his co-governance schtick and pitched his referendum on the Treaty.
"We all matter," he said. "This country deserves a say on what the Treaty means."
He also pedalled Don Brash lines.
"Only one party stands on this principle of one Kiwi, one vote," Seymour said.
He also suggested people are being forced to use te reo Māori.
"The way to turn a treasure into a form of torture is to impose it on people by force, perhaps with the very best of intentions."
Seymour went for broke on the race debate whipping it up as the one issue on which to launch his campaign.


Labour are the ones who started to implement co-governance and ‘de-colonisation’ and ‘re-indigenisation’ here with no genuine mandate to do so. So the same thing is being done by Leftists in Canada and Australia. People are tired of the gaslighting of the Left. Labour will pay for this at the election.

[Bjauck]

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"?

Opting out of building consent - welcome to shanty towns. NZ’s transition to Third World status would be complete courtesy of ACT.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Opting out of building consent - welcome to shanty towns. NZ’s transition to Third World status would be complete courtesy of ACT.

Yeah, nah. ‘Shanty towns’? Good grief, the amount of exaggeration and scaremongering that goes on when it comes to ACT just shows how worried the Left are that Seymour will wind back their ‘woke’ agenda

[Aaron]

Thanks for the reply Moka can't give any more good rep yet.

[justakiwi]

If you haven't voted in my election poll, please do.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Just a message for any Left wing bots out there trying like mad to turn things around for Labour:

“Whatever we say, whatever we do, the polls just aren’t changing”.
- Katie Bradford

[justakiwi]

Did you really need to post this? This kind of judgemental comment is no doubt why nobody is willing to tick the Labour box on the poll. I set it up because I genuinely wanted to get a real indication of how people here, are planning to vote. We know there are people here who will vote Labour. I want them to participate in the poll too, so quit with the intimidation.


Just a message for any Left wing bots out there trying like mad to turn things around for Labour:

“Whatever we say, whatever we do, the polls just aren’t changing”.
- Katie Bradford

[thegreatestben]

Why would anyone feel intimidated? It's an anonymous poll.
Maybe they already have ;)

[justakiwi]

Because there is always at least one douchebag who is likely to post a judgmental comment.


Why would anyone feel intimidated? It's an anonymous poll.
Maybe they already have ;)

[Azz]

True, but I don’t live in the US and as I said, I have nothing to hide, no agenda, and literally nothing that any government would be even remotely interested in. What is it that governments are supposed to be looking for? How exactly are they attempting to “gain control over us?” I can’t speak for the US government, but the idea that global governments are banding together to “take control” of the human race, is ridiculous.

Have you not heard of "Five Eyes"?

[justakiwi]

Actually, I have but in a completely different scenario. Not sure if it is still a "thing" now as I not worked in the area for some years, but it is a terminology used in child protection services. Agencies aim to ensure there are five sets of "eyes" on vulnerable children - schools, Plunket, family members, GPs, and/or any other people or agencies involved with the family.

Not what you were referring to of course ;)


Have you not heard of "Five Eyes"?

[Azz]

Actually, I have but in a completely different scenario. Not sure if it is still a "thing" now as I not worked in the area for some years, but it is a terminology used in child protection services. Agencies aim to ensure there are five sets of "eyes" on vulnerable children - schools, Plunket, family members, GPs, and/or any other people or agencies involved with the family.

Not what you were referring to of course ;)

I haven't heard of that - but that's something to be proud of! :-)

[Logen Ninefingers]

Did you really need to post this? This kind of judgemental comment is no doubt why nobody is willing to tick the Labour box on the poll. I set it up because I genuinely wanted to get a real indication of how people here, are planning to vote. We know there are people here who will vote Labour. I want them to participate in the poll too, so quit with the intimidation.

I'm not trying to indimidate anyone. I'm stating that when the national political polls are so consistently indicating the levels of support that they currently do, they usually do not change to any significant degree. So all the commenting, debates, and politiking is basically a complete waste of time at that macro level.

How does my comment to the poll you are running with a small group of people on a share chat site? How did I 'intimidate' anyone? I'm not commenting in that thread, I'm commenting in the ACT thread!
There is a problem here with people failling at comprehension and then flying off the handle!

[Balance]

I'm not trying to indimidate anyone. I'm stating that when the national political polls are so consistently indicating the levels of support that they currently do, they usually do not change to any significant degree. So all the commenting, debates, and politiking is basically a complete waste of time at that macro level.

How does my comment to the poll you are running with a small group of people on a share chat site? How did I 'intimidate' anyone? I'm not commenting in that thread, I'm commenting in the ACT thread!
There is a problem here with people failling at comprehension and then flying off the handle!

Why would anyone be intimidated indeed?

This is a Share Trader/Share Investment site so it is hardly surprising that the voting will be slanted towards the right/centre parties.

It is also a fact that the numbers of undecideds or refusing to partake in the polls remain high (>10%) so there is scope yet for a swing either way.

Meanwhile, one senses that the majority of NZers have had a gutsful of the politicking out there and just want a change after 6 years of non delivery of huge promises.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/resizer/cq8H4JY6-5sQsSTGxT7b_TlxlO0=/1440x737/smart/filters:quality(70)/cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/RI53BGMNDBB3NCTTOA2TB25SHQ.JPG

[causecelebre]

Actually, I have but in a completely different scenario. Not sure if it is still a "thing" now as I not worked in the area for some years, but it is a terminology used in child protection services. Agencies aim to ensure there are five sets of "eyes" on vulnerable children - schools, Plunket, family members, GPs, and/or any other people or agencies involved with the family.

Not what you were referring to of course ;)

Thats great. Does it also apply to Oranga Tamariki? The media report just the bad situations and not the good outcomes but there does seem to be many kids that fall between the cracks.

[justakiwi]

I misinterpreted your comment. My apologies.


I'm not trying to indimidate anyone. I'm stating that when the national political polls are so consistently indicating the levels of support that they currently do, they usually do not change to any significant degree. So all the commenting, debates, and politiking is basically a complete waste of time at that macro level.

How does my comment to the poll you are running with a small group of people on a share chat site? How did I 'intimidate' anyone? I'm not commenting in that thread, I'm commenting in the ACT thread!
There is a problem here with people failling at comprehension and then flying off the handle!

[justakiwi]

I have not worked there for about six years now, but it did apply back then, so I assume it still does.

You are right. The media always hooks into the negative, when it comes to child protection, but seldom reports the success stories. There were many.


Thats great. Does it also apply to Oranga Tamariki? The media report just the bad situations and not the good outcomes but there does seem to be many kids that fall between the cracks.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Why would anyone be intimidated indeed?

This is a Share Trader/Share Investment site so it is hardly surprising that the voting will be slanted towards the right/centre parties.

It is also a fact that the numbers of undecideds or refusing to partake in the polls remain high (>10%) so there is scope yet for a swing either way.

Meanwhile, one senses that the majority of NZers have had a gutsful of the politicking out there and just want a change after 6 years of non delivery of huge promises.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/resizer/cq8H4JY6-5sQsSTGxT7b_TlxlO0=/1440x737/smart/filters:quality(70)/cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/RI53BGMNDBB3NCTTOA2TB25SHQ.JPG

We usually here about the ‘undecideds’ as going to be a significant factor, but when push comes to shove I can’t think of a single election where the polls were unable to pick up where the election was headed, except perhaps the Jim Bolger “bugger the pollsters” one.

The ‘undecideds’ are probably people who either won’t vote, or are tossing up between National / ACT or Labour / Green. Their votes seem to get spread around pretty uniformly each election.

[Logen Ninefingers]

I misinterpreted your comment. My apologies.

No problem.

[justakiwi]

Just watched the Intrastructure debate and found it quite interesting and helpful. The ACT guy, Simon Court is a very good speaker. Funnily enough, out of all the speakers, I found Simon and James Shaw the most convincing.

Which is a little worrying ;)

[ithaka]

DAVID SEYMOUR: NZ at a Constitutional Crossroad

New Zealand is at a constitutional crossroad. In one direction is liberal democracy. In the other is co-government; power-sharing between one ethnic group and all others. ACT will end co-government and restore universal human rights in New Zealand.

The current government is presenting New Zealanders with a false choice. It says that if we want to right the wrongs of the past, cherish Māori language and culture, and give all New Zealanders equal opportunity, then we must throw out universal human rights in favour of co-government.

We can ensure Māori language and culture are preserved, that every child has equal opportunity, and that the wrongs of the past are put right. Attributing separate rights through co-government will never achieve this, it only causes more division.

Just think, where will New Zealand be in 50 years’ time if the current path continues, where Kiwis are offered different rights based on their ancestry? ACT says that no matter who your grandparents are, you deserve the same rights and opportunities as everybody else.

There is nothing in any of the three Treaty articles that suggests Māori should have special rights above other New Zealanders. The Treaty itself guarantees that “all the ordinary people of New Zealand...have the same rights and duties of citizenship.” All New Zealanders have a basic human right to be treated equally under the law and with equal political worth. One person, one vote.

ACT would legislate that the principles of the Treaty are based on what the Treaty actually says, in contrast with recent revisionist interpretations of the Treaty’s principles, through a Treaty Principles Act and inviting citizens to ratify it.

The Labour-NZ First Government commissioned ‘He Puapua’, which has led to co-government being implemented across numerous areas of government. For example, healthcare is now being prioritised according to racial identity and not the actual needs of individual patients.

ACT would repeal recent laws that give different rights based on ethnicity, such as the Three Waters legislation, local government legislation, and elements of health legislation.

The public service is meant to serve all New Zealanders, but even administration and service delivery has become focussed on race. This isn’t a true focus on equity, serving citizens based on their measured need rather than their ancestry is.

ACT would reorientate the public service towards a focus on equal opportunity and need according to robust statistical evidence instead of racial targeting, along with devolution and choice for all. The government has access to data that can assess the risks and disadvantages faced by individual people and deliver services in a more targeted way, like the Ministry of Education’s Equity Index, it just isn’t using it properly.

ACT will fight for democracy. Our vision for New Zealand is in keeping with our liberal democratic traditions, commitment to universal human rights, and growing ethnic diversity. ACT will make sure New Zealand is a truly modern, multi-ethnic, liberal democracy.

ACT's leader, David Seymour delivered this address at the ACT Party campaign launch, Sunday Sept 17, at Auckland's Civic Theatre.

[Logen Ninefingers]

DAVID SEYMOUR: NZ at a Constitutional Crossroad

New Zealand is at a constitutional crossroad. In one direction is liberal democracy. In the other is co-government; power-sharing between one ethnic group and all others. ACT will end co-government and restore universal human rights in New Zealand.

The current government is presenting New Zealanders with a false choice. It says that if we want to right the wrongs of the past, cherish Māori language and culture, and give all New Zealanders equal opportunity, then we must throw out universal human rights in favour of co-government.

We can ensure Māori language and culture are preserved, that every child has equal opportunity, and that the wrongs of the past are put right. Attributing separate rights through co-government will never achieve this, it only causes more division.

Just think, where will New Zealand be in 50 years’ time if the current path continues, where Kiwis are offered different rights based on their ancestry? ACT says that no matter who your grandparents are, you deserve the same rights and opportunities as everybody else.

There is nothing in any of the three Treaty articles that suggests Māori should have special rights above other New Zealanders. The Treaty itself guarantees that “all the ordinary people of New Zealand...have the same rights and duties of citizenship.” All New Zealanders have a basic human right to be treated equally under the law and with equal political worth. One person, one vote.

ACT would legislate that the principles of the Treaty are based on what the Treaty actually says, in contrast with recent revisionist interpretations of the Treaty’s principles, through a Treaty Principles Act and inviting citizens to ratify it.

The Labour-NZ First Government commissioned ‘He Puapua’, which has led to co-government being implemented across numerous areas of government. For example, healthcare is now being prioritised according to racial identity and not the actual needs of individual patients.

ACT would repeal recent laws that give different rights based on ethnicity, such as the Three Waters legislation, local government legislation, and elements of health legislation.

The public service is meant to serve all New Zealanders, but even administration and service delivery has become focussed on race. This isn’t a true focus on equity, serving citizens based on their measured need rather than their ancestry is.

ACT would reorientate the public service towards a focus on equal opportunity and need according to robust statistical evidence instead of racial targeting, along with devolution and choice for all. The government has access to data that can assess the risks and disadvantages faced by individual people and deliver services in a more targeted way, like the Ministry of Education’s Equity Index, it just isn’t using it properly.

ACT will fight for democracy. Our vision for New Zealand is in keeping with our liberal democratic traditions, commitment to universal human rights, and growing ethnic diversity. ACT will make sure New Zealand is a truly modern, multi-ethnic, liberal democracy.

ACT's leader, David Seymour delivered this address at the ACT Party campaign launch, Sunday Sept 17, at Auckland's Civic Theatre.

And some people out there are now so thoroughly wicked (or brainwashed) that they call this thoughtful and decent man 'radical' and 'racist'. The true radicals and racists amongst us are terrified of ACT.

[causecelebre]

Mrs Causecelebre has a serious eye condition. Her surgeon (considered by his peers the best on the country) is going to move to Australia. His daughter, a gifted student, cannot study specialist medicine as four of the eight positions must be taken by Māori. This system is not considering people’s health. It is not a meritocracy and does not consider people’s health as the fundamental driver.

[justakiwi]

Link to poll here for anyone who isn't aware of it:

https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?12748-POLL-who-are-you-planning-on-voting-for/page2 (https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?12748-POLL-who-are-you-planning-on-voting-for/page2)

Please add your vote if you haven't already.

[Entrep]

Would National and Act work with NZ First if they had to?

TBH I think some of Winston's policies show a lot of common sense, but I know David and Winston hate each other.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Would National and Act work with NZ First if they had to?

TBH I think some of Winston's policies show a lot of common sense, but I know David and Winston hate each other.

Hopefully Right wing voters don't over-egg the pudding by adding Winston to the mix.
But if Left wing voters are thinking of voting for Winston instead of Labour, I would certainly encourage them to do so.

[Panda-NZ-]

Hopefully Right wing voters don't over-egg the pudding by adding Winston to the mix.


Do you seriously think Nact can do better than what John Key achieved (popular leader with a more moderate National party)... it's a gamble.

As was said previously, you prefer Lab-Gre-TePati.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Do you seriously think Nact can do better than what John Key achieved (popular leader with a more moderate National party)... it's a gamble.

As was said previously, you prefer Lab-Gre-TePati.

I've never said I 'prefer Lab-Gre-TePati.' Pretty sad day when you show up here and start telling blatant lies.

[ynot]

Do you seriously think Nact can do better than what John Key achieved (popular leader with a more moderate National party)... it's a gamble.

As was said previously, you prefer Lab-Gre-TePati.
The question here should be, can NACT do better than the totally incompetent Labour government.
This is the issue at hand and the answer is obvious to anyone.

[iceman]

Do you seriously think Nact can do better than what John Key achieved (popular leader with a more moderate National party)... it's a gamble.

As was said previously, you prefer Lab-Gre-TePati.

Totally different times. Key took over from Helen Clark and Michael Cullen. Key did not inherit the complete mess that the current lot is leaving behind.

[fungus pudding]

Hopefully Right wing voters don't over-egg the pudding by adding Winston to the mix.
But if Left wing voters are thinking of voting for Winston instead of Labour, I would certainly encourage them to do so.

Why would they do that when chippie won't have anything to do with them? If they do get over 5% - look out for instability.

[Panda-NZ-]

The question here should be, can NACT do better than the totally incompetent Labour government.
This is the issue at hand and the answer is obvious to anyone.

Nonetheless voting for Nat/Act is trading the certainty of a win for a mixed chance.

In finance terms that would be irresponsible risk management.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Nonetheless voting for Nat/Act is trading the certainty of a win for a mixed chance.

In finance terms that would be irresponsible risk management.

That’s some idiotic thinking right there.

Labour are on 27% and still falling. You just love to see it. The CTU will be beside themselves with worry and grief.

[ynot]

Nonetheless voting for Nat/Act is trading the certainty of a win for a mixed chance.

In finance terms that would be irresponsible risk management.
Talking about nonetheless, I suspect Labour as we know it will not see the light of day again for a very long time. The people are about to speak.

[Entrep]

So Nact would work with NZF if they needed to, or not?

[justakiwi]

I suspect National would, but I get the feeling ACT might choose to go down the "Confidence" only road, if they did. Seymour has hinted at this more than once lately.


So Nact would work with NZF if they needed to, or not?

[fungus pudding]

So Nact would work with NZF if they needed to, or not?

Listen to Luxon. They would work with NZF if and only if that becomes the only way they can form a govt.

[Entrep]

Thanks. I was primarily concerned that somehow Winston getting into Parliament would lead to the same thing that happened last time.

There's no way he would work with Labour/Greens right?

[BlackPeter]

Thanks. I was primarily concerned that somehow Winston getting into Parliament would lead to the same thing that happened last time.

There's no way he would work with Labour/Greens right?

Winston quite predictable. He will always work with whoever offers him the bigger baubles. Question is - which of the camps is more desperate to get into (or stay in) power. These are the people Winston will work with.

[fungus pudding]

Thanks. I was primarily concerned that somehow Winston getting into Parliament would lead to the same thing that happened last time.

There's no way he would work with Labour/Greens right?

Who would know - Hipkins says he won't work with Peters, and I believe that bit.

[Panda-NZ-]

I tactically voted green last election because I was afraid they would go below the threshold and make Aunt Judy our PM in the middle of an international crisis.

Though labour very much overperformed during that election.

[kiwikeith]

Who would know - Hipkins says he won't work with Peters, and I believe that bit.

Hipkins will not work with Winston - unless that is his only option of retaining power. I think Labour is going to be hammered and the question of whether chippie would work with Winston will remain a hypothetical question only.

[BlackPeter]

I tactically voted green last election because I was afraid they would go below the threshold and make Aunt Judy our PM in the middle of an international crisis.

Though labour very much overperformed during that election.

Agreed. The problem is that they consistently underperformed since election day :) ;

But I made last time the same mistake as you - I voted Green (though for other reasons - I do care for the environment) and I will this time not give my vote to anybody who would just help Labour to continue on their disastrous path.

[Entrep]

At the minor debate Winston and David admitted they could work together if needed.

NZ is gonna be OK

[fungus pudding]

At the minor debate Winston and David admitted they could work together if needed.

NZ is gonna be OK

'Till Winston starts being Winston.

[justakiwi]

As was suggested - new poll for the next seven days is here:

https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?12751-POLL-Election-poll-3-weeks-till-election (https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?12751-POLL-Election-poll-3-weeks-till-election)

[moka]

ACT’s welfare policy includes Electronic Income Management for some beneficiaries, which means that the case manager can see how the person is spending their money and it allows “honest conversations.” Some people might agree that beneficiaries should be monitored, but will those same people be happy if their spending is monitored? Introducing it for beneficiaries is a first step to get the systems up and running for close monitoring of a group of people. And it seems to me to be a slippery slope.

Do we want social credit scoring in NZ?

https://www.act.org.nz/act-welcomes-nats-welfare-move
(https://www.act.org.nz/act-welcomes-nats-welfare-move)
Secondly, ACT would use technology. ACT would back up sanctions with Electronic Income Management. We need to stop giving people money for nothing. If you haven't found a job after 17-weeks, your benefit comes in the form of a payment card.

“Electronic Income Management gives case managers real teeth. It means they can see how the person is spending their money in real time, on a Government issued card. It allows honest conversations between case managers and beneficiaries.

[Logen Ninefingers]

ACT’s welfare policy includes Electronic Income Management for some beneficiaries, which means that the case manager can see how the person is spending their money and it allows “honest conversations.” Some people might agree that beneficiaries should be monitored, but will those same people be happy if their spending is monitored? Introducing it for beneficiaries is a first step to get the systems up and running for close monitoring of a group of people. And it seems to me to be a slippery slope.

Do we want social credit scoring in NZ?

https://www.act.org.nz/act-welcomes-nats-welfare-move
(https://www.act.org.nz/act-welcomes-nats-welfare-move)
Secondly, ACT would use technology. ACT would back up sanctions with Electronic Income Management. We need to stop giving people money for nothing. If you haven't found a job after 17-weeks, your benefit comes in the form of a payment card.

“Electronic Income Management gives case managers real teeth. It means they can see how the person is spending their money in real time, on a Government issued card. It allows honest conversations between case managers and beneficiaries.

Accepting a benefit from taxpayers should come with some obligations.

[fungus pudding]

Accepting a benefit from taxpayers should come with some obligations.

And so say most of us.

[SBQ]

Accepting a benefit from taxpayers should come with some obligations.

I had a similar argument at a corner neighbourly meet with the National representative. I was knocking heads in saying that the approach to social housing in NZ is wrong and inefficient. In a similar manner, those in gov't housing 'should NOT' have the benefit of wanting a large back yard, easy access to amenities, and basically a fully detached dwelling. I was explaining it's far more efficient to house them in high density apartment living where there's closer monitoring of their activities. If you look at the Rotorua case, the new social housings there where ever they built, created increase rates of crime. Why? Because no one is policing or monitoring them. One lady in response told me, "That's not how we do things and this is NZ, not like other countries".

[justakiwi]

They come with plenty. And yes, I can tell you that from first hand experience. It is unacceptable for case managers or anyone else to require details of every item or service beneficiaries spend their money on. That is nothing short of an invasion of privacy.


Accepting a benefit from taxpayers should come with some obligations.

[Balance]

I had a similar argument at a corner neighbourly meet with the National representative. I was knocking heads in saying that the approach to social housing in NZ is wrong and inefficient. In a similar manner, those in gov't housing 'should NOT' have the benefit of wanting a large back yard, easy access to amenities, and basically a fully detached dwelling. I was explaining it's far more efficient to house them in high density apartment living where there's closer monitoring of their activities. If you look at the Rotorua case, the new social housings there where ever they built, created increase rates of crime. Why? Because no one is policing or monitoring them. One lady in response told me, "That's not how we do things and this is NZ, not like other countries".

And that’s why NZ is heading down the path towards 2nd world status.

Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore foresaw the entitlement mindset which comes from getting state benefits too easily and freely. That’s why social welfare policies there are based around family support first and access to benefits only as a last resort. Singapore has moved from 3rd world to 1st world while NZ is heading towards?

[fungus pudding]

Some of you will find this interview with David Seymour interesting.

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

[thegreatestben]

Also just watched and it’s nice to watch something where the interviewer isn’t interrupting. I’d actually like to see other party leaders interviewed by the same guy.

[davflaws]

ACT’s welfare policy includes Electronic Income Management for some beneficiaries, which means that the case manager can see how the person is spending their money and it allows “honest conversations.”


Secondly, ACT would use technology. ACT would back up sanctions with Electronic Income Management. We need to stop giving people money for nothing. If you haven't found a job after 17-weeks, your benefit comes in the form of a payment card.

“Electronic Income Management gives case managers real teeth. It means they can see how the person is spending their money in real time, on a Government issued card. It allows honest conversations between case managers and beneficiaries.

Surely -if ISP services are purchased by a user of the proposed card - all their communications should be monitored by the State

After all, anyone who hasn't been able to get a job after 17 weeks is probably lying around committing drug offences, or out and about committing other crime or ripping hardworking taxpayers off in some other way. Having access to their phone and text data would also enable their case managers to check whether they had been wasting their benefits on riotous living.

Accepting a benefit from taxpayers should come with obligations!

[justakiwi]

Clearly I have completely misjudged you. I always thought you were one of the good guys. Boy did I get that wrong.


Surely -if ISP services are purchased by a user of the proposed card - all their communications should be monitored by the State

After all, anyone who hasn't been able to get a job after 17 weeks is probably lying around committing drug offences, or out and about committing other crime or ripping hardworking taxpayers off in some other way. Having access to their phone and text data would also enable their case managers to check whether they had been wasting their benefits on riotous living.

Accepting a benefit from taxpayers should come with obligations!

[Logen Ninefingers]

They come with plenty. And yes, I can tell you that from first hand experience. It is unacceptable for case managers or anyone else to require details of every item or service beneficiaries spend their money on. That is nothing short of an invasion of privacy.

I know a bloke who purchased a nearly new fridge and washing machine from a beneficiary family who were moving from Rotorua to Hamilton. He made some ridiculously low offer for the appliances which was accepted. The lady just laughed and said they’d get new ones from WINZ.

Employers require all sorts of things from employees, including contact details and contact details of loved ones, address details, you must be at work at the time the employer stipulates, and work the hours they stipulate, and abide by a code of conduct imposed by the employer, and sign an employment agreement as well.

I personally don’t mind if beneficiaries are well regulated. We are talking about a group of people who TAKE money from taxpayers in return for doing ZERO work. They really should be out picking up rubbish from the side of the roads, or planting trees, or something. There are people who clean excrement off toilets for a living, there are people who care for elderly people with dementia for a living. I don’t want to hear that beneficiaries have it really tough because they have to meet with case managers.

[Getty]

I know a bloke who purchased a nearly new fridge and washing machine from a beneficiary family who were moving from Rotorua to Hamilton. He made some ridiculously low offer for the appliances which was accepted. The lady just laughed and said they’d get new ones from WINZ.

Employers require all sorts of things from employees, including contact details and contact details of loved ones, address details, you must be at work at the time the employer stipulates, and work the hours they stipulate, and abide by a code of conduct imposed by the employer, and sign an employment agreement as well.

I personally don’t mind if beneficiaries are well regulated. We are talking about a group of people who TAKE money from taxpayers in return for doing ZERO work. They really should be out picking up rubbish from the side of the roads, or planting trees, or something. There are people who clean excrement off toilets for a living, there are people who care for elderly people with dementia for a living. I don’t want to hear that beneficiaries have it really tough because they have to meet with case managers.

Well said.

I can tell plenty of stories like the fridge one, and others, but l won't put them on here as it could give the wrong people ideas.

It's a jungle out there.

The taxpayers are getting ripped off, and many of them don't want to know.

[davflaws]

Well said.

I can tell plenty of stories like the fridge one, and others, but l won't put them on here as it could give the wrong people ideas.

It's a jungle out there.

The taxpayers are getting ripped off, and many of them don't want to know.

We may just be about to get a government that will at least start to treat the cancer on our society that woke liberalism has produced. Most beneficiaries are parasites and bludgers.

If the state (ie decent hardworking taxpayers) is providing accommodation, it can actually do so most efficiently by building the units concerned of hardwearing and durable materials to minimise the damage caused by feckless tenants and concentrating them in high rise blocks which can be made easier to police by limiting and controlling access points.

Gated communities are generally thought of in terms of keeping the crims away from decent people's property. It is easier, cheaper and more effective to to form gated high rises and keep the crims, druggies, and bludgers in.

There may be some concern for the welfare of the hordes of children sired by feckless and selfish transient males and popped out as a lifestyle by "welfare queens", but that could be addressed if they were concentrated, by giving welfare officers and "facility supervisors" skeleton keys to allow "without notice" inspections of the units and the children in them.

The criminal tendencies of the beneficiaries can be addressed by abandoning the woke liberal policing policies that have got us into our present trajectory towards third world status, and reintroducing the "three strikes" policy, along with generally longer sentences and tougher prison conditions.

It may even be time to consider reintroducing the birch, since the fabric of our society has frayed and behavior has markedly deteriorated since corporal punishment was banned in schools and homes by the woke left.

Accepting a benefit from taxpayers should come with obligations!

[Logen Ninefingers]

I've worked in an office most of my life, taking holidays when my employer lets me, and coming back to thousands of e-mails....most of the time I would dread taking a holiday because of the stress involved, the stress involved in getting everything squared away before going, and the stress involved in cleaning up the mess upon return. The stress involved in the job in general.....sometimes I felt like my heart was trying to burst right out of my chest. Even the stress involved in getting to work....fighting through traffic on congested roads. If you work in a big city and your alternator goes on you, your car stops dead at the lights with a full line of traffic behind you....

I don't want to hear that working people are 'privileged', 'greedy', or 'selfish'. We are rats in a rat race, exhanging the days of our lives for money. Where I worked in South Auckland - when I was working there - you'd go down for a walk along the shore line & come to a park where beneficiary families were having picnics and riding around on bikes. Then I'd head back to my cubicle to work my afternoon away in order to get money to pay bills in order to live.

I don't want to hear that it's degrading or onerous that beneficiaries have to meet with case managers. What is degrading and onerous is going through 'performance reviews' year in and year out, reviews which are often just a stupid formality yet are a case study in corporate head f*ckery. My partner works her guts out for a big corporate and sometimes can't sleep at night during certain times of the year when the stress levels are at their greatest. I've seen her in tears over a performance review she felt was unfair. Trying to juggle times when we can take a holiday together is a mission in itself. We are exchanging our lives for 4 weeks of holidays a year. People are working their entire lives for the mirage of having a great life when they retire...when they retire they are broken and burnt out and facing ill health. Please don't tell me beneficiaries have it tough while the rest of us are 'privileged'.

[fungus pudding]

I've worked in an office most of my life, taking holidays when my employer lets me, and coming back to thousands of e-mails....most of the time I would dread taking a holiday because of the stress involved, the stress involved in getting everything squared away before going, and the stress involved in cleaning up the mess upon return. The stress involved in the job in general.....sometimes I felt like my heart was trying to burst right out of my chest. Even the stress involved in getting to work....fighting through traffic on congested roads. If you work in a big city and your alternator goes on you, your car stops dead at the lights with a full line of traffic behind you....

I don't want to hear that working people are 'privileged', 'greedy', or 'selfish'. We are rats in a rat race, exhanging the days of our lives for money. Where I worked in South Auckland - when I was working there - you'd go down for a walk along the shore line & come to a park where beneficiary families were having picnics and riding around on bikes. Then I'd head back to my cubicle to work my afternoon away in order to get money to pay bills in order to live.

I don't want to hear that it's degrading or onerous that beneficiaries have to meet with case managers. What is degrading and onerous is going through 'performance reviews' year in and year out, reviews which are often just a stupid formality yet are a case study in corporate head f*ckery. My partner works her guts out for a big corporate and sometimes can't sleep at night during certain times of the year when the stress levels are at their greatest. I've seen her in tears over a performance review she felt was unfair. Trying to juggle times when we can take a holiday together is a mission in itself. We are exchanging our lives for 4 weeks of holidays a year. People are working their entire lives for the mirage of having a great life when they retire...when they retire they are broken and burnt out and facing ill health. Please don't tell me beneficiaries have it tough while the rest of us are 'privileged'.

......ain't that the truth....well said.

[Balance]

......ain't that the truth....well said.

Very well articulated by LN indeed.

NZ under this useless woke Labour government has become a nation where parasites, criminals & freeloaders are given free rein to rip off hard working and law abiding citizens.

This is what happens when NZers allow career politicians who have never created a single free market job or business ever in their lives to run the country into the ground.

Last chance on October 2023 to halt the rot. Vote out Labour and let’s trust NZers to keep them out for the next 20 years. It will take that long to repair the damage done by these freeloading Labour politicians led by Hipkins and Ardern.

[BlackPeter]

We may just be about to get a government that will at least start to treat the cancer on our society that woke liberalism has produced. Most beneficiaries are parasites and bludgers.

If the state (ie decent hardworking taxpayers) is providing accommodation, it can actually do so most efficiently by building the units concerned of hardwearing and durable materials to minimise the damage caused by feckless tenants and concentrating them in high rise blocks which can be made easier to police by limiting and controlling access points.

Gated communities are generally thought of in terms of keeping the crims away from decent people's property. It is easier, cheaper and more effective to to form gated high rises and keep the crims, druggies, and bludgers in.

There may be some concern for the welfare of the hordes of children sired by feckless and selfish transient males and popped out as a lifestyle by "welfare queens", but that could be addressed if they were concentrated, by giving welfare officers and "facility supervisors" skeleton keys to allow "without notice" inspections of the units and the children in them.

The criminal tendencies of the beneficiaries can be addressed by abandoning the woke liberal policing policies that have got us into our present trajectory towards third world status, and reintroducing the "three strikes" policy, along with generally longer sentences and tougher prison conditions.

It may even be time to consider reintroducing the birch, since the fabric of our society has frayed and behavior has markedly deteriorated since corporal punishment was banned in schools and homes by the woke left.

Accepting a benefit from taxpayers should come with obligations!

Oh dear ... you sound like a very angry man with an agenda ... concentration camps for welfare recipients?

So - allow me, to put that into perspective.

No doubt, there are some beneficiaries around who fit your bill - hardcore criminals just on as sabatical from prison, the "rubbish" our Australian brothers put out the door and probably some more.

There are however as well plenty of beneficiaries who came into this situation without fault of their own. You might have heard of the cost of living crisis (I know ... why don't they eat cake if they can't afford the bread?) - and paying the rent and feeding the kids when one of the adults for any reason lost their job (some people do get sick or have accidents) or died is tough ... and I would not know how a single mum or dad (again, its not always due to irresponsible breeding habits) could look after their children and put food on the table in any part of the country without receiving welfare.

And no doubt there are plenty of other cases in betweeen these extremes in the spectrum

Treating all these people like the worst of the worst and concentrating them together with hardened crooks in gettos (concentration camps?) is the most reliable method to increase criminality and breed the next generation of crooks. Is this what you are asking for?

Not very sensible, isn't it?

Sure - look after the difficult cases and place them in accomodation with increased security. But more important is to give families who are in need - and definitely their children a good chance to flourish. Don't forget - these are the kids who run our society in 20 and 40 years - and these children might be needed to wipe your butt when you can't do it anymore for yourself.

Better give them the best chances to become valuable members of our society instead of concentrating them with hard core criminals.

The concentration camps you are suggesting clearly would not do that job. We need to invest more into the next generation, not try to save money and lock them up just because their parents have been less lucky than you (or me).

[Logen Ninefingers]

Oh dear ... you sound like a very angry man with an agenda ... concentration camps for welfare recipients?

So - allow me, to put that into perspective.

No doubt, there are some beneficiaries around who fit your bill - hardcore criminals just on as sabatical from prison, the "rubbish" our Australian brothers put out the door and probably some more.

There are however as well plenty of beneficiaries who came into this situation without fault of their own. You might have heard of the cost of living crisis (I know ... why don't they eat cake if they can't afford the bread?) - and paying the rent and feeding the kids when one of the adults for any reason lost their job (some people do get sick or have accidents) or died is tough ... and I would not know how a single mum or dad (again, its not always due to irresponsible breeding habits) could look after their children and put food on the table in any part of the country without receiving welfare.

And no doubt there are plenty of other cases in betweeen these extremes in the spectrum

Treating all these people like the worst of the worst and concentrating them together with hardened crooks in gettos (concentration camps?) is the most reliable method to increase criminality and breed the next generation of crooks. Is this what you are asking for?

Not very sensible, isn't it?

Sure - look after the difficult cases and place them in accomodation with increased security. But more important is to give families who are in need - and definitely their children a good chance to flourish. Don't forget - these are the kids who run our society in 20 and 40 years - and these children might be needed to wipe your butt when you can't do it anymore for yourself.

Better give them the best chances to become valuable members of our society instead of concentrating them with hard core criminals.

Pseudo prisons clearly would not do that job. We need to invest more into the next generation, not try to save money and lock them up just because their parents have been less lucky than you (or me).

I don't know if Davflaws is being facetious or not. All I want is for beneficiaries to have the same sort of obligations and oversight that working people do. It's pretty simple really. I'm sick of seeing working people labelled as 'selfish', 'greedy', 'privileged' when in reality they are getting milked by the state while frantically going round on round on the hamster wheel of life. We are all working and paying taxes hoping for a great country where hard work is rewarded and people take the opportunities that are available. In my opinion we are all being betrayed by the Left, we are being betrayed by people who literally hate our system and society and make no secret of it, people who will gladly borrow $100 billion and spend it wastefully to undermine our country and saddle it with an onerous burden. It is sick. It is wrong. If you are a democratic socialist, and you are working away to usher in a pure socialist system to replace our (psuedo)capitalist society, that should preclude you from standing for Parliament. Why do we allow people who want to destroy us the means to take power? It's insane.

[jonu]

Oh dear ... you sound like a very angry man with an agenda ... concentration camps for welfare recipients?

So - allow me, to put that into perspective.

No doubt, there are some beneficiaries around who fit your bill - hardcore criminals just on as sabatical from prison, the "rubbish" our Australian brothers put out the door and probably some more.

There are however as well plenty of beneficiaries who came into this situation without fault of their own. You might have heard of the cost of living crisis (I know ... why don't they eat cake if they can't afford the bread?) - and paying the rent and feeding the kids when one of the adults for any reason lost their job (some people do get sick or have accidents) or died is tough ... and I would not know how a single mum or dad (again, its not always due to irresponsible breeding habits) could look after their children and put food on the table in any part of the country without receiving welfare.

And no doubt there are plenty of other cases in betweeen these extremes in the spectrum

Treating all these people like the worst of the worst and concentrating them together with hardened crooks in gettos (concentration camps?) is the most reliable method to increase criminality and breed the next generation of crooks. Is this what you are asking for?

Not very sensible, isn't it?

Sure - look after the difficult cases and place them in accomodation with increased security. But more important is to give families who are in need - and definitely their children a good chance to flourish. Don't forget - these are the kids who run our society in 20 and 40 years - and these children might be needed to wipe your butt when you can't do it anymore for yourself.

Better give them the best chances to become valuable members of our society instead of concentrating them with hard core criminals.

The concentration camps you are suggesting clearly would not do that job. We need to invest more into the next generation, not try to save money and lock them up just because their parents have been less lucky than you (or me).

I believe it's called satire.

[Logen Ninefingers]

I believe it's called satire.

It's pretty weak satire because it's taking aim at anyone who worries about how our society is becoming weaker and weaker and placing less and less personal responsibility on those who are preying on society. It's satire that takes aim at the wrong people. If you go on Seek there are thousands and thousands of jobs there and yet we say that people sitting on a benefit year in and year out are the good people and it's demeaning that they should have to meet with case managers. Something is going badly wrong, the balance has tipped to an extreme when working people are habitually called 'selfish' and 'privileged'. We now have more gang members in this country than we do farmers, and yet the Left treat farmers like they are scumbags. It is a disgrace.

[Entrep]

Logen Ninefingers I would vote for you

[Balance]

It's pretty weak satire because it's taking aim at anyone who worries about how our society is becoming weaker and weaker and placing less and less personal responsibility on those who are preying on society. We now have more gang members in this country than we do farmers, and yet the Left treat farmers like they are scumbags. It is a disgrace.

Same way this woke pro-gang and pro-beneficiary government treats property investors - like they are the scum of the earth.

Meanwhile, Kainga Ora hired several hundred more highly paid staff (professionals apparently from the industry) - their contribution so far is to make the housing situation out there worse!

And can you believe this - are still way behind their healthy homes program despite the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on staffing and consultants!

https://liberation.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451d75d69e20240a45dd0c0200c-800wi

https://liberation.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451d75d69e20240a45dd0ee200c-800wi

[justakiwi]

You, as usual, are making huge assumptions about people you don't even know. Who exactly is labelling working people as 'selfish', 'greedy', 'privileged?" Not the majority of beneficiaries that's for sure. Beneficiaries have many obligations and responsibilities, that you are obviously unaware of as clearly you have never found yourself in the position of needing temporary assistance. Job Seekers in particular have ongoing obligations to not only meet with case managers regularly, but to declare income from all sources as they earn it. Yes, people on JS (and supported living benefits) are often working part time, and are only being "topped up" by WINZ, to ensure they can put food on the table. They have training obligations if relevant to their situation, and have to demonstrate they are looking for work (and provide proof of that).

Black Peter is 100% correct in everything he said above. STOP lumping all beneficiaries into the same "bottom feeder" bucket of disgust! Nobody is disputing the fact that some people exploit the system, but the vast majority do not! The comments made here by some of you, say far more about you than they do about us, and your comments demonstrate your own entitlement, and feelings of superiority.

You people rant and rave about co-governance and racist policies blah blah blah - yet you contribute just as much to the division in this country, with your narrow minded, ignorance about how the other half lives.

There, but for the Grace of God go I. Remember that.


I don't know if Davflaws is being facetious or not. All I want is for beneficiaries to have the same sort of obligations and oversight that working people do. It's pretty simple really. I'm sick of seeing working people labelled as 'selfish', 'greedy', 'privileged' when in reality they are getting milked by the state while frantically going round on round on the hamster wheel of life. We are all working and paying taxes hoping for a great country where hard work is rewarded and people take the opportunities that are available. In my opinion we are all being betrayed by the Left, we are being betrayed by people who literally hate our system and society and make no secret of it, people who will gladly borrow $100 billion and spend it wastefully to undermine our country and saddle it with an onerous burden. It is sick. It is wrong. If you are a democratic socialist, and you are working away to usher in a pure socialist system to replace our (psuedo)capitalist society, that should preclude you from standing for Parliament. Why do we allow people who want to destroy us the means to take power? It's insane.

[Logen Ninefingers]

The Left won't relent in their Quixotic quest to make everything 'fair' according to their ever-shifting definition of 'fair'. They will destroy New Zealand in this doomed attempt. It is rather like the US army and an infamous episode from the Vietnam War: "in order to save the village it was necessary to destroy it".
Once our living standards have fallen through the floor & our young, our best, and our brightest have all left, we will be in a much worse place to deal with any and all challenges we face as a nation. Crime will be rampant, government will be dystopian, and the populace will be made up of the elderly and the impoverished.

[davflaws]

It is sick. It is wrong. If you are a democratic socialist, and you are working away to usher in a pure socialist system to replace our (psuedo)capitalist society, that should preclude you from standing for Parliament. Why do we allow people who want to destroy us the means to take power? It's insane.

Because thus far (at any rate) ACT's crypto fascist dogwhistling has not convinced more than a small proportion of the citizenry to abandon our broadly liberal democratic system and our generally centrist policies. That may be about to change. I hope not, because the more unequal society that will result will make everyone less healthy and happy.

Your sharing about your exhaustion, dissatisfaction, and general disillusion with the "rat race", and your resentment of the beneficiaries whose lives you see as better or more plasant and satisfying than your own, makes some of your postings more understandable and human, and I .encourage you to say more about that

[Logen Ninefingers]

You, as usual, are making huge assumptions about people you don't even know. Who exactly is labelling working people as 'selfish', 'greedy', 'privileged?" Not the majority of beneficiaries that's for sure. Beneficiaries have many obligations and responsibilities, that you are obviously unaware of as clearly you have never found yourself in the position of needing temporary assistance. Job Seekers in particular have ongoing obligations to not only meet with case managers regularly, but to declare income from all sources as they earn it. Yes, people on JS (and supported living benefits) are often working part time, and are only being "topped up" by WINZ, to ensure they can put food on the table. They have training obligations if relevant to their situation, and have to demonstrate they are looking for work (and provide proof of that).

Black Peter is 100% correct in everything he said above. STOP lumping all beneficiaries into the same "bottom feeder" bucket of disgust! Nobody is disputing the fact that some people exploit the system, but the vast majority do not! The comments made here by some of you, say far more about you than they do about us, and your comments demonstrate your own entitlement, and feelings of superiority.

You people rant and rave about co-governance and racist policies blah blah blah - yet you contribute just as much to the division in this country, with your narrow minded, ignorance about how the other half lives.

There, but for the Grace of God go I. Remember that.

I haven't called beneficiaries 'bottom feeders'. You are taking aim at the wrong person. I am saying it is entirely right and appropriate that they should have to meet with case managers & declare extra income. If you think that is some sort of incredibly harsh and draconian position to take, then I think that is indicative of just how skewed some perspectives are becoming.

I have found myself in the position where I could seek 'temporary' assistance from the state. I have been at the WINZ office but I couldn't go through with the application. In my heart of hearts I know that I can always find a job, and it is simply a matter of perserverance. The more interviews a person attends, the luckier they get. These days if I have a period where I don't work, I live off my savings. I am simply not going to go onto a benefit. It is not something I want for myself. I want to go through my entire life without going into a benefit. If others want to go on it 'temporarily', good on them I guess. Personally, I won't be doing it.

I don't get this 'but for the Grace of God go I' stuff.

There are people with mental health issues & neurodivergence who get up every day and go to work. It is a matter of self discipline and self respect.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Because thus far (at any rate) ACT's crypto fascist dogwhistling has not convinced more than a small proportion of the citizenry to abandon our broadly liberal democratic system and our generally centrist policies. That may be about to change. I hope not, because the more unequal society that will result will make everyone less healthy and happy.

Your sharing about your exhaustion, dissatisfaction, and general disillusion with the "rat race", and your resentment of the beneficiaries whose lives you see as better or more plasant and satisfying than your own, makes some of your postings more understandable and human, and I .encourage you to say more about that

I still fail to see where the 'resentment' of beneficiaries is that you are claiming. I've said that it is entirely appropriate that beneficiaries meet with case managers and declare extra income. I've said that I don't think that - in a country crying out for workers - it is acceptable that some people are on benefits year in and year out. None of this is 'crypto fascist'.

There is exhaustion and dissatisfaction with the rat race, but Marxists have never come up with anything better. Their system is supposed to all for 'the worker', yet in any country it was tried the worker ended up working twice as hard for a much reduced standard of living & an oppressive totalitarian state. If anyone out there thinks that the Left are good and uncorruptable people then they should think again after reviewing history & the application of the adage 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

The fallacy and failure of the Left is their dunderheaded belief that they can make life 'fair'. All they will do is destroy our living standards, there is nothing surer.

The people I reserve my contempt for are the chardonnay socialists and the ivory tower intellectuals and the union officials. The parasites who feed off division and lies. The people who wouldn't be paid tuppence in a 'workers paradise' like North Korea, but grow fat and loud in a capitalist society. They are the latent Napoleons and Snowballs of our erstwhile Animal Farm, the ones who preach hate the entirity of their lives & will never do a single days hard work so long as they live.

[Entrep]

You people rant and rave about co-governance and racist policies blah blah blah - yet you contribute just as much to the division in this country, with your narrow minded, ignorance about how the other half lives.

Not really - we're not on the news telling the country that all violence is because of white males, or that Pakeha are responsible for Maori domestic abuse (Marama Mugabe). I'd argue she has had a far larger impact than random posters on a small investment forum.

This is just another spin on the "if you question it you're racist". If you question it, your divisive.

[Logen Ninefingers]

You can see how certain posters - filled up with Left wing dogma - patronise others and parade their supposed moral superiority. They are the foot soldiers of the Left, the ones that put democratic socialist fanatics into position of power where they can wreck our country.

[moka]

I know a bloke who purchased a nearly new fridge and washing machine from a beneficiary family who were moving from Rotorua to Hamilton. He made some ridiculously low offer for the appliances which was accepted. The lady just laughed and said they’d get new ones from WINZ.

Fact Check You have to pay the money back when Work and Income helps you buy a new fridge.

https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/eligibility/urgent-costs/whiteware.html
(https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/eligibility/urgent-costs/whiteware.html)
We may be able to help you buy a new fridge, freezer, combined fridge-freezer or washing machine if you’re on a low income or a benefit.
You don't have to be on a benefit to qualify for this help.
You'll have to pay the money back.

[Balance]

Fact Check You have to pay the money back when Work and Income helps you buy a new fridge.

https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/eligibility/urgent-costs/whiteware.html
(https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/eligibility/urgent-costs/whiteware.html)
We may be able to help you buy a new fridge, freezer, combined fridge-freezer or washing machine if you’re on a low income or a benefit.
You don't have to be on a benefit to qualify for this help.
You'll have to pay the money back.

Which they never do.

[BlackPeter]

I don't know if Davflaws is being facetious or not. All I want is for beneficiaries to have the same sort of obligations and oversight that working people do. It's pretty simple really. I'm sick of seeing working people labelled as 'selfish', 'greedy', 'privileged' when in reality they are getting milked by the state while frantically going round on round on the hamster wheel of life. We are all working and paying taxes hoping for a great country where hard work is rewarded and people take the opportunities that are available. In my opinion we are all being betrayed by the Left, we are being betrayed by people who literally hate our system and society and make no secret of it, people who will gladly borrow $100 billion and spend it wastefully to undermine our country and saddle it with an onerous burden. It is sick. It is wrong. If you are a democratic socialist, and you are working away to usher in a pure socialist system to replace our (psuedo)capitalist society, that should preclude you from standing for Parliament. Why do we allow people who want to destroy us the means to take power? It's insane.

Well, I don't know that either. Lets hope, he was ...

Not sure though, I can understand your hate on anything left-wing. And no, just to clarify - that's not me - I consider myself a conservative liberal.

Society is spread across many dimensions. One dimension is political left to the political right ... and if we forget about the extremes on both sides, all political views are valid and necessary.

The extreme right wants a small state and everybody fighting for themselves, which taken to the extreme leads to failed states (like Somalia). No taxes, no police, no education system, no justice system, no welfare.

The extreme left wants a nanny state which takes responsibility of the individual from birth to grave, which leads obviously to extreme inefficencies and lack of incentives to perform for individuals (high taxes).

Both sides of the political spectrum taken to their extreme are highly undesirable and - frankly - don't work.

So - I guess we need to work it out where we as society see the sweet spot between these extremes, and this (working out) works better if you respect the other side instead of demonizing them and just shouting at them.

The Left-wing camp is morally neither better nor worse than the conservative camp ... and both camps have their fair share of liars, corrupt politicians and plain incompetent politicians.

And while you are right that the most recent Labour government was not very efficient, neither was the Key government before. If you want to know how they blew our hard earned tax dollar, than read the "Billion Dollar Bonfire" from Chris Lee. No fun to read, but lots of useful data in it.

So - lets agree on facts, lets help us to see each others goals - and hopefully move the country together into a better future. Calling the other side names and presume they want to damage society results only in further radicalisation on both sides of the political spectrum ... and if you want to see what comes out of that, than just study the European history of the early 20th century. No need to repeat this chapter.

[justakiwi]

I haven't called beneficiaries 'bottom feeders'. You are taking aim at the wrong person.

No I'm not. I am responding to your post, and everything you said, implied that all beneficiaries are bottom feeders.



I am saying it is entirely right and appropriate that they should have to meet with case managers & declare extra income. If you think that is some sort of incredibly harsh and draconian position to take, then I think that is indicative of just how skewed some perspectives are becoming.

I agree with you. I was simply pointing out to you, that beneficiaries do have real obligations.



I have found myself in the position where I could seek 'temporary' assistance from the state. I have been at the WINZ office but I couldn't go through with the application. In my heart of hearts I know that I can always find a job, and it is simply a matter of perserverance. The more interviews a person attends, the luckier they get.

OK, so you felt uncomfortable applying for assistance so made a decision not to go through with it. That is fine, and your choice, but don't judge others for making a different choice. The fact that you have sufficient savings to do that, is admirable, but again, don't judge others for not having that ability. Some of us work hard (or have worked hard all our lives) but in jobs that do not pay even close to the average wage. Many of those people have minimal ability to save. The only reason I have been able to do that (and invest some of those savings) is because I made a decision to live full time in my caravan. I had spent years post divorce, working full time to pay rent (and raise kids) - I made zero headway. I have saved more money over the past five years since I moved into my caravan, than any other time in my life. But not everyone is in the position to do what I did, so they work their butts off and make very little financial headway. Some of those people are now the beneficiaries you so despise. You don't know other people's stories. I have put myself out there here at ST, from the day I first joined up. I basically laid all my cards o on the table and have been an open book. I did that for a reason. Firstly, because I am an inherently, and sickeningly, honest person. I over share personal information because I am a WYSIWYG kind of person. But I have also shared my **** here, as a way to (hopefully) educate people, and open their eyes to the fact that we are all different, we don't all fit the same mold, but we are all human beings with something of value to contribute. I have been a beneficiary in the past. I beat myself up constantly, feeling guilty and ashamed for being a solo parent raising four kids, struggling to put food on the table and having to accept help from food banks at times. Not being able to afford the cost of a school camp. Having to tell your kids you can't afford to buy milo this week. Feeling like the ****tiest parent when your youngest child points out that they never get new clothes - just their sisters' hand me downs. Do you have any idea what that is like? I swore I would never ever put myself through that again, yet here I am. Only able to work x amount of hours a week (due to health issues) and being "topped up" by WINZ. But you know what? This time I refuse to feel guilty, and I refuse to feel ashamed. Because social assistance is there for precisely this reason, and none of us should be made to feel worthless, for having to accept it.



These days if I have a period where I don't work, I live off my savings. I am simply not going to go onto a benefit. It is not something I want for myself. I want to go through my entire life without going into a benefit. If others want to go on it 'temporarily', good on them I guess. Personally, I won't be doing it.

I don't get this 'but for the Grace of God go I' stuff.

"There, but for the Grace of God" - is a timely reminder, that none of us ever know what is around the corner, or where our life will end up. There are no guarantees about anything - whether we will even wake up tomorrow. I am not religious myself, but I find the saying apt and relevant to many of these "discussions" - any one of you could suddenly find yourself in the position of needing government assistance. Yes, even you.


There are people with mental health issues & neurodivergence who get up every day and go to work. It is a matter of self discipline and self respect.

You have no idea mate. None.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Fact Check You have to pay the money back when Work and Income helps you buy a new fridge.

https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/eligibility/urgent-costs/whiteware.html
(https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/eligibility/urgent-costs/whiteware.html)
We may be able to help you buy a new fridge, freezer, combined fridge-freezer or washing machine if you’re on a low income or a benefit.
You don't have to be on a benefit to qualify for this help.
You'll have to pay the money back.

Obviously there are people out there who know how to game the system.

Special Needs Grants are paid for a variety of purposes and are available to non-beneficiaries as well as beneficiaries. There are both income-test limits and a cash-asset limit.

You usually don’t have to repay a Special Needs Grant. In some situations, both a Special Needs Grant and an Advance of Benefit (or Recoverable Assistance Payment) can be paid, if the Special Needs Grant is insufficient to meet the entire need.

Work and Income should deal with an application for a Special Needs Grant inside one working day. In some cases, you can apply by ringing Work and Income’s 0800 559 009 number, rather than having to apply in writing.

Payments can be made directly to suppliers, if they’re on Work and Income’s database, or through a payment card provided to you by Work and Income.

[Logen Ninefingers]

No I'm not. I am responding to your post, and everything you said, implied that all beneficiaries are bottom feeders.




I agree with you. I was simply pointing out to you, that beneficiaries do have real obligations.




OK, so you felt uncomfortable applying for assistance so made a decision not to go through with it. That is fine, and your choice, but don't judge others for making a different choice. The fact that you have sufficient savings to do that, is admirable, but again, don't judge others for not having that ability. Some of us work hard (or have worked hard all our lives) but in jobs that do not pay even close to the average wage. Many of those people have minimal ability to save. The only reason I have been able to do that (and invest some of those savings) is because I made a decision to live full time in my caravan. I had spent years post divorce, working full time to pay rent (and raise kids) - I made zero headway. I have saved more money over the past five years since I moved into my caravan, than any other time in my life. But not everyone is in the position to do what I did, so they work their butts off and make very little financial headway. Some of those people are now the beneficiaries you so despise. You don't know other people's stories. I have put myself out there here at ST, from the day I first joined up. I basically laid all my cards o on the table and have been an open book. I did that for a reason. Firstly, because I am an inherently, and sickeningly, honest person. I over share personal information because I am a WYSIWYG kind of person. But I have also shared my **** here, as a way to (hopefully) educate people, and open their eyes to the fact that we are all different, we don't all fit the same mold, but we are all human beings with something of value to contribute. I have been a beneficiary in the past. I beat myself up constantly, feeling guilty and ashamed for being a solo parent raising four kids, struggling to put food on the table and having to accept help from food banks at times. Not being able to afford the cost of a school camp. Having to tell your kids you can't afford to buy milo this week. Feeling like the ****tiest parent when your youngest child points out that they never get new clothes - just their sisters' hand me downs. Do you have any idea what that is like? I swore I would never ever put myself through that again, yet here I am. Only able to work x amount of hours a week (due to health issues) and being "topped up" by WINZ. But you know what? This time I refuse to feel guilty, and I refuse to feel ashamed. Because social assistance is there for precisely this reason, and none of us should be made to feel worthless, for having to accept it.

"There, but for the Grace of God" - is a timely reminder, that none of us ever know what is around the corner, or where our life will end up. There are no guarantees about anything - whether we will even wake up tomorrow. I am not religious myself, but I find the saying apt and relevant to many of these "discussions" - any one of you could suddenly find yourself in the position of needing government assistance. Yes, even you.

These days if I have a period where I don't work, I live off my savings. I am simply not going to go onto a benefit. It is not something I want for myself. I want to go through my entire life without going into a benefit. If others want to go on it 'temporarily', good on them I guess. Personally, I won't be doing it.

I don't get this 'but for the Grace of God go I' stuff.

There are people with mental health issues & neurodivergence who get up every day and go to work. It is a matter of self discipline and self respect.[/QUOTE]

I have said nothing other than that beneficiaries should have to meet regularly with case managers and should have to declare extra income. If that is 'demonising beneficiaries' or something then I don't know what to tell you.

As far as I am concerned, people like you are why we have the social safety net we do. Good on you for being a good parent, hopefully you are instilling good values in your kids & providing an environment of love and care. If you are someone who has generally been on the recieving end of bad luck and ill fortune, why on earth should you be down on yourself for utilising the safety net? There is not a person who this site who would begrudge a person in your situation from utilising a safety net, it is the people who choose a benefit as a life-style choice who people take aim at.

If there is 'judging' going on, it is more likely to be coming from the fantasists on the Left who think that life can be made 'fair', and who call people who vote for National and ACT 'selfish' and worse.

[moka]

Some of you will find this interview with David Seymour interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkHxljMLOGEDavid Seymour on being tied up in endless rules and regulation.
25:38 Early childhood education centers are just a classic example. You know they tell me they get a weekly update on the new rules the ministry has made. They have to open with 303 rules to comply with every day. They have to keep a record of every bit of food that has been given to kids for three months.

I think that the rules are there to protect the children because childcare has become a for-profit game, and children suffer as a result. I see private equity is involved.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/300814789/the-jugglenaut-how-childcare-became-a-forprofit-game
(https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/300814789/the-jugglenaut-how-childcare-became-a-forprofit-game)
Now an increasing chunk of $2.3b a year in taxpayer funding is collected by for-profit providers, and ultimately passed on to investors.
A Stuff analysis found the biggest four childcare businesses received around a fifth of all government funding allocated to ECE in a financial year, amounting to more than $450m.

According to Ministry of Education data, in the 2022 calendar year $242m went to Best Start Educare, owned by Chloe and Wayne Wright; $78m went to Provincial Education Group, owned by Busy Bees Australasia, in turn owned by the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan; and $80m went to Evolve Education Group (Lollipops Educare), owned by an Australian private equity firm.
Evolve Education Group is the country’s second-largest daycare company. It was publicly listed on the NZX until it was sold for $46m to Australian private equity firm Anchorage Capital Partners in 2022.
And international research suggests on average, the for-profit sector – particularly large chains – is poorer quality.

[Logen Ninefingers]

David Seymour on being tied up in endless rules and regulation.
25:38 Early childhood education centers are just a classic example. You know they tell me they get a weekly update on the new rules the ministry has made. They have to open with 303 rules to comply with every day. They have to keep a record of every bit of food that has been given to kids for three months.

I think that the rules are there to protect the children because childcare has become a for-profit game, and children suffer as a result. I see private equity is involved.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/300814789/the-jugglenaut-how-childcare-became-a-forprofit-game
(https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/300814789/the-jugglenaut-how-childcare-became-a-forprofit-game)
Now an increasing chunk of $2.3b a year in taxpayer funding is collected by for-profit providers, and ultimately passed on to investors.
A Stuff analysis found the biggest four childcare businesses received around a fifth of all government funding allocated to ECE in a financial year, amounting to more than $450m.

According to Ministry of Education data, in the 2022 calendar year $242m went to Best Start Educare, owned by Chloe and Wayne Wright; $78m went to Provincial Education Group, owned by Busy Bees Australasia, in turn owned by the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan; and $80m went to Evolve Education Group (Lollipops Educare), owned by an Australian private equity firm.
Evolve Education Group is the country’s second-largest daycare company. It was publicly listed on the NZX until it was sold for $46m to Australian private equity firm Anchorage Capital Partners in 2022.
And international research suggests on average, the for-profit sector – particularly large chains – is poorer quality.

Since when did Childcare become 'big business'? Probably since government started pouring billions of dollars into it to buy votes. We now have 'childcare' on an industrial scale. I don't know what Michelle Duff and her 'investigation' is ultimately proposing as an alternative though. But knowing the left wing tendancies of Stuff there will be great umbrage being taken at the very notion of 'profit'.

Here are some potential 'solutions':

1/ One parent in each household goes back to minding the child during the day, and the child goes into a kindergarten for a limited number of hours per week only for education & socialisation purposes & not as the 'child minding while the parents work' institution that it has become. The state withdraws funding in accordance with this new paradigm, and the 'for profit' daycare centres go broke.

2/ Daycare stays as it is, as a 'child minding while the parents work' situation, but private sector ownership of these facilities is banned & the whole system is run by the state as a kind of 'KiwiDaycare' system at the taxpayers expense....effectively extending state oversight of the child from when they can crawl to when they leave secondary or tertiary education.

If you are a fan of cradle to the grave socialism then you will be out of your seat and cheering for option 2.

[justakiwi]

Solution 1 is exactly how it used to be when I was a Kindergarten Teacher, and then a mother. It was straight out preschool education with zero day care component.

Solution 2 - most families no longer have the above option as they both need to work to support their families. The Kindergartens have had to modify their service away from purely “education” to meet the need for all day care. Which has been a huge shame in my opinion.

As for your suggestion that the government should provide this service themself - are you kidding me? They can’t even provide an acceptable Aged Care service or Dementia Care service. What on earth makes you believe they could deliver an early childhood education/day care service? And I mean ANY government- not just Labour.


Since when did Childcare become 'big business'? Probably since government started pouring billions of dollars into it to buy votes. We now have 'childcare' on an industrial scale. I don't know what Michelle Duff and her 'investigation' is ultimately proposing as an alternative though. But knowing the left wing tendancies of Stuff there will be great umbrage being taken at the very notion of 'profit'.

Here are some potential 'solutions':

1/ One parent in each household goes back to minding the child during the day, and the child goes into a kindergarten for a limited number of hours per week only for education & socialisation purposes & not as the 'child minding while the parents work' institution that it has become. The state withdraws funding in accordance with this new paradigm, and the 'for profit' daycare centres go broke.

2/ Daycare stays as it is, as a 'child minding while the parents work' situation, but private sector ownership of these facilities is banned & the whole system is run by the state as a kind of 'KiwiDaycare' system at the taxpayers expense....effectively extending state oversight of the child from when they can crawl to when they leave secondary or tertiary education.

If you are a fan of cradle to the grave socialism then you will be out of your seat and cheering for option 2.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Solution 1 is exactly how it used to be when I was a Kindergarten Teacher, and then a mother. It was straight out preschool education with zero day care component.

Solution 2 - most families no longer have the above option as they both need to work to support their families. The Kindergartens have had to modify their service away from purely “education” to meet the need for all day care. Which has been a huge shame in my opinion.

As for your suggestion that the government should provide this service themself - are you kidding me? They can’t even provide an acceptable Aged Care service or Dementia Care service. What on earth makes you believe they could deliver an early childhood education/day care service? And I mean ANY government- not just Labour.

They are not my proposed solutions, they are the only other options besides the 'for profit' situation that we now have & which the Left hate. I'm just sick and tired of the Left howling about situations they themselves have created by more and more state subsidies and funding. And I certainly agree with you that government wouldn't be able to deliver a better service than what the private providers do; it would be a disaster - lots of little 'gulags for kids' dotted across the country.

[moka]

Since when did Childcare become 'big business'? Probably since government started pouring billions of dollars into it to buy votes. We now have 'childcare' on an industrial scale. I don't know what Michelle Duff and her 'investigation' is ultimately proposing as an alternative though. But knowing the left wing tendancies of Stuff there will be great umbrage being taken at the very notion of 'profit'.

Here are some potential 'solutions':

1/ One parent in each household goes back to minding the child during the day, and the child goes into a kindergarten for a limited number of hours per week only for education & socialisation purposes & not as the 'child minding while the parents work' institution that it has become. The state withdraws funding in accordance with this new paradigm, and the 'for profit' daycare centres go broke.

2/ Daycare stays as it is, as a 'child minding while the parents work' situation, but private sector ownership of these facilities is banned & the whole system is run by the state as a kind of 'KiwiDaycare' system at the taxpayers expense....effectively extending state oversight of the child from when they can crawl to when they leave secondary or tertiary education.

If you are a fan of cradle to the grave socialism then you will be out of your seat and cheering for option 2.A better solution is provide more support for community run not-for-profit centres such as kindergartens, which was the way it was. New Zealand Kindergartens is a Not-For-Profit Incorporated Society and registered charity.

How childcare became a business

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/300814789/the-jugglenaut-how-childcare-became-a-forprofit-game
(https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/300814789/the-jugglenaut-how-childcare-became-a-forprofit-game)
The number of community-run, not-for-profit daycares has plummeted in the past decade.
Private providers, once a quarter of the education and care market which caters for most children, now make up 62%. While these were once primarily run by single operators, large daycare groups have increasingly swallowed up smaller centres.

Regulations have changed over time to allow this. Where once only 50 children were allowed at a centre, and 25 if they were under 2, in 2011 the National government bumped it up 150 and 75 respectively.

Government subsidies tied to providing “20 Hours” ECE for 3-to-5-year-olds were initially designed for not-for-profit providers, such as community-run centres and kindergartens. But lobbying from the Early Childhood Council and the for-profit sector meant a last-minute change by then education minister Steve Maharey to include them.

[moka]

Beneficiaries do already have many obligations.

I see that if you are a parent on Jobseeker you are expected to enrol your child in an approved early education programme. But after doing a bit of research today the privately owned centres are usually too expensive.

Larger centres had economies of scale and aggressive tactics which made it “incredibly hard” for small, not-for-profit centres to compete. Over time this meant families were worse off, she said. “In some communities, unless you can afford it, there is now no choice at all.”

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/300814789/the-jugglenaut-how-childcare-became-a-forprofit-game

https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/on-a-benefit/obligations/index.html
Your obligations while getting payments from us

https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/on-a-benefit/obligations/obligations-for-getting-jobseeker-support.html
(https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/on-a-benefit/obligations/obligations-for-getting-jobseeker-support.html)
You're expected to take reasonable steps to meet social obligations as a parent or a caregiver. These are to ensure your dependent child(ren) (including any child you get Orphan's or Unsupported Child's Benefit for) are:
enrolled with a health practitioner or a medical practice that's part of a Primary Health Organisation (PHO)
enrolled in and attending one of the following from the age of 3 until they start school:
an approved early childhood education programme, eg,
Kohanga Reo, Punanga Reo, Aoga and other programmes with a language and culture focus
parenting and early childhood home education programmes
kindergartens
preschools
childcare centres
playcentres
home-based care services, or
Te Aho o Te Kura Pounamu - The Correspondence School, or
another approved parenting and early childhood home education programme
up to date with core Well Child/Tamariki Ora checks if aged under 5, at a Well Child/Tamariki Ora provider, eg:
Plunket

[moka]

Some of you will find this interview with David Seymour interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkHxljMLOGEIn the interview Seymour comes across as “woke.” There are several definitions of woke and the one that I am using is a person or corporation who pays lip service to reform, but does not actually achieve those necessary goals for a more egalitarian society, and in fact upholds the status quo.

David Seymour 27:35 I've got it here little card that I carry that's probably quite useful and it just says speak well of others so you can recognize the best in each person, use my time on Earth to leave the planet and people better than I found it, be self-aware and take responsibility for my actions, be kind to myself today…

Speak well of others so you can recognize the best in each person David….
0:13 there is a political party called Te Patu Maori that represents this very divisive vision

[thegreatestben]

A person and a political party are very different things

[Logen Ninefingers]

In the interview Seymour comes across as “woke.” There are several definitions of woke and the one that I am using is a person or corporation who pays lip service to reform, but does not actually achieve those necessary goals for a more egalitarian society, and in fact upholds the status quo.

David Seymour 27:35 I've got it here little card that I carry that's probably quite useful and it just says speak well of others so you can recognize the best in each person, use my time on Earth to leave the planet and people better than I found it, be self-aware and take responsibility for my actions, be kind to myself today…

Speak well of others so you can recognize the best in each person David….
0:13 there is a political party called Te Patu Maori that represents this very divisive vision

Te Pati Maori is very divisive though.

[Getty]

We may just be about to get a government that will at least start to treat the cancer on our society that woke liberalism has produced. Most beneficiaries are parasites and bludgers.

If the state (ie decent hardworking taxpayers) is providing accommodation, it can actually do so most efficiently by building the units concerned of hardwearing and durable materials to minimise the damage caused by feckless tenants and concentrating them in high rise blocks which can be made easier to police by limiting and controlling access points.

Gated communities are generally thought of in terms of keeping the crims away from decent people's property. It is easier, cheaper and more effective to to form gated high rises and keep the crims, druggies, and bludgers in.

There may be some concern for the welfare of the hordes of children sired by feckless and selfish transient males and popped out as a lifestyle by "welfare queens", but that could be addressed if they were concentrated, by giving welfare officers and "facility supervisors" skeleton keys to allow "without notice" inspections of the units and the children in them.

The criminal tendencies of the beneficiaries can be addressed by abandoning the woke liberal policing policies that have got us into our present trajectory towards third world status, and reintroducing the "three strikes" policy, along with generally longer sentences and tougher prison conditions.

It may even be time to consider reintroducing the birch, since the fabric of our society has frayed and behavior has markedly deteriorated since corporal punishment was banned in schools and homes by the woke left.

Accepting a benefit from taxpayers should come with obligations!

I see Dover Samuel's late enlightenment has washed over onto you davflaws.

I always knew you had latent tendencies.

[davflaws]

I see Dover Samuel's late enlightenment has washed over onto you davflaws.

I always knew you had latent tendencies.
Dover has become a grumpy old man. I'm just old, and that should be blatant.

[BlackPeter]

We may just be about to get a government that will at least start to treat the cancer on our society that woke liberalism has produced. Most beneficiaries are parasites and bludgers.

...



That's a very nasty statement. Do you have any evidence to support this statement or did you make that number up?

I suppose "most" is over 50% - and given that many posters here seem to think that the recipients of superannuation, family and child support, plus obviously the dole and sickness benefits are all "beneficiaries" - what you said is that more than the half of all superannuitants, university students (yes, many of them receive some benefits as well), families with children and obviously the classical "beneficiaries" like sick people and unemployed people are parasites and bludgers.

This what you are saying?

Did you think that through - or are you just as nasty as your statement above?

[davflaws]

Did you think that through - or are you just as nasty as your statement above?
Nastier. I eat children for breakfast. Generally I kill and cook them first, but if I am very hungry or feeling particularly grumpy, I just gnaw off a limb and eat it raw. The kids make a bit of noise, but I have earmuffs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

[fungus pudding]

Nastier. I eat children for breakfast. Generally I kill and cook them first, but if I am very hungry or feeling particularly grumpy, I just gnaw off a limb and eat it raw. The kids make a bit of noise, but I have earmuffs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

Fair enough, but keep your eyes open to the dangers.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/eating-raw-meat

[ithaka]

That's a very nasty statement. Do you have any evidence to support this statement or did you make that number up?

I suppose "most" is over 50% - and given that many posters here seem to think that the recipients of superannuation, family and child support, plus obviously the dole and sickness benefits are all "beneficiaries" - what you said is that more than the half of all superannuitants, university students (yes, many of them receive some benefits as well), families with children and obviously the classical "beneficiaries" like sick people and unemployed people are parasites and bludgers.

This what you are saying?

Did you think that through - or are you just as nasty as your statement above?
BP, I think davflaws is winding you up.

[davflaws]

BP, I think davflaws is winding you up.

I was originally really bothered by the ACT proposal to expand elecronic surveillance of beneficiaries by issuing their benefit in the form of a card that would allow their case managers to breach their privacy and monitor the details of the way they spend their miserable benefits. I suggested they extend that proposal to monitor their calls and texts as well.

I threw in lots of the tropes, putdowns and prejudices slapped on beneficiaries by many posters on here who's knowledge of the reality of many beneficiary's lives is limited to "something they heard" or "someone who knows". While I was on a roll, I also addressed a proposal to house them in "concentration high rises" (yup -I was dogwhistling).

I was really surprised, given my posting history on this and many other threads, to find that at least some people took my posts as serious rather than satire.

I don't really eat children (well - not often).

[Balance]

Davflaws - the do gooder who has done nothing but bad for the legions of beneficiaries and underprivileged he purports to help.

Same way he believes a NZer only has culture or heritage if they are Maori or adopt Maori culture. Class A BS worthy of Clueless woke Cindy.

[fungus pudding]

Davflaws - the do gooder who has done nothing but bad for the legions of beneficiaries and underprivileged he purports to help.

Same way he believes a NZer only has culture or heritage if they are Maori or adopt Maori culture. Class A BS worthy of Clueless woke Cindy.

He doesn't discriminate between Maori and Pakeha children in his dietary requirements. Can't be fairer than that.

[justakiwi]

Maybe that's your fault. People like me always felt you were one of the good guys, so yeah, we trusted you at your word. Don't blame us for being "sucked in" because you suck at satire. Stick with what you know. It was working fine.


I was originally really bothered by the ACT proposal to expand elecronic surveillance of beneficiaries by issuing their benefit in the form of a card that would allow their case managers to breach their privacy and monitor the details of the way they spend their miserable benefits. I suggested they extend that proposal to monitor their calls and texts as well.

I threw in lots of the tropes, putdowns and prejudices slapped on beneficiaries by many posters on here who's knowledge of the reality of many beneficiary's lives is limited to "something they heard" or "someone who knows". While I was on a roll, I also addressed a proposal to house them in "concentration high rises" (yup -I was dogwhistling).

I was really surprised, given my posting history on this and many other threads, to find that at least some people took my posts as serious rather than satire.

I don't really eat children (well - not often).

[Daytr]

I was originally really bothered by the ACT proposal to expand elecronic surveillance of beneficiaries by issuing their benefit in the form of a card that would allow their case managers to breach their privacy and monitor the details of the way they spend their miserable benefits. I suggested they extend that proposal to monitor their calls and texts as well.

I threw in lots of the tropes, putdowns and prejudices slapped on beneficiaries by many posters on here who's knowledge of the reality of many beneficiary's lives is limited to "something they heard" or "someone who knows". While I was on a roll, I also addressed a proposal to house them in "concentration high rises" (yup -I was dogwhistling).

I was really surprised, given my posting history on this and many other threads, to find that at least some people took my posts as serious rather than satire.

I don't really eat children (well - not often).

You played it so well Davflaws. I don't really know your posting history so had to read twice to see if it was just another nasty post in line with some on here or it was a wind up. And I thought, surely no one is that callous. 🤔


He doesn't discriminate between Maori and Pakeha children in his dietary requirements. Can't be fairer than that.

Post of the day.

[Azz]

You played it so well Davflaws. I don't really know your posting history so had to read twice to see if it was just another nasty post in line with some on here or it was a wind up. And I thought, surely no one is that callous.

It wasn't satire when the pair of you laughed at and belittled my experience with two people who took their own lives.

[BlackPeter]

I was originally really bothered by the ACT proposal to expand elecronic surveillance of beneficiaries by issuing their benefit in the form of a card that would allow their case managers to breach their privacy and monitor the details of the way they spend their miserable benefits. I suggested they extend that proposal to monitor their calls and texts as well.

I threw in lots of the tropes, putdowns and prejudices slapped on beneficiaries by many posters on here who's knowledge of the reality of many beneficiary's lives is limited to "something they heard" or "someone who knows". While I was on a roll, I also addressed a proposal to house them in "concentration high rises" (yup -I was dogwhistling).

I was really surprised, given my posting history on this and many other threads, to find that at least some people took my posts as serious rather than satire.

I don't really eat children (well - not often).

Fair enough. Good to have the old davflaws back.

Its just - satire is very hard to convey through textbase media ... better be frugal using that.

[Daytr]

It wasn't satire when the pair of you laughed at and belittled my experience with two people who took their own lives.

Stop making things up.
I have already asked you to show me where I laughed or belittled your "experience" and you couldn't, because it didn't happen.

Playing the victim for something that wasn't even posted is devious & pathetic.

[Azz]

Stop making things up.
I have already asked you to show me where I laughed or belittled your "experience" and you couldn't, because it didn't happen.

Playing the victim for something that wasn't even posted is devious & pathetic.

Why are you putting experience in quotes: "experience" ?

[Daytr]

Why are you putting experience in quotes: "experience" ?

So you are just skimming over the fact that you made the accusation up and that you are using a tragedy to somehow try and score points.
What sort of person does that.

[Azz]

So you are just skimming over the fact that you made the accusation up and that you are using a tragedy to somehow try and score points.
What sort of person does that.

I'm not trying to score points at all. You are a sociopath, and people can just read what you wrote, starts from here:

https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?12719-Bullying-in-Labour-amp-Cover-Up-Dr-Gaurav-Sharma-Vindicated&p=1022425#post1022404

And you did it again; more disrespect, more belittling; answer this:

Why are you putting experience in quotes: "experience" ?

[Aaron]

I was originally really bothered by the ACT proposal to expand elecronic surveillance of beneficiaries by issuing their benefit in the form of a card that would allow their case managers to breach their privacy and monitor the details of the way they spend their miserable benefits. I suggested they extend that proposal to monitor their calls and texts as well.

ACT the party to quote from their website.

advocating for expanded personal freedom and responsibility.

Yeah Right grab me a Tui.

[Daytr]

I'm not trying to score points at all. You are a sociopath, and people can just read what you wrote, starts from here:

https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?12719-Bullying-in-Labour-amp-Cover-Up-Dr-Gaurav-Sharma-Vindicated&p=1022425#post1022404

And you did it again; more disrespect, more belittling; answer this:

Why are you putting experience in quotes: "experience" ?

Because I am quoting you. Doh!

[Azz]

Because I am quoting you. Doh!

No that's BS - and you know it. Those are air quotes. You're suggesting there is no experience.

[Daytr]

No that's BS - and you know it. Those are air quotes. You're suggesting there is no experience.

Why did you bother asking if you were never going to believe me and like many of your positions were preordained.
If I was implying what you say, I would have used single inverted commas.
Do you ever get tired of just making stuff up?
This is about as tedious as our many other stoushes and toying with food has a limited amount of entertainment value.

[Azz]

Why did you bother asking if you were never going to believe me and like many of your positions were preordained.
If I was implying what you say, I would have used single inverted commas.
Do you ever get tired of just making stuff up?
This is about as tedious as our many other stoushes and toying with food has a limited amount of entertainment value.

I was hoping you would not lie and instead you would own up to what I consider to be some of the most disgusting behaviour I've seen on this site and maybe this would help you grow in some manner. But, no.

I wrote:


It wasn't satire when the pair of you laughed at and belittled my experience with two people who took their own lives.

In reply, you wrote:


I have already asked you to show me where I laughed or belittled your "experience"

You are obviously taking the piss out of my experience. Those are obvious air quotes.

[thegreatestben]

Did anyone watch this "interview" David gave with family first?
https://youtu.be/gZP2oQF7s6c?si=LUVG5Lngqn1IW6vN

You can clearly see he has respect for a lot of his opponents based on how little he has for the people he's speaking to here. I love seeing the comments about switching their vote to NZ First based on the video. You can see exactly the kind of company you're keeping if you're a Winston Peters fan.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Did anyone watch this "interview" David gave with family first?
https://youtu.be/gZP2oQF7s6c?si=LUVG5Lngqn1IW6vN

You can clearly see he has respect for a lot of his opponents based on how little he has for the people he's speaking to here. I love seeing the comments about switching their vote to NZ First based on the video. You can see exactly the kind of company you're keeping if you're a Winston Peters fan.

Well he is a libertarian and they think a talking snake tempted Eve with an apple in the Garden of Eden and that stuff. I guess they are oil and water & I cannot understand why he went and did this interview as it was always going to be a trainwreck.

[Baa_Baa]

Well he is a libertarian and they think a talking snake tempted Eve with an apple in the Garden of Eden and that stuff. I guess they are oil and water & I cannot understand why he went and did this interview as it was always going to be a trainwreck.

It was a train wreck only for the interviewer, Seymour owned him, calling out his misinformation and falsehoods. Hardly surprising that the audience comments sided with the interviewer, they must love that guy.

[Patrick11]

Like chris Luxon and national thing he will be good for the country but David Seymour and act would be bad for the country

[ithaka]

David Seymour for prime minister!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tB_Uh8jVgc

[BDL]

David Seymour for prime minister!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tB_Uh8jVgc

I'll vote for that.....

[Logen Ninefingers]

David Seymour for prime minister!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tB_Uh8jVgc

Hear hear.

[fungus pudding]

David Seymour for prime minister!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tB_Uh8jVgc

He is certainly more sensible than a lot of other MPs.

[dln]

Talking too much sense - the cookers seem to be deserting him.

[justakiwi]

This week's election poll is here:

https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?12754-POLL-New-poll-2-weeks-till-the-election

[Getty]

We may just be about to get a government that will at least start to treat the cancer on our society that woke liberalism has produced. Most beneficiaries are parasites and bludgers.

If the state (ie decent hardworking taxpayers) is providing accommodation, it can actually do so most efficiently by building the units concerned of hardwearing and durable materials to minimise the damage caused by feckless tenants and concentrating them in high rise blocks which can be made easier to police by limiting and controlling access points.

Gated communities are generally thought of in terms of keeping the crims away from decent people's property. It is easier, cheaper and more effective to to form gated high rises and keep the crims, druggies, and bludgers in.

There may be some concern for the welfare of the hordes of children sired by feckless and selfish transient males and popped out as a lifestyle by "welfare queens", but that could be addressed if they were concentrated, by giving welfare officers and "facility supervisors" skeleton keys to allow "without notice" inspections of the units and the children in them.

The criminal tendencies of the beneficiaries can be addressed by abandoning the woke liberal policing policies that have got us into our present trajectory towards third world status, and reintroducing the "three strikes" policy, along with generally longer sentences and tougher prison conditions.

It may even be time to consider reintroducing the birch, since the fabric of our society has frayed and behavior has markedly deteriorated since corporal punishment was banned in schools and homes by the woke left.

Accepting a benefit from taxpayers should come with obligations!

Your thoughts from an "angry man" re gated communities resonate down this way.

Some have been saying for years, that all you need to do to expand Mangaroa prison, is to put a fence around the suburb of Flaxmere.

[moka]

This press release by ACT claims zero evidence For TPM’s Race-baiting claims.

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2310/S00037/zero-evidence-for-tpms-race-baiting-claims.htm
“Te Pāti Māori and their allies have accused ACT of ‘race-baiting’ over and over again, but can never provide an example.

This Newshub article provides two examples of racebaiting.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/09/election-2023-act-s-david-seymour-denies-using-beneficiaries-m-ori-as-political-punching-bag.html
(https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/09/election-2023-act-s-david-seymour-denies-using-beneficiaries-m-ori-as-political-punching-bag.html)
Seymour also suggested people are being forced to use te reo Māori. "The way to turn a treasure into a form of torture is to impose it on people by force, perhaps with the very best of intentions."
He released a policy document titled 'A path from co-government to democracy' - a follow-up to a welfare policy announced this week taking aim at beneficiaries.

Calling it co-government is racebaiting. It is co-governance that has been discussed.

[Logen Ninefingers]

This press release by ACT claims zero evidence For TPM’s Race-baiting claims.

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2310/S00037/zero-evidence-for-tpms-race-baiting-claims.htm
“Te Pāti Māori and their allies have accused ACT of ‘race-baiting’ over and over again, but can never provide an example.

This Newshub article provides two examples of racebaiting.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/09/election-2023-act-s-david-seymour-denies-using-beneficiaries-m-ori-as-political-punching-bag.html
(https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/09/election-2023-act-s-david-seymour-denies-using-beneficiaries-m-ori-as-political-punching-bag.html)
Seymour also suggested people are being forced to use te reo Māori. "The way to turn a treasure into a form of torture is to impose it on people by force, perhaps with the very best of intentions."
He released a policy document titled 'A path from co-government to democracy' - a follow-up to a welfare policy announced this week taking aim at beneficiaries.

Calling it co-government is racebaiting. It is co-governance that has been discussed.

You don't get to define 'race baiting'.

Race baiting and promoting actual hatred between races is what John Tamihere has done down in Huntly, but deliberately playing up and miscategorising a series of unrelated incidents into a vendetta against a TPM candidate being carried out by 'racist white people'.

A political sign disappearing - for all I know it blew away in the wind - was called 'a ram raid'. Do you condone the appalling lies of John Tamihere and TPM?

An elderly man going to wish a TPM candidate well was miscategorised as some sort of politically motivated intimidation by a racist, and the man was tracked down and served with a trespass notice. Do you condone the appalling lies of John Tamihere and TPM?

Datyr, red panda, red skies as well.....you all have an opportunity to call out what happened in Huntly for what it was: a series of stunts by TPM designed to stoke race hate and division to earn them support & votes.

[Entrep]

You don't get to define 'race baiting'.

Race baiting and promoting actual hatred between races is what John Tamihere has done down in Huntly, but deliberately playing up and miscategorising a series of unrelated incidents into a vendetta against a TPM candidate being carried out by 'racist white people'.

A political sign disappearing - for all I know it blew away in the wind - was called 'a ram raid'. Do you condone the appalling lies of John Tamihere and TPM?

An elderly man going to wish a TPM candidate well was miscategorised as some sort of politically motivated intimidation by a racist, and the man was tracked down and served with a trespass notice. Do you condone the appalling lies of John Tamihere and TPM?

Datyr, red panda, red skies as well.....you all have an opportunity to call out what happened in Huntly for what it was: a series of stunts by TPM designed to stoke race hate and division to earn them support & votes.

Hell yeah brother!

https://media.giphy.com/media/I3EsiEPZWgpqg/giphy-downsized.gif

[Panda-NZ-]

Datyr, red panda, red skies as well.....you all have an opportunity to call out what happened in Huntly for what it was: a series of stunts by TPM designed to stoke race hate and division to earn them support & votes.

Logen getting frantic with only a week to the election.. we're all barely posting.

He's obsessed.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Logen getting frantic with only a week to the election.. we're all barely posting.

He's obsessed.

Way to miss the point.

[Patrick11]

Seymour is a dangerous man I hope Luxon doesn't give him a important portfolio

[Entrep]

Seymour is a dangerous man I hope Luxon doesn't give him a important portfolio

David Seymour is the only one with even a modicum of common sense in Govt.

[Patrick11]

Chris Luxon good he has business experience

[BlackPeter]

David Seymour is the only one with even a modicum of common sense in Govt.

Except that he is not yet in government.

But anyway, it probably will be fun to watch ACT, NZF and National trying to agree on anything, though it might be more fun to watch that from the sidelines :)

[moka]

You don't get to define 'race baiting'.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/499388/what-is-race-baiting-and-who-decides
(https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/499388/what-is-race-baiting-and-who-decides)
“By a strict dictionary definition, "race-baiting" is the act of intentionally encouraging racism or anger about issues related to race in order to win votes.

In 2004, National's then-leader Don Brash embarked upon what many critics considered a campaign of race-baiting. Brash accused the Labour Government of the time of "race-based" policies that unfairly advantaged Māori and advocated "one law for all". It was certainly a potent vote winner - National surged from the high-20s to the mid-40s on political polls within weeks. But was it "intentionally encouraging racism"? “

[ithaka]

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/499388/what-is-race-baiting-and-who-decides
(https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/499388/what-is-race-baiting-and-who-decides)
“By a strict dictionary definition, "race-baiting" is the act of intentionally encouraging racism or anger about issues related to race in order to win votes.

In 2004, National's then-leader Don Brash embarked upon what many critics considered a campaign of race-baiting. Brash accused the Labour Government of the time of "race-based" policies that unfairly advantaged Māori and advocated "one law for all". It was certainly a potent vote winner - National surged from the high-20s to the mid-40s on political polls within weeks. But was it "intentionally encouraging racism"? “
New Zealand is slowly learning (way too slowly in my opinion) that enshrining race in legislation, no matter how well intentioned, is a recipe for resentment. It has never ended well historically, wherever it has been tried. People are deluding themselves if they think it's a solution to any problem.
Don Brash was ahead of his time.

[moka]

Election 2023: Māori leaders call on politicians to condemn racism
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/499013/election-2023-maori-leaders-call-on-politicians-to-condemn-racism
(https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/499013/election-2023-maori-leaders-call-on-politicians-to-condemn-racism)
In an open letter, Māori and community leaders are calling for an end to a "divisive style of politics".

"Racism, in any form, should have no place in our elections," the letter starts.
"Leaders, whether it is within your iwi, your whānau or of a political party, have a responsibility to call out racism and race-baiting and publicly condemn it.

"Race-baiting for votes is not new here in Aotearoa. But this election, the dog whistling and the outright public displays of racism from political candidates have increased to unacceptable levels.
"We need to draw a line in the sand, put an end to this divisive style of politics because Aotearoa, we are better than that."
The letter acknowledged Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins calling for the end to race-baiting in election campaigns.
It also acknowledged the Green Party and Te Pāti Māori for "their anti-racism positions and respect the words of Kiingi Tuheitia Pōtatau Te Wherowhero IIV, who, at his Koroneihana called for political parties to stop using Māori people as a political football".

"It is racist to call for Māori, elite or not, to be cut out and buried."
It said it was "ignorant" to call the signing of Te Tiriti "a wee experiment".
"And it is ignorant to think you have a right to erase Te Tiriti from legislation and rewrite it in your own words."

The letter said Māori deserved better from those who wanted to lead the country.

[moka]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/election-2023-race-relations-commissioner-on-allegations-of-race-baiting-in-election/MRJW43MHWVDK7LKTBDPJK3ECLE/
(https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/election-2023-race-relations-commissioner-on-allegations-of-race-baiting-in-election/MRJW43MHWVDK7LKTBDPJK3ECLE/)
"Acting Race Relations commissioner Saunoamaali’i Karanina Sumeo is calling for respect and dignity to be maintained when political tensions are high, saying she is concerned there have been racist and classist undertones.
She told Checkpoint that rhetoric of an unpleasant nature had been escalating and some of it was racist. It was also concerning that there seemed to be more verbal attacks on women candidates.

All political parties have said that candidates are experiencing abuse and threats while campaigning, however they have also accused each other of stirring up ill-feeling.The reports have increased over the past six months and “it’s feeling dangerous”, she said.

She appealed to candidates to take a deep breath and not make comments that caused tension, especially for the sake of young people.
“They want to hear aspiration, they want to hear harmony, they want to hear hope, not comments that can cause disharmony and people to feel unsafe in our communities.

“I think it’s a reflection of the fragility that’s in our communities right now ... we just have to be careful what we are saying to each other because our young people, everyone is looking for leadership, they’re looking for stability.”

She pleaded with those both in politics and business to remember that this country was a home for everyone and people should be doing their best to maintain harmony and respect for others.

She referred to the controversy around the Ministry of Pacific Peoples earlier this year. Soon after reports of spending on breakfasts and gifts for its departing chief executive emerged, Act leader David Seymour said he would like to blow up the ministry.

She said such incidents “provided oxygen” for other people and that led to staff feeling unsafe in their workplaces.
Such comments were not conducive to “racial harmony or public safety”."

[Balance]

Here's RACE BAITING of the highest order - by John Tamihere of The Maori Party.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/10/election-2023-man-accused-by-te-p-ti-m-ori-of-unlawfully-entering-candidate-s-home-says-he-s-innocent-wanted-to-wish-her-well.html

It’s fair for Te Pāti Māori to raise concerns generally about what they see as heightened levels of racism in New Zealand right now, but delivering a verdict prematurely for the purposes of political finger pointing is repugnant & disgraceful.

And this is the person who Tamihere called a home invader :

https://scontent.fakl1-4.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/52674251_117846899350077_5643775739217051648_n.jpg ?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=52f669&_nc_ohc=O1HAi9Jxr1sAX--JF2W&_nc_ht=scontent.fakl1-4.fna&oh=00_AfCM2NARSAAf5jgaHZtu9cgQzDA-fHZjMfsRF14XmCVwbA&oe=65470BB9

Seriously?

[justakiwi]

Final election poll is here:

https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?12761-ELECTION-POLL-1-week-till-the-election!

[blackcap]

Final election poll is here:

https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?12761-ELECTION-POLL-1-week-till-the-election!

Thank you JK, appreciate the effort etc.

[BlackPeter]

Here's RACE BAITING of the highest order - by John Tamihere of The Maori Party.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/10/election-2023-man-accused-by-te-p-ti-m-ori-of-unlawfully-entering-candidate-s-home-says-he-s-innocent-wanted-to-wish-her-well.html

It’s fair for Te Pāti Māori to raise concerns generally about what they see as heightened levels of racism in New Zealand right now, but delivering a verdict prematurely for the purposes of political finger pointing is repugnant & disgraceful.

And this is the person who Tamihere called a home invader :

https://scontent.fakl1-4.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/52674251_117846899350077_5643775739217051648_n.jpg ?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=52f669&_nc_ohc=O1HAi9Jxr1sAX--JF2W&_nc_ht=scontent.fakl1-4.fna&oh=00_AfCM2NARSAAf5jgaHZtu9cgQzDA-fHZjMfsRF14XmCVwbA&oe=65470BB9

Seriously?

I don't really want to get drawn into this pity debate about race-baiting, but not quite sure which point you want to make with your foto.

I understand NZ Police is processing a person for home invasion into the house of a young woman who happens to be a Te Pati candidate. I have no clue whether this was the person on the foto, but if it was, what exactly is your point?

Are you saying NZ Police has got the wrong guy?

or are you saying NZ Police has got the right guy, but it is not this person and its Te Patis fault?

And whats the point of the foto anyway? Do you believe one can judge from a foto whether a person is a home invader or not? Crooks come in all colours, shapes, genders and forms - and even Donald Trump could be just a nice granddad, if a photo of him is the only thing you've got.

Confusing :confused: ;

[Getty]

Is the inference the gent in the photo is on the wrong side of the tracks?

[Balance]

Is the inference the gent in the photo is on the wrong side of the tracks?

He’s the home invader according to Tamihere and the Maori Party.

Scary huh?

[jonu]

I don't really want to get drawn into this pity debate about race-baiting, but not quite sure which point you want to make with your foto.

I understand NZ Police is processing a person for home invasion into the house of a young woman who happens to be a Te Pati candidate. I have no clue whether this was the person on the foto, but if it was, what exactly is your point?

Are you saying NZ Police has got the wrong guy?

or are you saying NZ Police has got the right guy, but it is not this person and its Te Patis fault?

And whats the point of the foto anyway? Do you believe one can judge from a foto whether a person is a home invader or not? Crooks come in all colours, shapes, genders and forms - and even Donald Trump could be just a nice granddad, if a photo of him is the only thing you've got.

Confusing :confused: ;

You are definitely confused. I don't know why you "understand the NZ police is processing a person for home invasion".

[BlackPeter]

You are definitely confused. I don't know why you "understand the NZ police is processing a person for home invasion".

Well, I understand that because this is what they said when they first talked about it in the news, but who knows, maybe NZ Police or the news are confused :) ?

So - what was the point of the foto? Is balance claiming it was the house invader ... or not?

[thegreatestben]

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/10/election-2023-police-don-t-believe-incidents-at-te-p-ti-m-ori-candidate-s-home-were-racially-motivated.html

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/10/election-2023-man-accused-by-te-p-ti-m-ori-of-unlawfully-entering-candidate-s-home-says-he-s-innocent-wanted-to-wish-her-well.html

[moka]

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2210/S00004/on-why-new-zealand-isnt-heavily-taxed.htm
(https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2210/S00004/on-why-new-zealand-isnt-heavily-taxed.htm)
We also happen to be living in an era of right wing populism. Having an integrated persona and a coherent policy platform is not seen as much of a political priority. So long as the candidate can regularly land somewhere along the spectrum of existing grievances confirmed by focus group research, the inconsistency between those landing points won’t be much of a disqualifying factor.

The problem for the rest of us with the micro-targeting of grievances by National and ACT, is that this strategy to get elected does not include sustainable alternatives.

That’s the problem with populism. It is all about pandering to grievances, not solutions. It fosters division, not unity.

[Balance]

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2210/S00004/on-why-new-zealand-isnt-heavily-taxed.htm
(https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2210/S00004/on-why-new-zealand-isnt-heavily-taxed.htm)
We also happen to be living in an era of right wing populism. Having an integrated persona and a coherent policy platform is not seen as much of a political priority. So long as the candidate can regularly land somewhere along the spectrum of existing grievances confirmed by focus group research, the inconsistency between those landing points won’t be much of a disqualifying factor.

The problem for the rest of us with the micro-targeting of grievances by National and ACT, is that this strategy to get elected does not include sustainable alternatives.

That’s the problem with populism. It is all about pandering to grievances, not solutions. It fosters division, not unity.

Exactly what Ardern, Hipkins and this useless Labour government have been doing since 2017 - pandering to racist & divisive groups for their votes.

Roll on October 14th.

[SBQ]

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2210/S00004/on-why-new-zealand-isnt-heavily-taxed.htm
(https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2210/S00004/on-why-new-zealand-isnt-heavily-taxed.htm)
We also happen to be living in an era of right wing populism. Having an integrated persona and a coherent policy platform is not seen as much of a political priority. So long as the candidate can regularly land somewhere along the spectrum of existing grievances confirmed by focus group research, the inconsistency between those landing points won’t be much of a disqualifying factor.

The problem for the rest of us with the micro-targeting of grievances by National and ACT, is that this strategy to get elected does not include sustainable alternatives.

That’s the problem with populism. It is all about pandering to grievances, not solutions. It fosters division, not unity.

Tax rates only tell half of the story. For eg in Australia and Canada both have a personal exemption limit before income taxes kick in, so you really just can't use the lowest or highest marginal tax figure. You really need to question why so many of the skilled have (and continue) to leave NZ for Australia? I left Canada for NZ because at the time, the political environment in Canada was toxic (much like what we are seeing now in NZ) ; in addition NZ having more habitable climate so I can enjoy my cars year round (vs Canada's extreme cold winters which would make using classic and sports cars maybe 4 months of the year).

[Entrep]

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2210/S00004/on-why-new-zealand-isnt-heavily-taxed.htm
(https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2210/S00004/on-why-new-zealand-isnt-heavily-taxed.htm)
We also happen to be living in an era of right wing populism. Having an integrated persona and a coherent policy platform is not seen as much of a political priority. So long as the candidate can regularly land somewhere along the spectrum of existing grievances confirmed by focus group research, the inconsistency between those landing points won’t be much of a disqualifying factor.

The problem for the rest of us with the micro-targeting of grievances by National and ACT, is that this strategy to get elected does not include sustainable alternatives.

That’s the problem with populism. It is all about pandering to grievances, not solutions. It fosters division, not unity.

What's worse: (1) dividing people by the colour of their skin (or 1/32nd the colour of their skin); (2) dividing people by tax rates, with higher earnings already paying more as a proportion and more as a total.

"It fosters division, not unity."

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

[BlackPeter]

Exactly what Ardern, Hipkins and this useless Labour government have been doing since 2017 - pandering to racist & divisive groups for their votes.

Roll on October 14th.

True - Labours policies have been as populist and useless as NZF's / ACT's and Nationals policies are now. Question is just - what do we gain by replacing one useless populist with another useless populist? Maybe we should throw the whole lot out of parliament :) ;

[BlackPeter]

What's worse: (1) dividing people by the colour of their skin (or 1/32nd the colour of their skin); (2) dividing people by tax rates, with higher earnings already paying more as a proportion and more as a total.

"It fosters division, not unity."

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

No doubt - Labours policies have been ill communicated and divisive (and yes, before you mention it - they don't work either).

I doubt however that ACT's and Winstons rethoric will do anything to foster a healing process - they are just alienating the other side of the chasm and making it larger.

Extremes (no matter on which side) never ever improve anything, they just breed extremes on the other side of the divide as well.

[moka]

Ray Dalio on populism

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/populism-phenomenon-ray-dalio
(https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/populism-phenomenon-ray-dalio)
Populism is not well understood because, over the past several decades, it has been infrequent in emerging countries (e.g., Chávez’s Venezuela, Duterte’s Philippines, etc.) and virtually nonexistent in developed countries. It is one of those phenomena that comes along in a big way about once a lifetime—like pandemics, depressions, or wars. The last time that it existed as a major force in the world was in the 1930s, when most countries became populist. Over the last year (2017), it has again emerged as a major force. We sought to identify parties/candidates who made attacking the political/corporate establishment their key political cause. Populism has surged in recent years and is currently at its highest level since the late 1930s (though the ideology of the populists today is much less extreme compared to the 1930s).

Given the extent of it now, over the next year populism will certainly play a greater role in shaping economic policies. In fact, we believe that populism’s role in shaping economic conditions will probably be more powerful than classic monetary and fiscal policies (as well as a big influence on fiscal policies).

Populism is a political and social phenomenon that arises from the common man being fed up with 1) wealth and opportunity gaps, 2) perceived cultural threats from those with different values in the country and from outsiders, 3) the “establishment elites” in positions of power, and 4) government not working effectively for them. These sentiments lead that constituency to put strong leaders in power. Populist leaders are typically confrontational rather than collaborative and exclusive rather than inclusive. As a result, conflicts typically occur between opposing factions (usually the economic and socially left versus the right), both within the country and between countries. These conflicts typically become progressively more forceful in self- reinforcing ways.

[Patrick11]

Good on the two young girls protesting at act press conference in chch today. With signs david Seymour is a f***ing idiot.

[Balance]

Good on the two young girls protesting at act press conference in chch today. With signs david Seymour is a f***ing idiot.

Young girls? They looked like spaced out welfare beneficiaries, hooked on P.

[Getty]

Good on the two young girls protesting at act press conference in chch today. With signs david Seymour is a f***ing idiot.

Considering that David Seymour is well established in politics, he gave those 2 the chance for some intercourse, and when they spoke, they sounded like the idiots.

[777]

Extremes (no matter on which side) never ever improve anything, they just breed extremes on the other side of the divide as well.

A good reason to ditch MMP.

[BlackPeter]

No doubt - Labours policies have been ill communicated and divisive (and yes, before you mention it - they don't work either).

I doubt however that ACT's and Winstons rethoric will do anything to foster a healing process - they are just alienating the other side of the chasm and making it larger.

Extremes (no matter on which side) never ever improve anything, they just breed extremes on the other side of the divide as well.

Maybe one remark after somewhat beating up ACT in the post above:

Having been yesterday in the Press Leaders Debate and I must admit that David Seymour came across as one of the more moderate of the invited leaders (i.e. Winston Peters, Marama Davidson and some guy from Te Pati (forgot his name).

Both Marama (who brought her own very well trained claqueure group into the debate) as well as the Te Pati rep gave us the feeling that as cis white people we still might be tolerated here, but it didn't feel that they welcome the majority of the land to contribute to the politics of the land ... unless of course when they agree with their view.

I found that very sad - the arrogance of both Green and the Te Pati reps will clearly drive more division and increase angst into moderate (and more so right) voter groups .... and while Te pati never featured on my shortlist - The Greens lost a lot of my respect.

Anyway ... just wanted to moderate my post above. Always learning :) ;

[BlackPeter]

A good reason to ditch MMP.

Not sure I would concur with that. The UK does not have MMP and ended up with a disastrous liar and crook like BJ as leader, destroying a previously good working economy. UK will need generations to recover from that.

The US does not have MMP and allowed an extremist, wannabe tyran and crook like Donald Trump to destroy the democratic fabric of the country. We don't know yet whether the US democracy will ever recover from Trump undermining it and destroying the safe guards to protect it.

Don't get me wrong - every country has its fair share of crooks and liars (as well in politics), but FPP makes it much easier for these crooks to get absolute power.

MMP is often painful and slow, but at least it forces parties to compromise. It makes it not impossible for politicians to enforce politics against the will of the majority (just look at the current lot), but it makes it harder.

I like MMP. It is a bad from of democracy, but it is better than any other form of government I have seen so far operating (to borrow a saying from Winston Churchill).

[Panda-NZ-]

I found that very sad - the arrogance of both Green and the Te Pati reps will clearly drive more division and increase angst into moderate (and more so right) voter groups .... and while Te pati never featured on my shortlist - The Greens lost a lot of my respect.

Rather than placing James Shaw in the cupboard this election, it should be the other way around. Marama doesn't come across too well except to her base.

[BlackPeter]

Rather than placing James Shaw in the cupboard this election, it should be the other way around. Marama doesn't come across too well except to her base.

I think you are right. But maybe James Shaw is anyway in the wrong party. James is Green but neither hard left nor racist like Marama.

Wondering how happy James really is in this party.

[Balance]

I think you are right. But maybe James Shaw is anyway in the wrong party. James is Green but neither hard left nor racist like Marama.

Wondering how happy James really is in this party.

He is a fake with a fake degree?

[BlackPeter]

He is a fake with a fake degree?

Is he?

Do you have any evidence for your statement or is this just one of your usual smear campaigns?

Apart from that - I never realised that politicians are voted in for their academic degrees? Are they? In terms of implementing policies to improve our future would I see him as one of the more successful ministers in the recent government, which admittedly is not a high standard, but still ...

[Balance]

Is he?

Do you have any evidence for your statement or is this just one of your usual smear campaigns?

Apart from that - I never realised that politicians are voted in for their academic degrees? Are they? In terms of implementing policies to improve our future would I see him as one of the more successful ministers in the recent government, which admittedly is not a high standard, but still ...

Ian Wishart on James Shaw's degrees :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvafaJGMYW8

Goes into the heart of integrity - not whether he has or not have a degree. If he can't be honest about his qualifications - how on earth can he be at all believed regarding his outlandish climate emergency nonsense ?



https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/52aca146e4b06d986ca82df3/68e4c63e-a6c1-4799-b631-6d46ff83cfaa/Imagining+copy.jpg?format=1500w

[BlackPeter]

Ian Wishart on James Shaw's degrees :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvafaJGMYW8

Goes into the heart of integrity - not whether he has or not have a degree. If he can't be honest about his qualifications - how on earth can he be at all believed regarding his outlandish climate emergency nonsense ?



https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/52aca146e4b06d986ca82df3/68e4c63e-a6c1-4799-b631-6d46ff83cfaa/Imagining+copy.jpg?format=1500w

OK - so innocent until proven guilty is only applied when it suits, is it?

But apart from that - I don't see how James Shaws degree (or the lack of it) has anything to do with our understanding of climate change. To the best of my knowledge did James Shaw no research into climate science, he is just using (as anybody else) the results of academical research.

[Balance]

OK - so innocent until proven guilty is only applied when it suits, is it?

But apart from that - I don't see how James Shaws degree (or the lack of it) has anything to do with our understanding of climate change. To the best of my knowledge did James Shaw no research into climate science, he is just using (as anybody else) the results of academical research.

Did you actually follow what Ian Wishart discovered and how James Shaw quickly changed his Linkedin credentials when he was asked about his 'qualifications' (he did not have a BA as he stated in his Linkedin page initially) & how he is totally uncooperative when it comes to how he got his MSC from Bath University?

Read this and decide whether James Shaw is a trustworthy individual of integrity :

https://peterallanwilliams.substack.com/p/james-shaw-not-ba

The thing about politicians is that you have to be able to trust them, and to gain trust it helps if they tell the truth about their life and times and background before they went into politics.

For some bizarre reason James Shaw, Minister for Climate Change and co-leader of the Green Party, is telling the world through social media network LinkedIn that he has a BA from Victoria University.

But he has previously told the Otago University student magazine Critic that he didn’t finish his degree before he went off to England in the late 1990s. So he is putting about that he has an undergraduate degree which he has admitted is not the truth.

To quote from Critic, “I never actually got my undergrad.”

It is technically a crime to claim that you have an academic qualification that you don’t have. Others have lost jobs or positions for making such claims.

A staffer at James Shaw’s office has now confirmed that James Shaw does not have a BA from Victoria University. So why is it still on his Linked In page? That is demonstrably false information. If we can’t trust him with his academic qualifications, what else can we not trust him on?

The answer to that, of course, is plenty.

He also says on LinkedIn that he co-founded an outfit in the UK called Future Considerations and that he was a shareholder in it. The only problem is that on his CV he says he started working for Future Considerations in 2005. The company was founded in 2002.

Shaw said in his maiden speech Parliament in 2014 that he worked at Future Considerations, “an organisational development company I helped to establish.”

So the question is – did he mislead Parliament from as early as his maiden speech?

The thing about these issues is that Ian Wishart of Investigate magazine has been writing about them on Twitter for over a week. Nobody in the mainstream media has bothered to follow up the story, no questions have been asked, and there’s been no response from Shaw or the Greens to the thread on Twitter.

If this was David Seymour or Chris Luxon – or Ben Uffindell - with some palpably false information on their LinkedIn CV do you think the media would let that sleep?

Who says our media don’t love and protect the left?

[BlackPeter]

Did you actually follow what Ian Wishart discovered and how James Shaw quickly changed his Linkedin credentials when he was asked about his 'qualifications' (he did not have a BA as he stated in his Linkedin page initially) & how he is totally uncooperative when it comes to how he got his MSC from Bath University?

Read this and decide whether James Shaw is a trustworthy individual of integrity :

https://peterallanwilliams.substack.com/p/james-shaw-not-ba

The thing about politicians is that you have to be able to trust them, and to gain trust it helps if they tell the truth about their life and times and background before they went into politics.

For some bizarre reason James Shaw, Minister for Climate Change and co-leader of the Green Party, is telling the world through social media network LinkedIn that he has a BA from Victoria University.

But he has previously told the Otago University student magazine Critic that he didn’t finish his degree before he went off to England in the late 1990s. So he is putting about that he has an undergraduate degree which he has admitted is not the truth.

To quote from Critic, “I never actually got my undergrad.”

It is technically a crime to claim that you have an academic qualification that you don’t have. Others have lost jobs or positions for making such claims.

A staffer at James Shaw’s office has now confirmed that James Shaw does not have a BA from Victoria University. So why is it still on his Linked In page? That is demonstrably false information. If we can’t trust him with his academic qualifications, what else can we not trust him on?

The answer to that, of course, is plenty.

He also says on LinkedIn that he co-founded an outfit in the UK called Future Considerations and that he was a shareholder in it. The only problem is that on his CV he says he started working for Future Considerations in 2005. The company was founded in 2002.

Shaw said in his maiden speech Parliament in 2014 that he worked at Future Considerations, “an organisational development company I helped to establish.”

So the question is – did he mislead Parliament from as early as his maiden speech?

The thing about these issues is that Ian Wishart of Investigate magazine has been writing about them on Twitter for over a week. Nobody in the mainstream media has bothered to follow up the story, no questions have been asked, and there’s been no response from Shaw or the Greens to the thread on Twitter.

If this was David Seymour or Chris Luxon – or Ben Uffindell - with some palpably false information on their LinkedIn CV do you think the media would let that sleep?

Who says our media don’t love and protect the left?

OK - clearly unpleasant accusations which may or may not be true or trumped up.

Funny, they came up so short before the election - did somebody collect smears and just released them at a time when it is hard to debunk them in time?

But whatever it is - it doesn't matter to me (given that I didn't vote for Green this turn anyway), and as I see it, you won't vote for them either.

So - maybe create a Green thread with a decent thread title - and put it there.

This is the ACT thread, isn't it?

[fungus pudding]

To return to Act leader's style.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hThE13_zXWM&pp=ygUTdGVuc2UgYW5kIGNvbWJhdGl2ZQ%3D%3D

No wonder he and Winston are often at war. Seymour operates on logic - Peters operates on bluster and b/s.

[Panda-NZ-]

Logic is apparently being in opposition (effectively) for decades then relying on affirmative action in Epsom.

[Balance]

OK - clearly unpleasant accusations which may or may not be true or trumped up.

Funny, they came up so short before the election - did somebody collect smears and just released them at a time when it is hard to debunk them in time?

But whatever it is - it doesn't matter to me (given that I didn't vote for Green this turn anyway), and as I see it, you won't vote for them either.

So - maybe create a Green thread with a decent thread title - and put it there.

This is the ACT thread, isn't it?

It is the ACT thread but you are the one who brought up James Shaw (the fake) here first, remember?

[Balance]

To return to Act leader's style.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hThE13_zXWM&pp=ygUTdGVuc2UgYW5kIGNvbWJhdGl2ZQ%3D%3D

No wonder he and Winston are often at war. Seymour operates on logic - Peters operates on bluster and b/s.

Perfect combination! :t_up:

[ynot]

Perfect combination! :t_up:

When it comes to BS Davidson takes the cake. Absolutely clueless ! Just imagine for a moment if the greens and co were in power. Incredible how low the bar is set to be running a nation.

[Aaron]

Front page of the herald today Charities providing school lunches concerned that David is being put in charge as he has stated he is against them.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/school-lunches-health-campaigners-blast-extremely-concerning-david-seymour-appointment/6DUOCSCBW5DEVID72DJNYGJ3ZE/

I agree with him that the parents not feeding their kids are sh*tbags but is it the kids fault?

Seymour really is an ahole.

[Daytr]

Front page of the herald today Charities providing school lunches concerned that David is being put in charge as he has stated he is against them.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/school-lunches-health-campaigners-blast-extremely-concerning-david-seymour-appointment/6DUOCSCBW5DEVID72DJNYGJ3ZE/

I agree with him that the parents not feeding their kids are sh*tbags but is it the kids fault?

Seymour really is an ahole.

You are certainly right it's not the kids fault.
There is a huge amount of waste with this program.
It's my understanding that the schools that are serviced, that lunches are provided for all kids no matter the need, as they don't want to shame the kids who rely on the food.

Getting parents of kids who need it to sign up for it and the school having some discretion to provide additional lunches would save likely $50M - $80M per year.

I know a teacher at one of these schools and he says most days half is thrown out. Some days if its food the kids don't like, even more. He takes home lunches most days and puts them in the freezer or gives them to his flatmates, rather than them going to waste.

So, I think there is some room to reign in the waste & cost without preventing those in need from being serviced.

[iceman]

You are certainly right it's not the kids fault.
There is a huge amount of waste with this program.
It's my understanding that the schools that are serviced, that lunches are provided for all kids no matter the need, as they don't want to shame the kids who rely on the food.

Getting parents of kids who need it to sign up for it and the school having some discretion to provide additional lunches would save likely $50M - $80M per year.

I know a teacher at one of these schools and he says most days half is thrown out. Some days if its foid the kids don't like, even more. He takes home lunches most days and puts them in the freezer or gives them to his flatmates, rather than them going to waste.

So, I think there is some room to reign in the waste & cost without preventing those in need from being serviced.

I know one too. My wife who relief teaches at a few low decile schools. The waste is 50% on a good day, 80-90% on many other days. The type and quality of food ranges wildly depending on service providers and of course Maori providers are preferred, whether best or not. The idea of school lunches is good and well intentioned, but sadly this program is an abject failure. Again Seymour calls a spade a spade.

[mistaTea]

I agree with him that the parents not feeding their kids are sh*tbags but is it the kids fault?

Seymour really is an ahole.

Yes I do feel for the kids whose parents don't feed them because they use the money for other cr@p they don't need.

Just an awful situation and I really do feel for those kids who are absolutely the victims in those situations.

I would not call Seymour an ahole though for being concerned at the amount of spend. Easy to jump to the conclusion that he is heartless, but I have not seen any evidence yet that this is the case.

He is very big on 'needs based' so I imagine he will not be looking to scrap free lunches altogether, but to find ways to target those who truly are in need and deliver the service more efficiently. And that is the right approach in my view as the govt does have a duty to taxpayers to make sure the money is being spent wisely.

But it is a challenging issue and I watch with interest to see what Seymour does here. I would be aghast if it was scrapped altogether. Though I generally have more conservative leanings, the idea of kids going hungry because their parents are really poor, absolute sh1tbags or a combo of both makes me feel sick.

[Balance]

“Ka Ora, Ka Ako was expanded rapidly and by last year it covered about a quarter of all students. Evaluations found that it led to children eating more nutritious food and contributed positively to their wellbeing, but it had little impact on school attendance and did not deliver the expected benefits for Māori students.

Treasury officials expressed ambivalence in a briefing to then-finance minister Grant Robertson, describing the evidence for the initiative’s effectiveness and value for money as mixed and pointing out that many of the meals had been wasted. “We do not recommend Ka Ora, Ka Ako become permanent until it is shown to be effective for Māori,” Treasury advisers said.”

The parents who do not feed their kids are the big arseholes and those who want the waste to continue without a review and vetting are also arseholes.

[mistaTea]

“Ka Ora, Ka Ako was expanded rapidly and by last year it covered about a quarter of all students. Evaluations found that it led to children eating more nutritious food and contributed positively to their wellbeing, but it had little impact on school attendance and did not deliver the expected benefits for Māori students.

Treasury officials expressed ambivalence in a briefing to then-finance minister Grant Robertson, describing the evidence for the initiative’s effectiveness and value for money as mixed and pointing out that many of the meals had been wasted. “We do not recommend Ka Ora, Ka Ako become permanent until it is shown to be effective for Māori,” Treasury advisers said.”

The parents who do not feed their kids are the big arseholes and those who want the waste to continue without a review and vetting are also arseholes.

Yeah the idea that we should just spend spend spend without taking stock of whether the initiative is as effective as it could be, as targeted as it could be and delivered as efficiently as it could be is nuts.

We should always be willing to review things without people panicking and jumping to the worst case scenario.

I think it is a positive having a guy like Seymour look into it because he will call out the bs where he finds it.

And if the big concern about targeting school lunches to those in need is that the other students will know their parents are broke... well what a load of hooey.



That is absolutely NOT a reason for taxpayers to then be expected to pay for lunches for all students in a school; and
Guess what? - the other kids at the school already know who is 'broke' and who is not.

[Balance]

Bloody disgrace - the charities squealing like well fed pigs under Labour and are now being held to account for the wasteful spending which takes away funding from where the real needs are.

I say - Fxxk them and the arseholes parents.

[Aaron]

Yes I do feel for the kids whose parents don't feed them because they use the money for other cr@p they don't need.

Just an awful situation and I really do feel for those kids who are absolutely the victims in those situations.

I would not call Seymour an ahole though for being concerned at the amount of spend. Easy to jump to the conclusion that he is heartless, but I have not seen any evidence yet that this is the case.

He is very big on 'needs based' so I imagine he will not be looking to scrap free lunches altogether, but to find ways to target those who truly are in need and deliver the service more efficiently. And that is the right approach in my view as the govt does have a duty to taxpayers to make sure the money is being spent wisely.

But it is a challenging issue and I watch with interest to see what Seymour does here. I would be aghast if it was scrapped altogehter. Though I generally have more conservative leanings, the idea of kids going hungry because their parents are really poor, absolute sh1tbags or a combo or both makes me feel sick.

Your well balanced response to my post makes me feel like an ahole.

Hard to disagree if the programs are not effective and reaching those it was meant for.

Better to wait and see what actually happens than jump to wild conclusions I suppose.

I guess I should give David the benefit of the doubt for now.

[jonu]

Your well balanced response to my post makes me feel like an ahole.

Hard to disagree if the programs are not effective and reaching those it was meant for.

Better to wait and see what actually happens than jump to wild conclusions I suppose.

I guess I should give David the benefit of the doubt for now.

Have a recommend from me for this post. Seldom one sees anyone prepared to acknowledge they were wrong or had misjudged a situation. It's what free speech is about, ratrher than a shouting match. Bravo!

[mistaTea]

Have a recommend from me for this post. Seldom one sees anyone prepared to acknowledge they were wrong or had misjudged a situation. It's what free speech is about, ratrher than a shouting match. Bravo!

I second this.

[Panda-NZ-]

Bloody disgrace - the charities squealing like well fed pigs under Labour and are now being held to account for the wasteful spending which takes away funding from where the real needs are.

I say - Fxxk them and the arseholes parents.

Yes the money is needed right away to put back on tax incentives for landlords (who are also part of the problem).

[Ggcc]

Front page of the herald today Charities providing school lunches concerned that David is being put in charge as he has stated he is against them.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/school-lunches-health-campaigners-blast-extremely-concerning-david-seymour-appointment/6DUOCSCBW5DEVID72DJNYGJ3ZE/

I agree with him that the parents not feeding their kids are sh*tbags but is it the kids fault?

Seymour really is an ahole.
My parents were watching a documentary about this and mentioned the amount of food that went to the teachers houses, or went in the bin was insane. Kids just didn't eat the food provided and the majority of kids not wanting to eat were the kids needing the food. Go Figure....... It is not cool to show you are hungry and that your family don't have money. My daughter just mentioned it was in her school and it was frowned upon to eat free lunches.

I agree parents who don't feed their children if they can are a###holes.

[mistaTea]

My parents were watching a documentary about this and mentioned the amount of food that went to the teachers houses, or went in the bin was insane. Kids just didn't eat the food provided and the majority of kids not wanting to eat were the kids needing the food. Go Figure....... It is not cool to show you are hungry and that your family don't have money. My daughter just mentioned it was in her school and it was frowned upon to eat free lunches.

I agree parents who don't feed their children if they can are a###holes.

Interesting, and reinforces the earlier point about school dynamics if there are hungry kids not taking food because they will feel looked down upon, or get hassled etc.

It would be incredibly disappointing if this was a major barrier to getting food to kids in need. Because it is absolutely not reasonable to expect taxpayers to buy a bunch of food 'for all' only to have tonnes of it going to teachers and their mates or the bin.

Does taxpayer funded lunches for disadvantaged kids end up being a really nice idea but ultimately unworkable?

I hope not, because I would love to see a reasonable and affordable policy that helps feed these kids. I have a young son and just imagining him going all day at school with no food is enough to make my eyes sting.

[blackcap]

I could be wrong but the figure is about $8.28 per lunch. That is a hell of a lot of money being thrown away on good days and total wastage on bad days. This money could be far better utilised elsewhere. Food in schools is a disaster and David is totally onto it.

Those that are squealing loudest are those on the tit taking some of this tax payer money for provision of crap services. (Crap in that the kids don't eat it)

[mistaTea]

I could be wrong but the figure is about $8.28 per lunch. That is a hell of a lot of money being thrown away on good days and total wastage on bad days. This money could be far better utilised elsewhere. Food in schools is a disaster and David is totally onto it.

Those that are squealing loudest are those on the tit taking some of this tax payer money for provision of crap services. (Crap in that the kids don't eat it)

I wonder what is in the lunches?

If they have been designed by health nuts then that could also explain why they may not be as popular as hoped.

[Panda-NZ-]

I wonder what is in the lunches?


Another version of getting back to farming - NZ made produce bought by govt at inflated local prices.

Healthy doesn't have to taste bad though - I would do lots of meusli bars nuts, dried fruit which does taste similar to candy but with a vastly different nutritional profile.

[dobby41]

I know a teacher at one of these schools and he says most days half is thrown out. Some days if its food the kids don't like, even more. He takes home lunches most days and puts them in the freezer or gives them to his flatmates, rather than them going to waste.

I'm sure we have all heard these stories.
I also know of teachers in several schools who think that the policy is the best thing since, well, sliced bread.
Kids are more engaged and learning more.

I'm all for a review - so long as it is realistic and not Act ideology-driven.

[dobby41]

I wonder what is in the lunches?

If they have been designed by health nuts then that could also explain why they may not be as popular as hoped.

They vary a lot depending on the provider.
Some are more popular than others - kids need to be helped to change to a healthy diet sometimes.
Marmite and crisps sandwiches are out apparently :eek2:

[Panda-NZ-]

They vary a lot depending on the provider.
Some are more popular than others - kids need to be helped to change to a healthy diet sometimes.
Marmite and crisps sandwiches are out apparently :eek2:

Act policy- introduce "choice" into the program.

[mistaTea]

Some are more popular than others - kids need to be helped to change to a healthy diet sometimes.


Well, we just need to be clear on what we are trying to achieve here.

Are we trying to fundamentally change kids eating habits, or make sure the disadvantaged have food at school?

Not sugesting the state should be giving any old greasy rubbish with litres of coke... but I just hope they aren't being too idealogical about 'healthy eating' as that is a sure fire way of putting anyone off your food.

We want to target the kids who really need it as much as possible and provide food that will actually eat.

[Balance]

I'm sure we have all heard these stories.
I also know of teachers in several schools who think that the policy is the best thing since, well, sliced bread.
Kids are more engaged and learning more.

I'm all for a review - so long as it is realistic and not Act ideology-driven.

But ok if it’s woke leftist ideology driven.

Bloody joke.

[dobby41]

Well, we just need to be clear on what we are trying to achieve here.

Are we trying to fundamentally change kids eating habits, or make sure the disadvantaged have food at school?

Not sugesting the state should be giving any old greasy rubbish with litres of coke... but I just hope they aren't being too idealogical about 'healthy eating' as that is a sure fire way of putting anyone off your food.

We want to target the kids who really need it as much as possible and provide food that will actually eat.

Fair comment.
You could fill them up with chips and KFC.
My comment on changing eating habits was around giving them healthy food which they may not be used to eating.
Some of this food, I suspect, some have never seen before.
So healthy food but not in any ideological manner.
I think we are on the same page here.

[Balance]

10,000 meals a day not eaten and/or discarded - not to mention how many are half eaten or not eaten and chucked into the wastebins.

Meanwhile, classrooms are begging for a coat of paint!

Great business for the caterers, waste collectors and landfill owners.

Just like the Ardern & Hipkins generosity towards the consultancy industry - billions $ spent with bugger all to show.

[mistaTea]

10,000 meals a day not eaten and/or discarded - not to mention how many are half eaten or not eaten and chucked into the wastebins.

Great business for the caterers, waste collectors and landfill owners.

Just like the Ardern & Hipkins generosity towards the consultancy industry - billions $ spent with bugger all to show.

Can you share links to this info?

Not really a big surprise when you try to offer lunches for all instead of targeted assistance.

Yeah I bet a bunch of people and organisations got a good feed out of Labour on this (pun intended).

[Balance]

Can you share links to this info?

Not really a big surprise when you try to offer lunches for all instead of targeted assistance.

Yeah I bet a bunch of people and organisations got a good feed out of Labour on this (pun intended).

https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350034716/10000-healthy-school-lunches-leftover-each-day-critical-treasury-report-finds

Criminal waste of food and taxpayers’ funds.

Remember this was one of Clueless Cindy’s pet project implemented by Hapless Hipkins as Education Minister.

[Aaron]

We all know David Seymour is a massive c0ck, but would he have much of a platform without people like Joanna Kidman, who based on the statement being put forward in the media is a massive
c*nt.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/officials-respond-to-anti-extremism-centre-director-s-death-cult-comments-on-govt/ar-BB1joTMe?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=29789b859325401ba80420bd0691de86&ei=14

It would be hilarious that someone from He Whenua Taurikura - New Zealand’s National Centre of Research Excellence for Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism comes up with the question "is this a Government or a death cult"? if it wasn't taxpayer money paying her wages.

David says school lunches are expensive and don't work.

Joanna says boot camps are expensive and don't work.

Sounds like Joanna may have made part of David's job cutting govt expenditure a bit easier, bring on the boot camps for hungry kids. David is probably doing it out of love.

What Joanna does not understand with her extreme views is that this govt does love their children, so much that they are doing all they can to ensure they have the best life possible. Maybe at the expense of other peoples children but who am I to judge.

Do David and Brooke even have kids? Maybe there is a reason they hate paying for other people's kids. No point in making the great financial decision not to have kids then end up paying for someone elses.

We know Chris Luxon loves children, he does not even like them being killed in the womb, although he can put up with it for a few votes.

[ynot]

We all know David Seymour is a massive c0ck, but would he have much of a platform without people like Joanna Kidman, who based on the statement being put forward in the media is a massive
c*nt.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/officials-respond-to-anti-extremism-centre-director-s-death-cult-comments-on-govt/ar-BB1joTMe?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=29789b859325401ba80420bd0691de86&ei=14

It would be hilarious that someone from He Whenua Taurikura - New Zealand’s National Centre of Research Excellence for Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism comes up with the question "is this a Government or a death cult"? if it wasn't taxpayer money paying her wages.

David says school lunches are expensive and don't work.

Joanna says boot camps are expensive and don't work.

Sounds like Joanna may have made part of David's job cutting govt expenditure a bit easier, bring on the boot camps for hungry kids. David is probably doing it out of love.

What Joanna does not understand with her extreme views is that this govt does love their children, so much that they are doing all they can to ensure they have the best life possible. Maybe at the expense of other peoples children but who am I to judge.

Do David and Brooke even have kids? Maybe there is a reason they hate paying for other people's kids. No point in making the great financial decision not to have kids then end up paying for someone elses.

We know Chris Luxon loves children, he does not even like them being killed in the womb, although he can put up with it for a few votes.

Of course he has a solid platform.
The coalition is exposing the most corrupt, divisive government in our history.

[Balance]

Of course he has a solid platform.
The coalition is exposing the most corrupt, divisive government in our history.

Joanna Kidman is but the latest to be outed for the racist woke leftist political appointee that she is (by Ardern) to push her government's divisive and socialist/communist agenda.

It absolutely beggars belief that someone with such extreme and one-sided view can be the head of the Centre of Research Excellence for Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism!

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/professor-joanna-kidman-says-coalition-government-might-be-a-death-cult-david-seymour-calls-for-resignation-of-anti-extremism-centre-director/G4D4O5EJPNCKJDMDGOCHHSHU6M/

[ynot]

Joanna Kidman is but the latest to be outed for the racist woke leftist political appointee that she is (by Ardern) to push her government's divisive and socialist/communist agenda.

It absolutely beggars belief that someone with such extreme and one-sided view can be the head of the Centre of Research Excellence for Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism!

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/professor-joanna-kidman-says-coalition-government-might-be-a-death-cult-david-seymour-calls-for-resignation-of-anti-extremism-centre-director/G4D4O5EJPNCKJDMDGOCHHSHU6M/

But another example of Arderns legacy. It will take considerable time to rectify the damage she inflicted on NZ.

[Ggcc]

Of course he has a solid platform.
The coalition is exposing the most corrupt, divisive government in our history.
I don't feel that the coalition is divisive it is more the media that is creating this and has been for a while. If you show race as a victim, people's emotions get stirred both for and against it.

As for corrupt, unfortunately I feel most if not all in mps have ulterior motives and in someway are corrupt. It is like the gateway to higher paying jobs out in the real world.

[Bill Smith]

[QUOTE=Aaron;1043831]We all know David Seymour is a massive c0ck, but would he have much of a platform without people like Joanna Kidman, who based on the statement being put forward in the media is a massive
c*nt.

Been lurking in the mens toilet? How else would you know this?

[nztx]

[QUOTE=Aaron;1043831]We all know David Seymour is a massive c0ck, but would he have much of a platform without people like Joanna Kidman, who based on the statement being put forward in the media is a massive
c*nt.

Been lurking in the mens toilet? How else would you know this?


Cripes .. hope his Meds are still working :)

[mistaTea]

I see David dropped some truth bombs on the media today.

Still not quite ready to take a look on the mirror.

They interviewed some law professor from Otago who said that though David has not broken any laws by the letter of the law we should still examine whether his comments went against the SPIRIT of the law.

Wtaf. He is either within the law with his comments or he isn’t.

If this is what they are teaching at Otago then Heaven help us.

[nztx]

I see David dropped some truth bombs on the media today.

Still not quite ready to take a look on the mirror.

They interviewed some law professor from Otago who said that though David has not broken any laws by the letter of the law we should still examine whether his comments went against the SPIRIT of the law.

Wtaf. He is either within the law with his comments or he isn’t.

If this is what they are teaching at Otago then Heaven help us.


Will undoubtedly only improve further with the latest X-Labour runaway added to the pile ;)

[Aaron]

[QUOTE=Aaron;1043831]We all know David Seymour is a massive c0ck, but would he have much of a platform without people like Joanna Kidman, who based on the statement being put forward in the media is a massive
c*nt.

Been lurking in the mens toilet? How else would you know this?

Read it again. David Seymour IS a massive co*k, not David Seymour HAS a massive co*k.

If I have to explain anymore than that, perhaps you should try english lessons. Or perhaps you should be on a pornhub chat site instead of here to satisfy your gay voyeuristic tendencies.

Why David Seymour is a massive c0ck might be a better question?

He believes the poorest half of NZ should pay more tax so the top half can pay less.

He thinks feeding kids is a waste of money. To be fair he might just think that wasteful spending is the problem so I should wait for the results before judging.

He thinks automatic or semi-automatic weapons should be available to the public despite the USA proving that to be silly.

He would not support a capital gains tax or slowing immigration.

He does not approve of wasteful welfare spending but has not mentioned any significant changes to national superannuation.

He believes that low tax and small govt is the solution to all our problems, yet looking at tax rates and countries globally that I might want to live in, the opposite appears to be true.

I could go on.

Admittedly that is only my assessment as he obviously has some fans here at sharetrader.

[777]

What it means Aaron is he doesn't do what you want him to do.

A lot of his thinking I agree with. Some I don't but then we are all different.

But you have a hang up about certain things that you repeat every few weeks. Superannuation in particular.

[Bill Smith]

[QUOTE=Bill Smith;1043928]

Read it again. David Seymour IS a massive co*k, not David Seymour HAS a massive co*k.

If I have to explain anymore than that, perhaps you should try english lessons. Or perhaps you should be on a pornhub chat site instead of here to satisfy your gay voyeuristic tendencies.

Why David Seymour is a massive c0ck might be a better question?

He believes the poorest half of NZ should pay more tax so the top half can pay less.

He thinks feeding kids is a waste of money. To be fair he might just think that wasteful spending is the problem so I should wait for the results before judging.

He thinks automatic or semi-automatic weapons should be available to the public despite the USA proving that to be silly.

He would not support a capital gains tax or slowing immigration.

He does not approve of wasteful welfare spending but has not mentioned any significant changes to national superannuation.

He believes that low tax and small govt is the solution to all our problems, yet looking at tax rates and countries globally that I might want to live in, the opposite appears to be true.

I could go on.

Admittedly that is only my assessment as he obviously has some fans here at sharetrader.

Didn't realise I was viewing the rantings of a cock expert. Seems like you would see one every time you pass a mirror.

[Panda-NZ-]

Talking to yourself again Bill? (hmm, wonder what else do you do to yourself).

[Balance]

[QUOTE=Aaron;1044029]

Didn't realise I was viewing the rantings of a cock expert. Seems like you would see one every time you pass a mirror.

No - he sees a big arsehole whenever Aaron passes a mirror.

Thought he would have learnt his lesson after going off at Seymour over school lunches but he obviously has learnt nothing. What an arsehole.

[Aaron]

Whoa Whoa, where is all this nastiness coming from?

I was just trying to help out someone who appeared to be struggling with reading comprehension or repressed homosexual urges and I am getting attacked by Seymour fanboys because I am trying to help.

Perhaps they do not understand the conceptive of thinking about someone other than yourself.

[mistaTea]

We all know David Seymour is a massive c0ck,

Of course, we will all have our opinions on various things.

But I don't think this kind of personal attack is warranted.

Though I may not agree with every single view David has, I think he is a good man who is doing a really good job representing the Libertarian voice.

He is also doing a good job representing the voice of a great many NZers who are not necessarily 'Libertarian' as such but do feel that all sorts of things have gone too far, and that we are on the wrong track.

The fact that Labour's share of the vote crashed to 26% speaks for itself. In the meantime David has dramatically increased the Party Vote for ACT.

Only 100 days in govt and the media have literally attacked every single thing they have done, desperately trying to find any slip ups to be able to take down individuals. But all this is doing (along with comments like "We all know David Seymour is a massive cock") are only reaffirming in the minds of the majority of voters that thank Christ we got the last lot out of government.

Everyone needs to just settle down. By all means debate the merits (or not) of any given policy. But the ad hominem attacks being hurled around achieve nothing.

[Daytr]

Of course, we will all have our opinions on various things.

But I don't think this kind of personal attack is warranted.

Though I may not agree with every single view David has, I think he is a good man who is doing a really good job representing the Libertarian voice.

He is also doing a good job representing the voice of a great many NZers who are not necessarily 'Libertarian' as such but do feel that all sorts of things have gone too far, and that we are on the wrong track.

The fact that Labour's share of the vote crashed to 26% speaks for itself. In the meantime David has dramatically increased the Party Vote for ACT.

Only 100 days in govt and the media have literally attacked every single thing they have done, desperately trying to find any slip ups to be able to take down individuals. But all this is doing (along with comments like "We all know David Seymour is a massive cock") are only reaffirming in the minds of the majority of voters that thank Christ we got the last lot out of government.

Everyone needs to just settle down. By all means debate the merits (or not) of any given policy. But the ad hominem attacks being hurled around achieve nothing.

Good post. Some of the posters on here need to clean up their act as the barrage of insults and lurid comments are just tedious.

[fungus pudding]

Of course, we will all have our opinions on various things.

But I don't think this kind of personal attack is warranted.

Though I may not agree with every single view David has, I think he is a good man who is doing a really good job representing the Libertarian voice.

He is also doing a good job representing the voice of a great many NZers who are not necessarily 'Libertarian' as such but do feel that all sorts of things have gone too far, and that we are on the wrong track.

The fact that Labour's share of the vote crashed to 26% speaks for itself. In the meantime David has dramatically increased the Party Vote for ACT.

Only 100 days in govt and the media have literally attacked every single thing they have done, desperately trying to find any slip ups to be able to take down individuals. But all this is doing (along with comments like "We all know David Seymour is a massive cock") are only reaffirming in the minds of the majority of voters that thank Christ we got the last lot out of government.

Everyone needs to just settle down. By all means debate the merits (or not) of any given policy. But the ad hominem attacks being hurled around achieve nothing.

https://youtu.be/Z6wW2Z0_SJM

100 days of ACT in 100 seconds.

[Daytr]

https://youtu.be/Z6wW2Z0_SJM

100 days of ACT in 100 seconds.

Copying Jacinda Ardern's marketing speil I see.
Starting something isn't achieving anything.
Some good things scrapped, some not good.

Putting back in place the 3 month trial in favour of employers could have a significant impact on the movement of labour.
Do you move from a secure job and take that risk?
If you are relocating, what banks are going to lend to a home buyer under a 3 month probational period?

[nztx]

100 day of Chippie & the Comrades still trying to work out what happened and how many was still
onboard the Little Red submarine

Meanwhile the caterers prepare for the next sausage roll dash and frantically toil away at how many multiples the tea donation would need to be increased to throw at the depleted party coffers, after many of the 'tea, roll & mingle with senior holes' patrons had run away ;)

[Aaron]

Something me and the ACT party agree on.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/act-party-unleashes-on-reserve-bank-for-hiring-diversity-adviser/ar-BB1jAtN8?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=445f39447c1e4d3194c4bb700ae4d242&ei=6

[fungus pudding]

Something me and the ACT party agree on.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/act-party-unleashes-on-reserve-bank-for-hiring-diversity-adviser/ar-BB1jAtN8?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=445f39447c1e4d3194c4bb700ae4d242&ei=6

Me do too.

[mistaTea]

Me do too.

Me have to agree with Seymour completely on this one too.

[Aaron]

David back to being a d*ck.

Swarbrick added the Government's policy comes after IRD and Treasury said last year that the wealthiest Kiwis' effective tax rate is less than half of middle New Zealand.

But Seymour was quick to hit back at Swarbrick's comments.

"This is what I mean by demonising people and this is what I mean by the politics of envy, that's my challenge to Chlöe is to stop doing that," he said.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/totally-disingenuous-seymour-swarbrick-clash-over-landlord-tax-changes/ar-BB1jES4q?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=040c60ac3381480ea32791936a532fe7&ei=47

Pointing out that those with a lot of wealth effectively pay half of what everyone else does in tax, hardly seems like demonising anyone. Actually it highlights an issue that could be adjusted to make NZ a fairer place. It puts some perspective on the issues around taxation and pertinent to the issue they were discussing.

[Ferg]

Treasury said last year that the wealthiest Kiwis' effective tax rate is less than half of middle New Zealand.

Did that report reclassify some items as income that are outside of the Income Tax Act as it currently stands?

[Bill Smith]

David back to being a d*ck.

Swarbrick added the Government's policy comes after IRD and Treasury said last year that the wealthiest Kiwis' effective tax rate is less than half of middle New Zealand.

But Seymour was quick to hit back at Swarbrick's comments.

"This is what I mean by demonising people and this is what I mean by the politics of envy, that's my challenge to Chlöe is to stop doing that," he said.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/totally-disingenuous-seymour-swarbrick-clash-over-landlord-tax-changes/ar-BB1jES4q?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=040c60ac3381480ea32791936a532fe7&ei=47

Pointing out that those with a lot of wealth effectively pay half of what everyone else does in tax, hardly seems like demonising anyone. Actually it highlights an issue that could be adjusted to make NZ a fairer place. It puts some perspective on the issues around taxation and pertinent to the issue they were discussing.

You post discredited rubbish like this and wonder why you get disparaged.

[Aaron]

You post discredited rubbish like this and wonder why you get disparaged.

Assuming you mean the statement that the wealthiest Kiwis' effective tax rate is less than half of middle New Zealand.

I don't think it has been discredited. If the statement has been discredited I would be interested to hear the argument discrediting it.

The greens idea of taxing unrealised capital gains I think is a bad one but taxing realised capital gains might even things up if income tax and/or GST is reduced.

[Aaron]

Did that report reclassify some items as income that are outside of the Income Tax Act as it currently stands?

It considered economic income which includes untaxed capital gains.

https://www.ird.govt.nz/-/media/project/ir/home/documents/about-us/high-wealth-research-project/hwi-research-project/factsheets-supporting-hwi-report/tax-and-the-economic-income-of-the-wealthy.pdf?modified=20230420234159

To me it begs the question why are these gains not being taxed when every dollar of labour is taxed? Particularly when every other developed country has a capital gains tax. Are we on a similar path to many third world countries?

Not to worry though our current government has put a stop to IRD gathering too much information, apparently ignorance is bliss according to Chris and David.

Treasury also had a paper on wealth but they didn't have a two page summary.

https://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/media-advisory/new-research-effective-average-tax-rates-and-distribution-wealth

[Panda-NZ-]

No CGT and now interest deductibility back on.. what was that about free rides Chris?

[mistaTea]

No CGT and now interest deductibility back on.. what was that about free rides Chris?

Where we got into a real tizz over CGT is where they wanted to make exceptions for political expediency.

So property would be exempt if it is the family home.

And then they started to say that if it was on 'Maori Land' it may have to be exempt otherwise it would be a TOW breach.

And then Kiwisaver were going to be exempt for some reason...

And then it was not going to be a nominal value of say 10%, any gain was going to be treated as 'capital income' and you would pay up to the highest income tax rate on it.

And it just got so convoluted.

From memory it was really the owner of my local fisn 'n chips shop that was going to get nailed.

I personally do think that some sort of CGT is warranted, to spread the tax base.

But if you are going to do it, then you set a reasonable rate and no exepmptions.

CGT is either fair or it isn't. If CGT is fair... then why should I buy my home for $1M, sell it 10 years later for $2M and pocket the $1M capital gain with no tax paid?

If you cannot get it over the line politically because a lot of your voters have a big chunk of their net worth tied up in their property, then forget the whole thing. I don't see how it is 'fair' for my local panelbeater to get nailed with a CGT when someone can make way more capital gain selling their house.

I don't think we will see a CGT any time soon. Not because it isn't fair to have one, but because it is a political nightmare.

[Blue Skies]

Once again Seymour's shows he's firmly wed to ideological dogma instead of outcomes. That's why he's so damaging. He only see's part of the whole picture. Same with Charter Schools.

Just when the property market had turned to First Home Buyers outnumbering Property Speculators, which is what we desperately need, Seymour's responsible for reintroducing distortions to the market, enabling Property Speculators able to offset all the rent against their mortgages buy multiple properties, once again outbidding & cutting First Home Buyers out of the market.


In 10, 15 years time, do we want higher levels of home ownership, with higher levels of equity & stability in communities, OR higher levels of families living in unstable situations in rental accomodation with little equity in their local communities ?

Never mind the ideology, ask yourself, which policy around interest deductibility would provide the best outcomes for the country. Labour's or Nat/ACT/NZF ?

[Aaron]

But if you are going to do it, then you set a reasonable rate and no exemptions.


Agreed make it as politically palatable as possible but at the end of the day John, Jacinda, Chippy and Chris all realised that the average NZer wants a better country, they just do not want to be the one paying for it, so it will never happen unless a party gets in and brings it in on principle rather than trying to hang onto power. Michael Cullen mucked up an opportunity by making it too complicated and expensive.

It is not the politics of greed or demonising successful people as David would say, it is about broadening the tax base and making it less hard on the person who works everyday pays tax on every dollar but who has no house or wealth so when targeted inflation drives up asset prices and reduces debt it would appear our tax and monetary systems in combination are not very equitable.

If wages were rising at the same rate as assets, then inflation targeting might seem less unfair but I don't think this is happening. So the worker gets the tax burden and when monetary policy drives up inflation they pay the inflation tax through a cost of living crisis without the gains of asset price appreciation and debt repayment getting easier.

[mistaTea]

Agreed make it as politically palatable as possible but at the end of the day John, Jacinda, Chippy and Chris all realised that the average NZer wants a better country, they just do not want to be the one paying for it, so it will never happen unless a party gets in and brings it in on principle rather than trying to hang onto power. Michael Cullen mucked up an opportunity by making it too complicated and expensive.

It is not the politics of greed or demonising successful people as David would say, it is about broadening the tax base and making it less hard on the person who works everyday pays tax on every dollar but who has no house or wealth so when targeted inflation drives up asset prices and reduces debt it would appear our tax and monetary systems in combination are not very equitable.

If wages were rising at the same rate as assets, then inflation targeting might seem less unfair but I don't think this is happening. So the worker gets the tax burden and when monetary policy drives up inflation they pay the inflation tax through a cost of living crisis without the gains of asset price appreciation and debt repayment getting easier.

Yes, Cullen recommended this incredibly convoluted sytem for CGT that would just be a nightmare.

He certainly didn't put any of these 'bright ideas' forward when he was Finance Minister I might add.

But a nice pet project for him later in his career, and I am sure he was remunerated nicely for his 'good advice'.

CGT with no exemptions whatsoever (not even for Maori) and it could work. Just don't expect to be re-elected, and the next lot will probably reverse some if not all of it because they will crucify you running up to the next election on the subject. Plenty of examples of a particularly sad looking mom and pop wondering why the govt is taking a slice of their Kiwi Dream when they sell their house at a profit.

Ha!

[Ferg]

It considered economic income which includes untaxed capital gains.

So the answer is yes - their paper reclassified items as income that are not currently taxable per the Income Tax Act. So the report is at best conjectural, at worst disingenuous.

If you are keen for a non-inflation adjusted CGT you are welcome to lead by example and make voluntary contributions to the NZ tax pool by adding such 'income' to your self assessment each year. Let us know how you get on with that.

[Daytr]

Yes, Cullen recommended this incredibly convoluted sytem for CGT that would just be a nightmare.

He certainly didn't put any of these 'bright ideas' forward when he was Finance Minister I might add.

But a nice pet project for him later in his career, and I am sure he was remunerated nicely for his 'good advice'.

CGT with no exemptions whatsoever (not even for Maori) and it could work. Just don't expect to be re-elected, and the next lot will probably reverse some if not all of it because they will crucify you running up to the next election on the subject. Plenty of examples of a particularly sad looking mom and pop wondering why the govt is taking a slice of their Kiwi Dream when they sell their house at a profit.

Ha!

It works overseas with exemptions.
The family home & Maori land should be the only exemptions.
It's not that hard as proven in most Western Countries.

[mistaTea]

It works overseas with exemptions.
The family home & Maori land should be the only exemptions.
It's not that hard as proven in most Western Countries.

I know the UK has a system with lots of exemptions and different rules.

Not sure it works that well or how effective it is.

If we are going to broaden the tax base (I agree we should) then I don't understand why I should be able make a large capital gain on my Auckland property and not kick anything into the tin.

Yet my local hairdresser would have to fork out up to a third of her gain to the govt if she sold.

If you want it to work efficiently, ideally no exemptions. In the real world you probably need some, but they should be the absolute minimum.

One exemption you would need is Maori Land. Taxing that land is a big no-no given land tax was a way previous governmets used 'legal' means to confiscate land. So let's not even go there :t_up:

I suspect for places like the UK, they have come up with these difficult to administer systems because that was the only way they could get it over the line (not because it is the best/most fair CGT system).

[Ferg]

I don't understand why I should be able make a large capital gain on my Auckland property and not kick anything into the tin.

Yet my local hairdresser would have to fork out up to a third of her gain to the govt if she sold.

Both of those sentences are both correct as well as incorrect - depending on the intention and a bunch of other factors. Legislation currently exists to tax both of these gains in NZ, under certain circumstances. And in other circumstances, both transactions could be on capital account and not subject to income tax.

Any discussion around taxing such gains should also take into consideration adjustments for inflation, and also retrospectively spreading the gain over the tax years any such gains were accrued, rather than in one year at punitive personal rates.

Keep in mind, you are allowed to make voluntary declarations of such income to the IRD. If you feel you should contribute then there are no legal impediments.

[777]

As I understand it...

Australia used to apply inflation but gave it away due to its' complexity. They replaced it with charging full tax on capital gain if sold in first year and taxed 50% of the gain if held longer. US use a the same method.

mistaTea if you bought your house for a million dollars and then were transferred to another city getting two million for your house, then you would have to pay tax on the million profit. When you arrive in the new city and wanted to maintain the same standard of house to what you sold then you would have to take out a mortgage to pay the tax on the earlier house. Would that be ideal?

[Panda-NZ-]

mistaTea if you bought your house for a million dollars and then were transferred to another city getting two million for your house, then you would have to pay tax on the million profit. When you arrive in the new city and wanted to maintain the same standard of house to what you sold then you would have to take out a mortgage to pay the tax on the earlier house. Would that be ideal?

Or if the new house was simply priced 100k more.

[mistaTea]

As I understand it...

Australia used to apply inflation but gave it away due to its' complexity. They replaced it with charging full tax on capital gain if sold in first year and taxed 50% of the gain if held longer. US use a the same method.

mistaTea if you bought your house for a million dollars and then were transferred to another city getting two million for your house, then you would have to pay tax on the million profit. When you arrive in the new city and wanted to maintain the same standard of house to what you sold then you would have to take out a mortgage to pay the tax on the earlier house. Would that be ideal?

Could you not argue the same if I wanted to sell shares of X Ltd to buy shares in Y Ltd?

Geez govt, now I have to take out a loan to pay the tax on X Ltd to keep me in the same $$$ ownership of the new company?

I am not really trying to debate the fairness of CGT. There are arguments for and against.

I just point out that if you are going to have one, the more complex you make it the less effective it is and more difficult to enforce.

What Cullen proposed was complicated.

Exempting the family home is little to do with fairness and is all about political expediency in my view. And that’s ok, but I just want to separate the two.

If kiwis were not property obsessed and were shares obsessed instead we would not be talking about the ‘need’ to exempt the family home. We would be squealing about the ‘need’ to exempt the share market from CGT!

[Balance]

Could you not argue the same if I wanted to sell shares of X Ltd to buy shares in Y Ltd?

Geez govt, now I have to take out a loan to pay the tax on X Ltd to keep me in the same $$$ ownership of the new company?

I am not really trying to debate the fairness of CGT. There are arguments for and against.

I just point out that if you are going to have one, the more complex you make it the less effective it is and more difficult to enforce.

What Cullen proposed was complicated.

Exempting the family home is little to do with fairness and is all about political expediency in my view. And that’s ok, but I just want to separate the two.

If kiwis were not property obsessed and were shares obsessed instead we would not be talking about the ‘need’ to exempt the family home. We would be squealing about the ‘need’ to exempt the share market from CGT!

Good point, MT about primary residence. In the US, capital gains tax has to be paid on sale of primary residence (with certain concessions).

But need to be realistic as Australia exempts family home so we will be shooting ourselves in the guts if we tried to implement US capital gain tax regime on family home here!

But there is a crying need to level the playing field out there for the betterment of NZ as an economy & as a society.

What is lacking is political leadership and that lies at the heart of all of NZ’s tax issues.

[777]

mistaTea

Good point but buying shares as an investment is different to buying a house to live in. You can sell shares but not need to maintain the same level of investment whereas if applied to the family home would mean eventually I could only have enough to buy a tent if I sold a number of times to maintain the same living standard.

And tax is already required to be paid if you are a share trader.

I actually support a CGT but I don't have much faith in the introduction of it, especially if the Greens or Maori Party have any input. Nor David Parker for that matter.

Balance
I am not sure of the detail but I believe interest on the mortgage is deductible from your income.

[Aaron]

So the answer is yes - their paper reclassified items as income that are not currently taxable per the Income Tax Act. So the report is at best conjectural, at worst disingenuous.

If you are keen for a non-inflation adjusted CGT you are welcome to lead by example and make voluntary contributions to the NZ tax pool by adding such 'income' to your self assessment each year. Let us know how you get on with that.

So what is your point?

Capital gains might not be the same as income or earnings but neither is consumption but we tax it through GST (note legislation was written in 1985 to do this. Laws are not set in stone). When you have a monetary system which benefits asset owners don't you think it would be good to tax their gains, especially as a lot of investing these days seems to focus on the potential for earnings increases and more importantly the resultant capital gains. Think Nividia and the magnificent 7. Would landlords need to keep pushing up rents every year if they had brought their investment at a decent yield or are they more focused on increasing the capital value by boosting earnings through annual rent increases.

Where are the biggest gains in wealth being made currently, in earnings or asset price appreciation?

Your suggestion to make voluntary contributions reminds me of when Republican senators suggested the same to Warren Buffet after he suggested their tax system needed changing.

"It restores my faith in human nature to think that there are people who have been around Washington all this time and are not yet so cynical as to think that can't be solved by voluntary contributions,"

He made those Senators look like a bunch of selfish morons.

As far as inflation adjustments are concerned, if inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon perhaps we should be looking at inflation targeting.

[mistaTea]

mistaTea

Good point but buying shares as an investment is different to buying a house to live in. You can sell shares but not need to maintain the same level of investment whereas if applied to the family home would mean eventually I could only have enough to buy a tent if I sold a number of times to maintain the same living standard.



Well, you would find that if a CGT applied to everything (including the family home) it would change behaviours. The amount of $$$ you needed to pay to the govt would impact your decision as to when to sell. I expect a CGT would probably be inflationary on all asset classes.

So more people would sit tight until they could clear their $1M (as per my earlier example) in order to keep themselves in the lifestyle they have been accustomed to. Less houses for sale, means prices go up.

So, over time, in reality it will be the purchases of property who effectively pay the CGT not the seller.


And tax is already required to be paid if you are a share trader.

You say true, though I believe there are all sorts of loopholes. Not a tax expert though.

[mistaTea]

Good point, MT about primary residence. In the US, capital gains tax has to be paid on sale of primary residence (with certain concessions).

But need to be realistic as Australia exempts family home so we will be shooting ourselves in the guts if we tried to implement US capital gain tax regime on family home here!

But there is a crying need to level the playing field out there for the betterment of NZ as an economy & as a society.

What is lacking is political leadership and that lies at the heart of all of NZ’s tax issues.

Yeah, and in truth I am not such an idealogue about a purist CGT that I cannot accept there would need to be some give and take. Some exceptions.

After all, it is pointless to introduce a CGT that the general public hate and feel is too 'radical' because they will just vote in another crowd next time to undo it.

Like all policy, we want any changes to our tax regime to be enduring.

So you probably end up with things like exempting the family home so that we don't spook the horses.

I would just always caution that for the CGT to be effective, you need to have any exemptions to the absolute minimum. Otherwise it becomes a compliance and enforcement nightmare and fails to meet its objectives (effectively and efficiently broadening the tax base).

I also think that any attempts to be 'clever' like Cullen by calling it Capital Income Tax instead of Capital Gain is an absolute no-no. If that were to be implemented, then high salary earners could be paying 39% of their capital gain to the govt. How would that incentivise kiwis to invest in anything other than the family home which would be exempt?

You call it what it is... a gain on capital... and you bring in a nominal tax of, say, 10%. This enables investors to kick some money into the tax tin, while also recognising the risks they take inherent to investing and also the need to ensure people are not turned off making investments in NZ business etc.

[Ferg]

So what is your point?
[snip]
Your suggestion to make voluntary contributions reminds me of when Republican senators suggested the same to Warren Buffet after he suggested their tax system needed changing.

"It restores my faith in human nature to think that there are people who have been around Washington all this time and are not yet so cynical as to think that can't be solved by voluntary contributions,"

My point is that 1) you are advocating for a CGT so go for it and 2) that report is out of step with current tax legislation. Start making voluntary contributions if you truly believe this is the right thing to do. Lead by example. Practice what you preach.

As for Warren's quote, the counter reply was:

"Senator McConnell says that Washington should be smaller, rather than taxes getting bigger. And since some, like President Obama and Mr. Buffett want to pay higher taxes, Congress made it possible for them to call their own bluff and send in a check," said Don Stewart, McConnell's deputy chief of staff.
Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE80A24X/

So was Mr Buffet just virtue signalling and not willing to put his money where his mouth was? You don't get to complain about low or no taxes and when offered the chance to cough up then say "I will if you will". That's imposing your expectations on others who are not advocating for the same position. I'm not the one complaining about a lack of CGT here. Feel free to update us on your voluntary CGT contributions.

[Aaron]

Feel free to update us on your voluntary CGT contributions.

Based on your logic Ferg why aren't all taxes voluntary?

Perhaps I am more selfish and self centred than you and would struggle to pay any tax if I didn't have to. Or perhaps you are a little too trusting of others and perhaps a little naive.

I have no doubt that if all taxes were voluntary you would be putting in plenty.

Somehow I am not surprised you have a lot more respect for the views and actions of Mitch McConnell than Warren Buffett.

Although your advice to switch to voluntary taxation is at best conjectural, at worst disingenuous.

[iceman]

Based on your logic Ferg why aren't all taxes voluntary?

Perhaps I am more selfish and self centred than you and would struggle to pay any tax if I didn't have to. Or perhaps you are a little too trusting of others and perhaps a little naive.

I have no doubt that if all taxes were voluntary you would be putting in plenty.

Somehow I am not surprised you have a lot more respect for the views and actions of Mitch McConnell than Warren Buffett.

Although your advice to switch to voluntary taxation is at best conjectural, at worst disingenuous.

I didn't read Ferg's posts to be in favour of totally voluntary taxes, as you suggest. He is simply pointing out hypocrites like Buffet, Stephen Tindall, Ian Taylor, Sam Morgan and others that have claimed publicly that they want to pay more tax. Why don't they ? I think there is something seriously wrong with a tax system where something like 80% (from memory) of "taxpayers" receive more from the state than they pay in tax.
Taxing the other 20%? even more is hardly the solutions. Your claim that lower income earners generally pay higher marginal tax rates than high income earners is simply a load of rubbish. They don't. Look at the whole picture after the various payments from the state. Most lower and middle income households in NZ receive more from the state than they pay in tax.

[dln]

That's imposing your expectations on others who are not advocating for the same position.That is what all law does.
The alternative is anarchy.

[Balance]

People like Stephen Tindall donates generously to charity & provides equity funding for businesses, especially start ups to the time of tens of millions of dollars each year. Far far better spend of their money than to be ‘donated’ to the government to spend on consultants, breeding parasites and fat cats.

As Kerry Packer famously said ‘Why would any of us offer more of my earnings to you in the government when you are already wasting a lot of what we pay in taxes?’

[mistaTea]

People like Stephen Tindall donates generously to charity & provides equity funding for businesses, especially start ups to the time of tens of millions of dollars each year. Far far better spend of their money than to be ‘donated’ to the government to spend on consultants, breeding parasites and fat cats.

As Kerry Packer famously said ‘Why would any of us offer more of my earnings to you in the government when you are already wasting a lot of what we pay in taxes?’

Yeah, and Buffett has donated colossal amounts to charities that actually do good in the world. So he is effectively volunatrily paying a tax... he just chooses not to give it to Uncle Sam.

However, if taxes were raised for everyone in his position so that Uncle Sam got a bigger cut he would have no issue with it.

I don't really see the contradiction or hyprocrisy. Warren does put his money where his mouth is.

[Aaron]

I didn't read Ferg's posts to be in favour of totally voluntary taxes, as you suggest. He is simply pointing out hypocrites like Buffet, Stephen Tindall, Ian Taylor, Sam Morgan and others that have claimed publicly that they want to pay more tax. Why don't they ? I think there is something seriously wrong with a tax system where something like 80% (from memory) of "taxpayers" receive more from the state than they pay in tax.
Taxing the other 20%? even more is hardly the solutions. Your claim that lower income earners generally pay higher marginal tax rates than high income earners is simply a load of rubbish. They don't. Look at the whole picture after the various payments from the state. Most lower and middle income households in NZ receive more from the state than they pay in tax.

I don't think anyone has ever said they "want" to pay more tax. They are looking at society and suggesting they are in a position to pay more and still live comfortably.

They are then accused of being hypocrites or virtue signaling for some reason.

80% of taxpayers receive more from the state? I think it was closer to 50% but quote what you like it is an online forum. I think you will find as fewer and fewer people own more of the assets and income that they will be contributing even more in future years and that 80% figure might be closer to the truth eventually. The wealthy will be even more important and have more power. Sounds good.

I guess as wealth and income inequality gets worse, social mobility decreases, society will slowly get better.

As Kerry Packer famously said ‘Why would any of us offer more of my earnings to you in the government when you are already wasting a lot of what we pay in taxes?’

Is this the Kerry packer who blew $20million in one night gambling in Vegas? Some might consider that spending wasteful, not Kerry obviously as he probably had more fun big noting than contributing to roads or healthcare back in Australia.

Its his money you might argue but did he not need a well functioning society to buy his newspapers to get the money in the first place. I don't think he would have done so well in a less literate society.

Anyway I think we are going round in circles and I need to do something productive.

[iceman]

Yeah, and Buffett has donated colossal amounts to charities that actually do good in the world. So he is effectively volunatrily paying a tax... he just chooses not to give it to Uncle Sam.

However, if taxes were raised for everyone in his position so that Uncle Sam got a bigger cut he would have no issue with it.

I don't really see the contradiction or hyprocrisy. Warren does put his money where his mouth is.

You and Balance are absolutely right about wealthy people generally contributing much more to their communities than direct taxes. I see that in my own small community.
So I shouldn't have named the people I did in my earlier comments, which was a response to Aaron's tall poppy syndrome nonsense which annoys the crap out of me.

[Balance]

You and Balance are absolutely right about wealthy people generally contributing much more to their communities than direct taxes. I see that in my own small community.
So I shouldn't have named the people I did in my earlier comments, which was a response to Aaron's tall poppy syndrome nonsense which annoys the crap out of me.

Chill, iceman.

Those who contribute the least to society are usually the ones who screech the loudest about equality and fairness - Ardern being the best case in point.