PDA

View Full Version : ACT's David Seymour - i like his style.



minimoke
23-08-2017, 03:21 PM
Called out NZ Firsts richard prosser and their proposal to nationilse energy companies at $3.10 a share when they are trading at $5.85. "But that makes me really angry - what a f##king idiot"

fungus pudding
23-08-2017, 03:24 PM
Called out NZ Firsts richard prosser and their proposal to nationilse energy companies at $3.10 a share when they are trading at $5.85. "But that makes me really angry - what a f##king idiot"

He's dead right about that. I thought Winston had forgotten about that one. Prosser has probably just heard about it.

minimoke
23-08-2017, 05:36 PM
I hear tonight Winston says richard is abit confused about the policy. Bodes well for the future

RGR367
23-08-2017, 05:47 PM
I concur. What an idiotic policy from NZ First or just a big boo-boo from MP Richard Prosser. But not my party vote for them then :t_down: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11909463

fungus pudding
23-08-2017, 05:48 PM
I hear tonight Winston says richard is abit confused about the policy. Bodes well for the future

Winston usually keeps his MPs out of the public eye - for a damn good reason. Occasionally he lets Ron Mark out, and I daresay Shane Jones will be allowed out a bit.

Entrep
23-08-2017, 06:21 PM
"The Act leader has frequently clashed with NZ First leader Winston Peters, including on Twitter recently when Peters likened him to a chihuahua."

lol, thumbs up from me too

stoploss
24-08-2017, 02:58 PM
Winston usually keeps his MPs out of the public eye - for a damn good reason. Occasionally he lets Ron Mark out, and I daresay Shane Jones will be allowed out a bit.

Surprised he let this guy out ...he has form ... Now about that Financial advice ...anyone looking into that ...?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/christchurch-life/8372553/Richard-Prosser-after-Wogistan

Aaron
24-08-2017, 03:11 PM
Called out NZ Firsts richard prosser and their proposal to nationilse energy companies at $3.10 a share when they are trading at $5.85. "But that makes me really angry - what a f##king idiot"
Might be the first time I agree with David Seymour but I think he hit the nail on the head. More so after skim reading stop/losses link. How many more turkeys will Winston drag into parliament with him. Had a quick look at where Prosser is on the NZ First list number 3 previously. No way I would vote for dicks like that, surprised NZ First is polling so well.

Aaron
24-08-2017, 03:20 PM
Mind you, that said I am keen to vote for the TOP party and have no idea of whose involved there other than Gareth Morgan. I didn't see a BullishBear on the list at Wikipedia.

After the Metiria admissions and the fact she stood for Mcgillicudy Serious party as well as having no issue with lying, you have to wonder about the quality of MPs. maybe they are not that different to me. Admittedly I say a lot of dumb, racist, sexist things at home like Prosser but would expect better things from the leaders of our country.

Bjauck
24-08-2017, 05:12 PM
Might be the first time I agree with David Seymour but I think he hit the nail on the head. More so after skim reading stop/losses link. How many more turkeys will Winston drag into parliament with him. Had a quick look at where Prosser is on the NZ First list number 3 previously. No way I would vote for dicks like that, surprised NZ First is polling so well.

I would like the combination of Seymour leading TOP.

fungus pudding
24-08-2017, 05:22 PM
I would like the combination of Seymour leading TOP.

Act and Top policies couldn't be further apart. Top would align with Mana or the Greens more than any other parties.

Bjauck
24-08-2017, 05:47 PM
Act and Top policies couldn't be further apart. Top would align with Mana or the Greens more than any other parties. I think TOP tax policy would provide a stronger more productive economy. Seymour is a good no-nonsense leader - he is my pick of all the leaders!

fungus pudding
24-08-2017, 07:04 PM
I think TOP tax policy would provide a stronger more productive economy. Seymour is a good no-nonsense leader - he is my pick of all the leaders!

Top tax policies will never be accepted by the public. It's hard left socialism, if not out and out communism.

Bjauck
24-08-2017, 07:10 PM
Top tax policies will never be accepted by the public. It's hard left socialism, if not out and out communism. Not according to the defintion of those doctrines. I dont think TOP wants to nationalise the means of production etc.. It is not socialist.I think one of the more (independent) business friendly parties. You need to look at Prosser (NZF) for a Socialist/Communist policy.

TOP business policy summary http://www.top.org.nz/top14

fungus pudding
24-08-2017, 07:18 PM
I dont think TOP wants to nationalise the means of production etc.. It is not socialist. You need to look at Prosser (NZF) for that.

They want to make you pay an annual tax on the value if your house and assetts so they can give it to someone else. That's extreme socialism.

Bjauck
24-08-2017, 09:25 PM
They want to make you pay an annual tax on the value if your house and assetts so they can give it to someone else. That's extreme socialism. Why is an asset tax more socialist than an income tax? Indeed I think TOP reforms would actually encourage individual capitalist endeavour by encouraging the investment into income producing capital assets as opposed to non-income producing assets.

TOP wants to slash income tax which would be of particular benefit for those on the current top rates. Why is an annual tax on your house any more of a "socialist" concept than annual rates charged on the capital value of your house?

Besides all nz parities (including ACT) are socialist according to the second aspect of the following definition of socialism. TOP is not socialist according to the first part of the definition.

Socialism:
noun


a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. (my highlight)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Aaron
25-08-2017, 11:12 AM
Why is an asset tax more socialist than an income tax? Indeed I think TOP reforms would actually encourage individual capitalist endeavour by encouraging the investment into income producing capital assets as opposed to non-income producing assets.

TOP wants to slash income tax which would be of particular benefit for those on the current top rates. Why is an annual tax on your house any more of a "socialist" concept than annual rates charged on the capital value of your house?

Besides all nz parities (including ACT) are socialist according to the second aspect of the following definition of socialism. TOP is not socialist according to the first part of the definition.

Socialism:
noun


a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. (my highlight)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism


I think you will find if you have read FP's previous posts that he has made his money in real estate and has enjoyed tax free capital gains all his life(Yes you paid tax on the rent FP well done but be honest capital gains is what made you rich). An equity tax would be unthinkable and abhorrent to the likes of FP. I guess communism is the worst insult he could find even if it isn't correct.

In my opinion David Seymour heading the TOP party sounds insane, ACTs ideologies are almost at the opposite ends of the political spectrum (although TOP party is not even close to communism FP) to the TOP parties even if they both think it is the best way forward for the country. My understanding TOP is wanting to try and make society fairer/better(there is no perfect solution though) for as many people as possible whereas ACT's policies would tend to disproportionately benefit a smaller portion of society. David Seymour probably still believes in the trickle down theory for a better society.
To be honest a retired person living in a multi million dollar beach front mansion without any other investments would get right royally screwed by the equity tax so should never vote TOP out of self interest. And although these people would be worse off under a TOP govt I don't think they are the ones genuinely struggling to get by. It might even get some people thinking about investing in something other than just the most expensive house they can afford.

fungus pudding
25-08-2017, 11:30 AM
I think you will find if you have read FP's previous posts that he has made his money in real estate and has enjoyed tax free capital gains all his life(Yes you paid tax on the rent FP well done but be honest capital gains is what made you rich). An equity tax would be unthinkable and abhorrent to the likes of FP.

For a start, I am not rich; and I think you'll find an annual equity tax would be unacceptable to most NZers and a complete disincentive. People would go to all sorts of lengths to avoid it - even more than they did with death duties.

minimoke
25-08-2017, 11:55 AM
I think if we were totally honest we would admit that we buy rentals on the expectation the capital value will increase even if our intent is to invest to derive a weekly income.

Same with shares in a start up that isnt making a profit.

So the capitalist tax avoider in me says no to cspital gains tax.

But the equitable payment of tax on all gain says CGT may make some sense

There will of course be unintended consequences - like rent rising to cover future tax bill or maitenance deferred to accrue for liability.

Bjauck
25-08-2017, 12:07 PM
For a start, I am not rich; and I think you'll find an annual equity tax would be unacceptable to most NZers and a complete disincentive. People would go to all sorts of lengths to avoid it - even more than they did with death duties. People will always try to minimise tax, no matter the type. If an asset tax was associated with the individual assets, I am not sure if they could be avoided as easily as incomes accruing to individuals.

I think you are right about an asset tax being unpopular...there are still a great number of Owner occupiers who would shudder at the though of their investments in their homes being subject to an asset tax (in addition to rates?) However just because it would be popular, does not make it any more socialist than other revenue raising measures...

Investments in one's own home (as opposed to investments in businesses and companies) have always had a privileged position in NZ's revenue raising system. So obviously there is a strong feeling held by many of entitlement that this privilege continue. However as home ownership is increasingly unattainable for many, it could be time to review the tax system to ensure NZ's capital is being taxed fairly, and is being deployed efficiently and effectively.

Bjauck
25-08-2017, 12:15 PM
...
In my opinion David Seymour heading the TOP party sounds insane, ACTs ideologies are almost at the opposite ends of the political spectrum (although TOP party is not even close to communism FP) to the TOP parties even if they both think it is the best way forward for the country. .... An unlikely combination I agree, but it would be a combination I would like! I do think that TOPs tax reform would lead to more investment in commercial (as opposed to investment in high priced land) profitable businesses. I would envisage a boost to the NZ stock market and fewer nz businesses ending up being owned by foreign concerns. So in that respect, TOP could boost NZ capitalism.

Aaron
25-08-2017, 12:56 PM
For a start, I am not rich; and I think you'll find an annual equity tax would be unacceptable to most NZers and a complete disincentive. People would go to all sorts of lengths to avoid it - even more than they did with death duties.

Come on don't be modest FP. You sure your not rich? I can't argue with you on that as I don't have a definition for rich in NZ. I used to be concerned about the top ten percent owning all the wealth until I realised just being born in NZ might put me in the top ten percent globally. I didn't see it as a big problem after that.
An equity tax would not be popular. I can agree with you on that. I have yet to see a popular tax of any description. A disincentive??. What do you mean by that? A disincentive to invest and grow your wealth? I am not sure about that. Would you prefer to be homeless rather than paying an equity tax? Personally I wouldn't. We have an income tax and last time I looked most people were still working. The income tax is not popular, at all but people still work. An equity tax would help to spread the load more evenly maybe. The example that gets trotted out is someone living in a million dollar house pays no tax on the rental benefit but a person with a million dollar term deposit pays tax on the interest benefit. Even worse the guy working his guts out day to day to get ahead pays income tax on his hard earned income while the guy who has a large portfolio of appreciating assets only pays tax on the income they produce not the capital gain. He may not even work very hard for the capital gain. An economic system that requires 2% inflation every year pretty much guarantees his success.

And to quote Bjauck
"Investments in one's own home (as opposed to investments in businesses and companies) have always had a privileged position in NZ's revenue raising system. So obviously there is a strong feeling held by many of entitlement that this privilege continue. However as home ownership is increasingly unattainable for many, it could be time to review the tax system to ensure NZ's capital is being taxed fairly, and is being deployed efficiently and effectively."

Talking of communism Prosser's statement regarding power companies sounds a lot more like communism to me.

Rep
25-08-2017, 01:11 PM
People will always try to minimise tax, no matter the type.

Kerry Packer summed it up:
"I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Now of course I am minimizing my tax and if anybody in this country doesn't minimize their tax they want their heads read because as a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra."

A reasonable fair taxation system usually means that the incentives for evasion are deterred by the likelihood of enforcement and penalty and that the incentives for avoidance are not usually cost-effective enough to bother. Many countries that have reduced high marginal tax rates for income often collect more tax revenues when they have reduced rates and increased enforcement/penalties as the reward for evasion is lowered and the deterrence factor raised.

In terms of TOPs tax policy, wealth taxes such as land tax presume that an asset actually produces an income that can fund the tax - most of the time there have been exemptions for the family home as an owner-occupier doesn't have an income stream such as a rental although the countervailing argument is that they don't have to pay rent instead. You could argue that a pensioner living in a mortgage free house in Auckland is sitting on $1m (based on a median value) and they could sell their home instead and release it to the market to fund their retirement but as a society we have to consider if that means that they have to rent or move outside of the area that they have lived their lives because arbitrarily the market now values their home at a level that they are considered wealthy - so it's complicated.

We could start means testing the pension instead (wealth tax by stealth) or tax cash-poor and asset-rich folk out of their homes - but neither is going to make middle New Zealand particularly happy especially when they find their parents spending their inheritance on rent or moving in with them.

Bjauck
25-08-2017, 01:44 PM
....
In terms of TOPs tax policy, wealth taxes such as land tax presume that an asset actually produces an income that can fund the tax - most of the time there have been exemptions for the family home as an owner-occupier doesn't have an income stream such as a rental although the countervailing argument is that they don't have to pay rent instead. You could argue that a pensioner living in a mortgage free house in Auckland is sitting on $1m (based on a median value) and they could sell their home instead and release it to the market to fund their retirement but as a society we have to consider if that means that they have to rent or move outside of the area that they have lived their lives because arbitrarily the market now values their home at a level that they are considered wealthy - so it's complicated.....

The net benefit derived from investing one's capital in one's home is currently tax free whereas if that capital had been invested in a business instead, all the profits/net benefits derived therefrom would be taxed. So the incentive is there to build up the nest egg by way of an expensive home rather than by way of a prifitable business or portfolio of financial investments. The stats for NZ household wealth bear that out.

If there is to be a change to the tax system. I would suggest that the change be gradually phased in, so that the pensioners who have relied on the current tax system are not unduly affected. For example, if a single pensioner without much other income is living alone in a multi-million dollar house, then the asset tax (to the extent it would exceed the income tax payable) should be allowed to accrue as a charge on the property.

With an asset tax, eventually I would anticipate that residential property values (and other assets currently producing little taxable income) would settle at more affordable and realistic prices than as currently under the current tax system.

Middle NZ may find that their kids would be able to afford to buy their own homes and move out of home.

blackcap
25-08-2017, 01:55 PM
The net benefit derived from investing one's capital in one's home is currently tax free whereas if that capital had been invested in a business instead, all the profits/net benefits derived therefrom would be taxed.


Im not sure that is true. If I buy a share (part of a business) for $5 (capital), and this business does well and I sell it down the track for $10, I have a tax free gain.
If I buy a house for $5 and down the track I sell it for $10 I also have a tax free gain.

If my business pays me a dividend of $1 I pay tax on that $1. IF my house provides me rent of $1 I pay tax on that rent.

If I borrow to buy my share in the business, the interest is tax deductible.
If I borrow to buy my house, the interest is also tax deductible.

I fail to see the difference?

fungus pudding
25-08-2017, 01:58 PM
Kerry Packer summed it up:
"I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Now of course I am minimizing my tax and if anybody in this country doesn't minimize their tax they want their heads read because as a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra."

A reasonable fair taxation system usually means that the incentives for evasion are deterred by the likelihood of enforcement and penalty and that the incentives for avoidance are not usually cost-effective enough to bother. Many countries that have reduced high marginal tax rates for income often collect more tax revenues when they have reduced rates and increased enforcement/penalties as the reward for evasion is lowered and the deterrence factor raised.

In terms of TOPs tax policy, wealth taxes such as land tax presume that an asset actually produces an income that can fund the tax - most of the time there have been exemptions for the family home as an owner-occupier doesn't have an income stream such as a rental although the countervailing argument is that they don't have to pay rent instead. You could argue that a pensioner living in a mortgage free house in Auckland is sitting on $1m (based on a median value) and they could sell their home instead and release it to the market to fund their retirement but as a society we have to consider if that means that they have to rent or move outside of the area that they have lived their lives because arbitrarily the market now values their home at a level that they are considered wealthy - so it's complicated.

We could start means testing the pension instead (wealth tax by stealth) or tax cash-poor and asset-rich folk out of their homes - but neither is going to make middle New Zealand particularly happy especially when they find their parents spending their inheritance on rent or moving in with them.

TOP policy offers no exemption from the tax for a private dwelling. Morgan is emphatic about that. Regardless of pros and cons, that makes it dead in the water as far as ever getting it accepted by voters.

fungus pudding
25-08-2017, 02:01 PM
An unlikely combination I agree, but it would be a combination I would like!

Trying to marry Act's policies with Top's, would be like trying to mate a mosquito with a phone book.

Bjauck
25-08-2017, 02:27 PM
Im not sure that is true. If I buy a share (part of a business) in a for $5 (capital), and this business does well and I sell it down the track for $10, I have a tax free gain.
If I buy a house for $5 and down the track I sell it for $10 I also have a tax free gain.

If my business pays me a dividend of $1 I pay tax on that $1. IF my house provides me rent of $1 I pay tax on that rent.

If I borrow to buy my share in the business, the interest is tax deductible.
If I borrow to buy my house, the interest is also tax deductible.

I fail to see the difference?
The discussion had been on owner-occupied housing (one's own home.) So it will never pay you a taxable rent as you live in it without having to pay tax on the value to you of being able to do that (i.e. the dividend from the equity in owner-occupied housing is always tax free). Despite being unprofitable, experience has shown that owner-occupied residential housing increases in capital value! If you rent out a room in your home, then that is a different matter.

With shares in listed companies - you can get those that do not pay dividends yet do go up in value. Many are companies in their growth phase with hopes of becoming profitable in the future. Also some have investments in land...
However it is difficult to get banks to lend you money to invest in shares - so your chance of leveraging as many capital profits as with land or houses is more limited.

If a business has no prospect of being able to afford to pay its participants/employees an income or turning a profit, is it in fact a business? Whereas owner-occupied housing will under the present system never be profitable or tax-paying except in so far as it pays rates (which in effect is payment for services rendered anyway.)

fungus pudding
25-08-2017, 02:31 PM
Im not sure that is true. If I buy a share (part of a business) for $5 (capital), and this business does well and I sell it down the track for $10, I have a tax free gain.
If I buy a house for $5 and down the track I sell it for $10 I also have a tax free gain.

If my business pays me a dividend of $1 I pay tax on that $1. IF my house provides me rent of $1 I pay tax on that rent.

If I borrow to buy my share in the business, the interest is tax deductible.
If I borrow to buy my house, the interest is also tax deductible.

I fail to see the difference?

Because there is no difference.

fungus pudding
25-08-2017, 02:37 PM
The discussion had been on owner-occupied housing (one's own home.) So it will never pay you a taxable rent as you live in it without having to pay tax on the value to you of being able to do that (i.e. the dividend from the equity in owner-occupied housing is always tax free). Despite being unprofitable, experience has shown that owner-occupied residential housing increases in capital value! If you rent out a room in your home, then that is a different matter.

With shares in listed companies - you can get those that do not pay dividends yet do go up in value. Many are companies in their growth phase with hopes of becoming profitable in the future. Also some have investments in land...
However it is difficult to get banks to lend you money to invest in shares - .



Most banks couldn't care less what you want to do with money you borrow. They are only concerned with the security you offer.
And do residential homes increase in value? No. It's an illusion. Buildings depreciate, and money depreciates.

Aaron
25-08-2017, 02:40 PM
TOP policy offers no exemption from the tax for a private dwelling. Morgan is emphatic about that. Regardless of pros and cons, that makes it dead in the water as far as ever getting it accepted by voters.
Your right fairness and equity do not top self interest. How else has National stayed in power so long if it weren't for the universal pension bribe and finding capital gains taxes too difficult to comprehend let alone discuss.

Our GST is one of the most pure in the world. I don't think I have come across another consumption tax that didn't have exemptions for basic foodstuffs. That got past the voters though. Maybe NZers aren't that bright or perhaps they don't care if it is a regressive tax as it only hurts the poor and the poor don't vote or don't appreciate they are getting a raw deal.

Rep
25-08-2017, 03:01 PM
TOP policy offers no exemption from the tax for a private dwelling. Morgan is emphatic about that. Regardless of pros and cons, that makes it dead in the water as far as ever getting it accepted by voters.

That's why I had the final comment: "We could start means testing the pension instead (wealth tax by stealth) or tax cash-poor and asset-rich folk out of their homes - but neither is going to make middle New Zealand particularly happy especially when they find their parents spending their inheritance on rent or moving in with them."

It's a dead duck whatever the merits because it's not a policy that's electorally acceptable at the current time. That's not to say it won't be in time - if you'd asked people 30 years ago when they scrapped the Auckland Harbour Bridge Tolls that they would be tolled for using the motorway or entering the main city, you'd have been laughed as much as the Takapuna City Mayoral candidate who said his main objective was to have barriers, bells and signals at every level crossing in the city (he was from out of town and seemed unaware that there is no rail on the North Shore).

In any case, if you slowly boil the frog then progressively you might get there but it's too big a leap right now for the electorate and I'm sceptical it will actually make any difference to the housing market in the long term.

Bjauck
26-08-2017, 07:59 AM
That's why I had the final comment: "We could start means testing the pension instead (wealth tax by stealth) or tax cash-poor and asset-rich folk out of their homes - but neither is going to make middle New Zealand particularly happy especially when they find their parents spending their inheritance on rent or moving in with them."

It's a dead duck whatever the merits because it's not a policy that's electorally acceptable at the current time. That's not to say it won't be in time..
Changing the current tax advantages for those who own their own homes would definitely be electorally unpopular at the moment. But this may change if home ownership rates continue to slide and more of the voting segment of the population may find they cannot afford home ownership...

Other countries try to address these tax advantages by having tax free financial investment allowances. Not in NZ however, so kiwis stuff as much as money and credit as possible into the expensive family home. Hardly any money is left over for investing into shares, which has helped to result in a small share market and so many of our successful companies being owned by foreigners.

hardt
31-08-2017, 11:46 PM
Seymours policy takes center stage and is thoroughly explained in his book. even if you don't like the guy, he has a solid, understandable set of principles that anyone here would more or less respect if they took the time to read his book without a predisposition to hating whatever he says.

If you slap a National logo on top of ACT's policy portfolio you would have a winning campaign - National are not prepared to deviate to a place that will keep the young and forgotten happy enough - where the Labour/Greens/NZF have big change planned, but all while towing a huge fiscal burden behind itself - not sure why throwing even more money at a bunch bureaucrats with no skin in the game would be advantageous to one of the greatest cash burners known to man " the government" ( this is satirical, but sort of true )

My understanding of NZ politics is that National will forever have a huge voter base that could not fathom voting for the " fiscally loose, social policies" that come with L/G/NZF - it, of course works both ways with people hating National for anything and everything ( more or less lack of anything ) they do, but these voters are not always convinced by the opposition parties and have to be enthused and pushed into the voting booth. ( Jacinda has the momentum with these fringe voters )

Politics always brings out the worst in people, it often divides a set of seemingly intelligent individuals and moulds them into one great big mass of ones and twos - in politics there are only binary options despite what MMP sets out to achieve.

All in all, I am voting ACT and I believe if you take the time to read Seymour's book, research his policy and see for yourself how it has been executed overseas you might just do the same.

I appreciate any opinions you have on how my vote for ACT is wrong and I am happy to change my opinion if persuaded by a solid argument.

minimoke
01-09-2017, 05:46 AM
I appreciate any opinions you have on how my vote for ACT is wrong and I am happy to change my opinion if persuaded by a solid argument.
We should remember are both essentially left to centrist parties. Both want to tax as much as the can. Both want everyone to be beneficiaries. Neither are business friendly. Both dreaming if harming NZérs will change the climate. Both feeding a sense of entitlement, You need to look at the other parties for clear alternatives

fungus pudding
01-09-2017, 05:50 AM
Changing the current tax advantages for those who own their own homes would definitely be electorally unpopular at the moment. But this may change if home ownership rates continue to slide and more of the voting segment of the population may find they cannot afford home ownership...

Other countries try to address these tax advantages by having tax free financial investment allowances.

Which countries, and what type of investments?

Bjauck
02-09-2017, 06:49 AM
Which countries, and what type of investments? The USA have tax deferred401k retirement plans, which encourage larger retirement savings more effectively than the fixed tax credit for KiwiSaver. Also there are non-retirement tax preferred
schemes such as 529s to encourage people to save for their children's education. Various states have other schemes too I believe. In the UK they have had non retirements tax reduced pep (personal equity plans) for shares and fixed interest investments and ISA (individual savings account) with annual tax free allowances.

fungus pudding
02-09-2017, 07:58 AM
The USA have tax deferred401k retirement plans, which encourage larger retirement savings more effectively than the fixed tax credit for KiwiSaver. Also there are non-retirement tax preferred
schemes such as 529s to encourage people to save for their children's education. Various states have other schemes too I believe. In the UK they have had non retirements tax reduced pep (personal equity plans) for shares and fixed interest investments and ISA (individual savings account) with annual tax free allowances.

Locked in schemes. We used to allow life insurance premiums to be tax deductible. Australia's system of self funded retirees is interesting. In a nutshell - for those who have built up a decent income from investments and assets can forget about receiving their superannuation and in return pay no income tax.

https://www.catchtherisingtide.com.au/forget-the-age-pension-and-aim-for-a-self-funded-retirement/

I have a few mates who have opted for the scheme. They're very happy.

Bjauck
02-09-2017, 01:57 PM
Locked in schemes. We used to allow life insurance premiums to be tax deductible. Australia's system of self funded retirees is interesting. In a nutshell - for those who have built up a decent income from investments and assets can forget about receiving their superannuation and in return pay no income tax.

https://www.catchtherisingtide.com.au/forget-the-age-pension-and-aim-for-a-self-funded-retirement/

I have a few mates who have opted for the scheme. They're very happy.
The Australians also have an interesting way of dealing with Health costs with high income earners getting a rebate for private insurance premiums and an extra levy if they don't take out private insurance, if I understand their scheme correctly.

And in the UK and Australia real estate and some other property transactions often have stamp duties. However, true, there are various caveats put on the financial investment schemes. However the incentives to invest in financial investments, half-hearted though they may be, are more attractive than what NZ has in place for either retirement or non-retirement savings. Hence the continuing overwhelming appeal in NZ to use the tax-preferred owner-occupied housing as a means of investment as well as the provision of home and shelter.

At least the NZ imputation scheme was introduced to resolve the double taxation issues from NZ dividend payments. A next step will be to eliminate the taxation on the inflation component of a fixed interest investment's return.

fungus pudding
02-09-2017, 03:13 PM
The Australians also have an interesting way of dealing with Health costs with high income earners getting a rebate for private insurance premiums and an extra levy if they don't take out private insurance, if I understand their scheme correctly.

And in the UK and Australia real estate and some other property transactions often have stamp duties. However, true, there are various caveats put on the financial investment schemes. However the incentives to invest in financial investments, half-hearted though they may be, are more attractive than what NZ has in place for either retirement or non-retirement savings. Hence the continuing overwhelming appeal in NZ to use the tax-preferred owner-occupied housing as a means of investment as well as the provision of home and shelter.

At least the NZ imputation scheme was introduced to resolve the double taxation issues from NZ dividend payments. A next step will be to eliminate the taxation on the inflation component of a fixed interest investment's return.
What is the inflation component of a fixed interest investment?

fungus pudding
02-09-2017, 04:09 PM
Seymours policy takes center stage and is thoroughly explained in his book. even if you don't like the guy, he has a solid, understandable set of principles that anyone here would more or less respect if they took the time to read his book without a predisposition to hating whatever he says.

If you slap a National logo on top of ACT's policy portfolio you would have a winning campaign - National are not prepared to deviate to a place that will keep the young and forgotten happy enough - where the Labour/Greens/NZF have big change planned, but all while towing a huge fiscal burden behind itself - not sure why throwing even more money at a bunch bureaucrats with no skin in the game would be advantageous to one of the greatest cash burners known to man " the government" ( this is satirical, but sort of true )

My understanding of NZ politics is that National will forever have a huge voter base that could not fathom voting for the " fiscally loose, social policies" that come with L/G/NZF - it, of course works both ways with people hating National for anything and everything ( more or less lack of anything ) they do, but these voters are not always convinced by the opposition parties and have to be enthused and pushed into the voting booth. ( Jacinda has the momentum with these fringe voters )

Politics always brings out the worst in people, it often divides a set of seemingly intelligent individuals and moulds them into one great big mass of ones and twos - in politics there are only binary options despite what MMP sets out to achieve.

All in all, I am voting ACT and I believe if you take the time to read Seymour's book, research his policy and see for yourself how it has been executed overseas you might just do the same.

I appreciate any opinions you have on how my vote for ACT is wrong and I am happy to change my opinion if persuaded by a solid argument.

It's not wrong. Act has always had good policies but have never managed to sell them to voters. I intend to vote National this time, but may switch to Act if it looks like they will get over the hump for a second MP, or hopefully - even a third.

Bjauck
02-09-2017, 04:31 PM
What is the inflation component of a fixed interest investment? If your td earns 3% gross pa or 2% after tax, and the increase in CPI is 2% pa, the effective inflation adjusted net yield on your term deposit is zero.

Bjauck
02-09-2017, 04:35 PM
S....

I appreciate any opinions you have on how my vote for ACT is wrong and I am happy to change my opinion if persuaded by a solid argument.

I think the most "productive capitalism" friendly parties are TOP (for its suggested reforms to try and shift investment away from inflating the price of land) and ACT in that order.

tim23
02-09-2017, 08:25 PM
You are dreaming if you think ACT will ever get another MP - one is already too many and thats a gift from the Tories anyway.
It's not wrong. Act has always had good policies but have never managed to sell them to voters. I intend to vote National this time, but may switch to Act if it looks like they will get over the hump for a second MP, or hopefully - even a third.

minimoke
02-09-2017, 09:40 PM
You are dreaming if you think ACT will ever get another MP - one is already too many and thats a gift from the Tories anyway.
Paying teachers based on performance rather than collective lowest common denominator seems like a good idea to me

Bjauck
03-09-2017, 06:14 AM
Paying teachers based on performance rather than collective lowest common denominator seems like a good idea to me If you have excellent teachers but in an area of increasing poverty, increasing overcrowding and/or substandard housing and poor quality equipment, the chances are their performance will suffer. If some teachers increasingly have students who are inadequately nourished and clothed and the students continually fall ill, then some teachers have a deteriorating environment in which they try to teach

minimoke
03-09-2017, 07:10 AM
If you have excellent teachers but in an area of increasing poverty, increasing overcrowding and/or substandard housing and poor quality equipment, the chances are their performance will suffer. If some teachers increasingly have students who are inadequately nourished and clothed and the students continually fall ill, then some teachers have a deteriorating environment in which they try to teach
You may find excellent teachers shine through in these areas

Bjauck
03-09-2017, 07:57 AM
You may find excellent teachers shine through in these areas The ones who perhaps perform well in social work as well as teaching?

minimoke
03-09-2017, 08:08 AM
The ones who perhaps perform well in social work as well as teaching?
Depends on how excellence will be defined.

Bjauck
03-09-2017, 08:37 AM
Depends on how excellence will be defined. Sure. And will it differ from rich to poor areas? So you think excellence for teachers in areas becoming more deprived will be constantly changing to include expertise in social work? Whilst those in continually prosperous areas will be judged on their ability to teach? So teaching ability will not necessarily mean teaching ability depending on where you teach?

hardt
03-09-2017, 09:03 AM
Sure. And will it differ from rich to poor areas? So you think excellence for teachers in areas becoming more deprived will be constantly changing to include expertise in social work? Whilst those in continually prosperous areas will be judged on their ability to teach? So teaching ability will not necessarily mean teaching ability depending on where you teach?

Question - are underprivileged kids going to be better off or worse off with teachers now being incentivised greatly for their performance and their rapport with students?

Perhaps, teachers in a decile 1 school might find it more difficult to earn 80k a year under this scheme, but at least the opportunity is there and where there is opportunity there will always be those who rise.

As it is now ( with 4 teachers in my family who obviously love this policy ) the only monetary reward teachers can hope for is a chance at moving into a leadership position - essentially the teachers who are performing well and are considered for a promotion can now, through this policy be rewarded without having to leave the classroom where the real work with students occurs...

The opportunity to work 60 hour weeks and earn under 60k did not sell a lot of great candidates on the idea of going into teaching, perhaps this might?

Bjauck
03-09-2017, 09:47 AM
Question - are underprivileged kids going to be better off or worse off with teachers now being incentivised greatly for their performance and their rapport with students? Are you expecting different things from teachers in different areas? My issue is mainly in assessing "performance" in areas and schools with changing circumstances. Will a good teacher one year, be deemed to be not so good in subsequent years because they do not have the social work skills needed to cope with increasing poverty? So would their salary be cut as result of inadequate funding of social work in the community with deteriorating living conditions?

Question - is it easier to develop rapport with healthy children from stable backgrounds, from a warm dry house and who have been well fed?


Perhaps, teachers in a decile 1 school might find it more difficult to earn 80k a year under this scheme, ...You teach in a privileged area with healthy well fed kids, you deserve an easier way to earn more money? Shouldn't teachers in underprivileged areas be paid higher salaries anyway, as not only do they need to be skilled teachers, they need to have greater skills in social work.


but at least the opportunity is there and where there is opportunity there will always be those who rise.... There are always some that shine no matter how grim the circumstances. Although the numbers who will be able to succeed become fewer and fewer as the circumstances become worse and worse.

minimoke
03-09-2017, 10:35 AM
Sure. And will it differ from rich to poor areas? So you think excellence for teachers in areas becoming more deprived will be constantly changing to include expertise in social work? Whilst those in continually prosperous areas will be judged on their ability to teach? So teaching ability will not necessarily mean teaching ability depending on where you teach?I think you arte taking an overall elitist view. Suggestign those in "poor" areas are trouble and those in "rich" areas aren't.

Schools in poor areas turn out excellent students. Hoi polio private schools can turn out toe rags - though you wont see them in the NCEA stats as they are kept out of that part of the system.

minimoke
03-09-2017, 10:38 AM
...You teach in a privileged area with healthy well fed kids, you deserve an easier way to earn more money? Shouldn't teachers in underprivileged areas be paid higher salaries anyway, as not only do they need to be skilled teachers, they need to have greater skills in social work.

Not every teacher is excellent. Therefore perhaps the top 20% in rich schools and the top 20% in poor schools would get the pay. Maybe the poor performing 20% in poor schools and rich schools get shown the door.

Bjauck
03-09-2017, 11:01 AM
I think you arte taking an overall elitist view. Suggestign those in "poor" areas are trouble and those in "rich" areas aren't.
...LOL but true we should not foreget the deprivation and challenges in high decile zones.

minimoke
03-09-2017, 11:28 AM
LOL but true we should not foreget the deprivation and challenges in high decile zones.They certainly have access to a better class of drug and mental health issues of a much more privileged nature

fungus pudding
03-09-2017, 12:06 PM
They certainly have access to a better class of drug and mental health issues of a much more privileged nature


Are you talking about the teachers?

tim23
03-09-2017, 12:25 PM
Good post - sums it up nicely and probably about how it is too.
If you have excellent teachers but in an area of increasing poverty, increasing overcrowding and/or substandard housing and poor quality equipment, the chances are their performance will suffer. If some teachers increasingly have students who are inadequately nourished and clothed and the students continually fall ill, then some teachers have a deteriorating environment in which they try to teach

artemis
03-09-2017, 01:06 PM
If you have excellent teachers but in an area of increasing poverty, increasing overcrowding and/or substandard housing and poor quality equipment, the chances are their performance will suffer. If some teachers increasingly have students who are inadequately nourished and clothed and the students continually fall ill, then some teachers have a deteriorating environment in which they try to teach

The Ministry for Vulnerable Children should be knocking at those doors then, with a view to removing those children to a home where they will be fed, clothed, not overcrowded, get the health care they need, and be supported at school.

That would remove the burden from teachers, who are supposed to be there to teach. And from parents who are not caring properly for their children,

minimoke
03-09-2017, 01:15 PM
The Ministry for Vulnerable Children should be knocking at those doors then, with a view to removing those children to a home where they will be fed, clothed, not overcrowded, get the health care they need, and be supported at school.

That would remove the burden from teachers, who are supposed to be there to teach. And from parents who are not caring properly for their children,
Exactly.
Get the teachers teaching - and reward the good ones. Get the social workers social working - and likewise reward the good ones.

Above all set some consequences for parents who aren't providing the basics and prefer to have their children in "poverty"

tim23
03-09-2017, 01:31 PM
Good theory but too many variables - you have to trust that poor performance is managed by Principals so that teachers are performing at minimal satisfactory levels.
Exactly.
Get the teachers teaching - and reward the good ones. Get the social workers social working - and likewise reward the good ones.

Above all set some consequences for parents who aren't providing the basics and prefer to have their children in "poverty"

Bjauck
03-09-2017, 01:46 PM
Exactly.
Get the teachers teaching - and reward the good ones. Get the social workers social working - and likewise reward the good ones Agreed. Spot on!

minimoke
03-09-2017, 02:04 PM
Good theory but too many variables - you have to trust that poor performance is managed by Principals so that teachers are performing at minimal satisfactory levels.
Remove the shackles of a Collective Agreement that protects the inept would be a step in the right direction. But seriously - principals should manage poor performing teachers. That is part of their job and the Ministry of Education should provide support if they need help to do this.

artemis
03-09-2017, 03:11 PM
Remove the shackles of a Collective Agreement that protects the inept would be a step in the right direction. But seriously - principals should manage poor performing teachers. That is part of their job and the Ministry of Education should provide support if they need help to do this.

I've worked in large corporates and can tell you that plenty of managers have no idea how to deal with poor performers or any serious conflict actually. Fortunately they can often find an excuse to restructure and make poor performers redundant rather than go through the very stressful performance management process. Happens all the time.

Principals can't restructure like that.

And you won't hear it admitted, but some of those made redundant may be OK performance wise but if they have had one or two lots of stress leave they become a serious financial risk to the organisation under H&S.

minimoke
03-09-2017, 05:28 PM
And you won't hear it admitted, but some of those made redundant may be OK performance wise but if they have had one or two lots of stress leave they become a serious financial risk to the organisation under H&S.
Probably time for a seperate thread, but unless its in the Agreement, no such thing as stress leave.

artemis
03-09-2017, 05:58 PM
Probably time for a seperate thread, but unless its in the Agreement, no such thing as stress leave.

Sick leave with a doctor's certificate citing cause as stress.

westerly
03-09-2017, 06:48 PM
Remove the shackles of a Collective Agreement that protects the inept would be a step in the right direction. But seriously - principals should manage poor performing teachers. That is part of their job and the Ministry of Education should provide support if they need help to do this.

" You go to school to learn how to learn " quote by Bala Manian a Silicon Valley entrepreneur.

Many successful people were not much good academically at school.
Seymour's idea of paying teachers according to ability is seriously flawed in as much as without an independent body and an accurate method of grading teachers leaving it to headmasters/mistresses or school commitees will only result in upset teachers hurt by perceived or real bias. There is a shortage of qualified teachers now (especially men) and this sort of policy would only cause doubt amongst those considering a teaching career.

westerly

Baa_Baa
03-09-2017, 08:04 PM
" You go to school to learn how to learn " quote by Bala Manian a Silicon Valley entrepreneur.

Many successful people were not much good academically at school.
Seymour's idea of paying teachers according to ability is seriously flawed in as much as without an independent body and an accurate method of grading teachers leaving it to headmasters/mistresses or school commitees will only result in upset teachers hurt by perceived or real bias. There is a shortage of qualified teachers now (especially men) and this sort of policy would only cause doubt amongst those considering a teaching career.

westerly

I agree, some here think or wish for an eutopian world where some system somehow weeds out the poor teachers and rewards the good teachers. The whole notion is flawed, implausible and totally impractical. Typical hard right, who think reward the good, punish the bad and it'll all be right in the middle.

Notwithstanding ACT has about f'all chance of having anything to do with the next government, right or left. So Seymour has to put out controversial un-implementable nonsense just to get some oxygen during an election. Goodbye Seymour, neither the right nor the left will need or want you this time.

Get real, all teachers are paid bugger all and they're responsible for our children's education! Better just to pay the poor teachers a decent wage and recognise their value and worth to society.

No one needs a merit based values and reward system for teachers which no-one will be able to decide on the precise metrics, measures or assessments. It is a flawed concept, already proven by the inept and flawed NCEA levels measurements system, although that's for students.

Education in NZ is truely screwed at all levels except pre-school although even that's grossly under funded. ACT will just add another layer of complete and utter dysfunction, with no likelyhood that a teacher will ever be paid their true worth. Sucks, the whole thing sucks imo. Act have no answer.

Sadly no major party has an answer either, expect Labour who wish to rape the taxpayers to make "education free" again. Good grief. Losing the will to live.

Elections, they're full of rhetoric that will never make it to fruition, except to highlight the extreme lengths some politicians will go to, in order to influence the un-informed.

fungus pudding
04-09-2017, 08:03 AM
I agree, some here think or wish for an eutopian world where some system somehow weeds out the poor teachers and rewards the good teachers. The whole notion is flawed, implausible and totally impractical. Typical hard right, who think reward the good, punish the bad and it'll all be right in the middle.

Notwithstanding ACT has about f'all chance of having anything to do with the next government, right or left. So Seymour has to put out controversial un-implementable nonsense just to get some oxygen during an election. Goodbye Seymour, neither the right nor the left will need or want you this time.

Get real, all teachers are paid bugger all and they're responsible for our children's education! Better just to pay the poor teachers a decent wage and recognise their value and worth to society.



Bogger all ? Not if you live down south where their income is probably well above average, along with police, and nurses.

tim23
09-09-2017, 08:28 PM
Bogger all (what kind of word is that anyway Gus?) Baa Baa is on the money. It doesn't matter where you live - they pay is still poor in my opinion. UOTE=fungus pudding;681960]Bogger all ? Not if you live down south where their income is probably well above average, along with police, and nurses.[/QUOTE]

minimoke
09-09-2017, 11:04 PM
Bogger all (what kind of word is that anyway Gus?) Baa Baa is on the money. It doesn't matter where you live - they pay is still poor in my opinion.
Bogger - great word! The benefits of a Collective is you get to negotiate to the lowest common dominator. Which means you can be a piss poor teacher in Eketahuna and get paid just as much as an excellent teacher in Remuera. Aspirational stuff!

fungus pudding
10-09-2017, 07:13 AM
Bogger - great word! The benefits of a Collective is you get to negotiate to the lowest common dominator. Which means you can be a piss poor teacher in Eketahuna and get paid just as much as an excellent teacher in Remuera. Aspirational stuff!

Indeed it is a great wurd and duesn't cume to the attentiun uf the muderaturs.

minimoke
17-09-2017, 10:14 AM
Making more sense again today. Time for churches / charitable trusts to pay income tax

fungus pudding
17-09-2017, 10:23 AM
Making more sense again today. Time for churches / charitable trusts to pay income tax
The best thinker in NZ politics.

GTM 3442
18-09-2017, 03:38 AM
The best thinker in NZ politics.

New Zealand's doomed then.

Is there enough Jet A-1 left to get me on a plane out?

Rep
18-09-2017, 09:14 PM
New Zealand's doomed then.

Is there enough Jet A-1 left to get me on a plane out?

No need for refined kerosene GTM - try doing like Tony Mokbel and escape by sailing away as there's bound to be more than our fair share of ill wind, headwinds, tailwinds, foul air, hot air, cold water being poured, stirring the pot, storm in a teacup, finger pointing to send you well on your way to either the rising or setting sun...

Aaron
20-06-2019, 07:56 AM
Good article looking at ACTs flat tax proposal.
ACT is for ideologue's, don't let facts and reality get in the way of your beliefs.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/113604525/for-and-against-could-a-flat-tax-ever-work

blackcap
20-06-2019, 07:59 AM
Good article looking at ACTs flat tax proposal.
ACT is for ideologue's, don't let facts and reality get in the way of your beliefs.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/113604525/for-and-against-could-a-flat-tax-ever-work

Why would I let facts get in the way of my beliefs? I believe that at best tax is theft, and therefore the lower the tax take the better. Nothing ideologous about that at all. Just an opinion I am (still) legally allowed to hold.

fungus pudding
20-06-2019, 08:16 AM
Good article looking at ACTs flat tax proposal.
ACT is for ideologue's, don't let facts and reality get in the way of your beliefs.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/113604525/for-and-against-could-a-flat-tax-ever-work

https://www.propublica.org/article/flat-taxes-are-big-in-the-former-ussr.-have-they-worked

fungus pudding
20-06-2019, 08:19 AM
Why would I let facts get in the way of my beliefs? I believe that at best tax is theft, and therefore the lower the tax take the better. Nothing ideologous about that at all. Just an opinion I am (still) legally allowed to hold.

Certainly progressive tax is theft, simply because of its unfairness. But a level of tax is essential for a society to function.

Aaron
20-06-2019, 02:13 PM
Why would I let facts get in the way of my beliefs? I believe that at best tax is theft, and therefore the lower the tax take the better. Nothing ideologous about that at all. Just an opinion I am (still) legally allowed to hold.

You can have an opinion and believe whatever you like (some people still believe the world is flat, which is fine just don't talk to me about it).
A common theme of most wealthy countries around the world is strong public institutions and corruption free democratically elected government providing wealth redistribution through progressive taxes.

As an example of how ACT seeks to rectify this unfairness as FP puts it is poor old David Hisco. What did he make $3million a year?. Currently that's $980,920.00 in income tax under ACTs policy that reduces to $525,000 or a saving of $455,920 under ACT. Imagine the problems that would have been solved if he could have afforded his own chauffer and wine cellar. I can see ACT policies already solving some of the bigger issues facing the nation... so aspirational.

Sadly if Labour/Green/NZ First voters in Epsom were any smarter and gave National their electorate vote Blackcap and FP would be left without representation in Parliament. So I guess this is another reason they can be grateful the left is soo stooopid.

blackcap
20-06-2019, 03:24 PM
You can have an opinion and believe whatever you like (some people still believe the world is flat, which is fine just don't talk to me about it).


Why wouldn't I talk to you about it or why would you not talk to me? I am trying to convince you of my argument, and conversely you are trying to convince me of your argument. If you don't want to talk then that's fine, but then you have no way of swaying my position.

fungus pudding
20-06-2019, 04:07 PM
You can have an opinion and believe whatever you like (some people still believe the world is flat, which is fine just don't talk to me about it).
A common theme of most wealthy countries around the world is strong public institutions and corruption free democratically elected government providing wealth redistribution through progressive taxes.

As an example of how ACT seeks to rectify this unfairness as FP puts it is poor old David Hisco. What did he make $3million a year?. Currently that's $980,920.00 in income tax under ACTs policy that reduces to $525,000 or a saving of $455,920 under ACT. Imagine the problems that would have been solved if he could have afforded his own chauffer and wine cellar. I can see ACT policies already solving some of the bigger issues facing the nation... so aspirational.

Sadly if Labour/Green/NZ First voters in Epsom were any smarter and gave National their electorate vote Blackcap and FP would be left without representation in Parliament. So I guess this is another reason they can be grateful the left is soo stooopid.

I doubt if Hisco is paying as much as you say. He just isn't that silly.
How fair is it when someone earning 50k pays around 16%: 100k pays around 24% tax, and someone on 200k pays around 28%? And don't spit out that rubbish 'cos they can afford it'. Of course they probably can, but that does not make it 'fair' any more than charging twice as much for a pair of shoelaces 'because they can afford it'. And before you attack me with claims of greed etc, take note that I am not complaining. I am merely disturbed when a 'progressive system' is called a 'fair system', which is simply a misnomer. It's the abuse of the language that flies fair up my hooter.

Aaron
20-06-2019, 05:24 PM
Why wouldn't I talk to you about it or why would you not talk to me? I am trying to convince you of my argument, and conversely you are trying to convince me of your argument. If you don't want to talk then that's fine, but then you have no way of swaying my position.

Some things aren't worth discussing such as the flat earth theory. People believe it because they want to but it is not based on reality or any factual evidence so it is a waste of time discussing such things.

Aaron
20-06-2019, 05:36 PM
I doubt if Hisco is paying as much as you say. He just isn't that silly.
How fair is it when someone earning 50k pays around 16%: 100k pays around 24% tax, and someone on 200k pays around 28%? And don't spit out that rubbish 'cos they can afford it'. Of course they probably can, but that does not make it 'fair' any more than charging twice as much for a pair of shoelaces 'because they can afford it'. And before you attack me with claims of greed etc, take note that I am not complaining. I am merely disturbed when a 'progressive system' is called a 'fair system', which is simply a misnomer. It's the abuse of the language that flies fair up my hooter.

Don't get upset with me I didn't say it was fair. Those with more contribute more, who is to say if that's fair or not. It seems like common sense to me but I am not very bright.
Is it fair that a large chunk of your wealth came from capital gains on property investment on which you paid no tax while poor old David Hisco pays tax on every dollar he earns from the sweat off his brow that doesn't sound fair to me but what do I know. Nothing is perfect but some ideas just seem better to me than others.

blackcap
20-06-2019, 06:04 PM
Don't get upset with me I didn't say it was fair. Those with more contribute more, who is to say if that's fair or not. It seems like common sense to me but I am not very bright.
Is it fair that a large chunk of your wealth came from capital gains on property investment on which you paid no tax while poor old David Hisco pays tax on every dollar he earns from the sweat off his brow that doesn't sound fair to me but what do I know. Nothing is perfect but some ideas just seem better to me than others.

Exactly. If there is a flat rate of tax at say 20% and you earn $10,000 you pay $2,000 tax. If you earn $100,000 you pay $20,000 tax. If you earn $1,000,000 you pay $200,000 tax. Those with more contribute more. Seems like common sense to me but I am not that bright.

Aaron
21-06-2019, 07:12 AM
Exactly. If there is a flat rate of tax at say 20% and you earn $10,000 you pay $2,000 tax. If you earn $100,000 you pay $20,000 tax. If you earn $1,000,000 you pay $200,000 tax. Those with more contribute more. Seems like common sense to me but I am not that bright.

Well on the face of it, it sounds like common sense but how about we test your intelligence with a simple maths quiz FP can try too if he likes it might help his understanding of the progressive tax system that gets up his nose so bad? Multi choice.
As we are discussing tax policy I expect a basic understanding of tax but to be fair as David Seymour points out “the current system of four different income tax rates, starting at 10.5 per cent for income up to $14,000 and reaching 33 per cent for income over $70,000, created enormous complexity.” That is right ENORMOUS complexity so if you don’t want to complete the quiz I fully understand, only the very brightest and most intelligent of people should undertake things of enormous complexity.

Information required to complete the quiz our current four rates of tax.
Up to $14,000 tax rate 10.5%
$14,000 to $48,000 tax rate 17.5%
$48,000 to $70,0000 tax rate 30%
$70,000 and over 33%
I assume Blackcap and FP are up for the challenge I also invite anyone else to participate.

Question;

1/ David Hisco earns $3,000,000 per annum this puts him on the top income tax rate of 33% how much does he pay in tax each year? (Hint I left a big clue earlier in the thread but do the maths don’t be lazy.)
A/ $990,000
B/ $1,000,000
C/ $980,920

2/ How much more tax does David pay on his first $14,000 earnings than a person earning only $14,000pa
A/ $3,150
B/ $0

3/ How much more tax does David pay on his first $48,000 earnings than a person earning only $48,000pa
A/ $7,440
B/ $0

4/ How much more tax does David pay on his first $70,000 earnings than a person earning only $70,000
A/ $2,100.00
B/ $0

5/ This last question doesn’t have a right or wrong answer so sorry to stray from straight forward right or wrong answers but feel free to answer whatever seems the most common sense answer to you. I would set up a poll if I knew how.
After ACTs fairer flat tax of 17.5% is imposed David Hisco’s weekly wage after tax will rise by $8,767.69(a week) to $47,596.15 a week after tax.
A person on the minimum wage of $36,816 will see their weekly wage after tax drop $18.85 to $584.10.
Do you think the ACT flat tax sounds more reasonable and fair than the current progressive tax system we have?
A/Yes
B/No

As guidance on this last question here is a quote from David Seymour.
"There is no fairness in 5 per cent of taxpayers paying a third of all income tax. It is wrong that if a person's income doubles from $50,000 to $100,000 their tax bill triples."
With wisdom like this I cannot for the life of me understand how ACT can’t crack 5% of the vote. I suspect a lot of very wealthy people are wealthy because they are intelligent not greedy as popular opinion would have you believe.
Remember the opposite of "aspirational" is unambitious, lazy, apathetic, passive, unassertive.

Answers at 10am no exam papers accepted after this time.

blackcap
21-06-2019, 07:18 AM
Well on the face of it, it sounds like common sense but how about we test your intelligence with a simple maths quiz FP can try too if he likes it might help his understanding of the progressive tax system that gets up his nose so bad? Multi choice.
As we are discussing tax policy I expect a basic understanding of tax but to be fair as David Seymour points out “the current system of four different income tax rates, starting at 10.5 per cent for income up to $14,000 and reaching 33 per cent for income over $70,000, created enormous complexity.” That is right ENORMOUS complexity so if you don’t want to complete the quiz I fully understand, only the very brightest and most intelligent of people should undertake things of enormous complexity.

Information required to complete the quiz our current four rates of tax.
Up to $14,000 tax rate 10.5%
$14,000 to $48,000 tax rate 17.5%
$48,000 to $70,0000 tax rate 30%
$70,000 and over 33%
I assume Blackcap and FP are up for the challenge I also invite anyone else to participate.

Question;

1/ David Hisco earns $3,000,000 per annum this puts him on the top income tax rate of 33% how much does he pay in tax each year? (Hint I left a big clue earlier in the thread but do the maths don’t be lazy.)
A/ $990,000
B/ $1,000,000
C/ $980,920

2/ How much more tax does David pay on his first $14,000 earnings than a person earning only $14,000pa
A/ $3,150
B/ $0

3/ How much more tax does David pay on his first $48,000 earnings than a person earning only $48,000pa
A/ $7,440
B/ $0

4/ How much more tax does David pay on his first $70,000 earnings than a person earning only $70,000
A/ $2,100.00
B/ $0

5/ This last question doesn’t have a right or wrong answer so sorry to stray from straight forward right or wrong answers but feel free to answer whatever seems the most common sense answer to you. I would set up a poll if I knew how.
After ACTs fairer flat tax of 17.5% is imposed David Hisco’s weekly wage after tax will rise by $8,767.69(a week) to $47,596.15 a week after tax.
A person on the minimum wage of $36,816 will see their weekly wage after tax drop $18.85 to $584.10.
Do you think the ACT flat tax sounds more reasonable and fair than the current progressive tax system we have?
A/Yes
B/No

As guidance on this last question here is a quote from David Seymour.
"There is no fairness in 5 per cent of taxpayers paying a third of all income tax. It is wrong that if a person's income doubles from $50,000 to $100,000 their tax bill triples."
With wisdom like this I cannot for the life of me understand how ACT can’t crack 5% of the vote. I suspect a lot of very wealthy people are wealthy because they are intelligent not greedy as popular opinion would have you believe.
Remember the opposite of "aspirational" is unambitious, lazy, apathetic, passive, unassertive.

Answers at 10am no exam papers accepted after this time.

I can't believe you wasted your time writing that all out. I know the answers as its pretty simple really. My answer to question number 5 is A/Yes.

I know all the arguments you make, but my philosophy differs from yours and as such I do not prescribe to them. I believe tax should be at a bare minimum and all social requirements met by the smaller community, those close around people. That enables the community to care for each other and provides incentives for everyone to contribute. If you are an a s s hole, you do not eat as ppl will be less inclined to give charity. By having such a system where those around you care for the less well off you have incentives for everyone to become positive contributing members of society. Currently there is no penalty for being anti social and a negative on society as you will still get your welfare check or lower tax paid earnings regardless of your harm to others.

I am not a firm believer in big government at all, I loathe bureaucracy and the huge paper pushing wastage that big govt produces. We as a country would be so much better off if you got rid of half the public service and it starts at home with council but extends to Wellington.

fungus pudding
21-06-2019, 08:56 AM
Well on the face of it, it sounds like common sense but how about we test your intelligence with a simple maths quiz FP can try too if he likes it might help his understanding of the progressive tax system that gets up his nose so bad? Multi choice.
As we are discussing tax policy I expect a basic understanding of tax but to be fair as David Seymour points out “the current system of four different income tax rates, starting at 10.5 per cent for income up to $14,000 and reaching 33 per cent for income over $70,000, created enormous complexity.” That is right ENORMOUS complexity so if you don’t want to complete the quiz I fully understand, only the very brightest and most intelligent of people should undertake things of enormous complexity.

Information required to complete the quiz our current four rates of tax.
Up to $14,000 tax rate 10.5%
$14,000 to $48,000 tax rate 17.5%
$48,000 to $70,0000 tax rate 30%
$70,000 and over 33%
I assume Blackcap and FP are up for the challenge I also invite anyone else to participate.

Question;

1/ David Hisco earns $3,000,000 per annum this puts him on the top income tax rate of 33% how much does he pay in tax each year? (Hint I left a big clue earlier in the thread but do the maths don’t be lazy.)
A/ $990,000
B/ $1,000,000
C/ $980,920

2/ How much more tax does David pay on his first $14,000 earnings than a person earning only $14,000pa
A/ $3,150
B/ $0

3/ How much more tax does David pay on his first $48,000 earnings than a person earning only $48,000pa
A/ $7,440
B/ $0

4/ How much more tax does David pay on his first $70,000 earnings than a person earning only $70,000
A/ $2,100.00
B/ $0

5/ This last question doesn’t have a right or wrong answer so sorry to stray from straight forward right or wrong answers but feel free to answer whatever seems the most common sense answer to you. I would set up a poll if I knew how.
After ACTs fairer flat tax of 17.5% is imposed David Hisco’s weekly wage after tax will rise by $8,767.69(a week) to $47,596.15 a week after tax.
A person on the minimum wage of $36,816 will see their weekly wage after tax drop $18.85 to $584.10.
Do you think the ACT flat tax sounds more reasonable and fair than the current progressive tax system we have?
A/Yes
B/No

As guidance on this last question here is a quote from David Seymour.
"There is no fairness in 5 per cent of taxpayers paying a third of all income tax. It is wrong that if a person's income doubles from $50,000 to $100,000 their tax bill triples."
With wisdom like this I cannot for the life of me understand how ACT can’t crack 5% of the vote. I suspect a lot of very wealthy people are wealthy because they are intelligent not greedy as popular opinion would have you believe.
Remember the opposite of "aspirational" is unambitious, lazy, apathetic, passive, unassertive.

Answers at 10am no exam papers accepted after this time.

Hard to understand why you bother with all that trivia. The only important part of all that waffle is in the last paragraph. There is no fairness in 5 per cent of taxpayers paying a third of all income tax. 'It is wrong that if a person's income doubles from $50,000 to $100,000 their tax bill triples'.

You obviously agree with that as a policy; many do, but don't for one minute argue it is fair.

Aaron
21-06-2019, 10:00 AM
Answers
1/ C
2/ B
3/ B
4/ B
5/ There is no right or wrong answer.

No genuine attempts at answering questions 1-4 but I will assume not many people are reading this thread (only 1% of NZ has an interest in ACT).

Although I suspect we all knew Blackcap and FP’s answer to question 5 in advance.

I am concerned no real attempt was made on questions 1 to 4 but appreciate the enormous complexity of the questions.

I do whole heartedly agree with Blackcap and FP that this has been a waste of time, but I knew that before I started.

I was hoping to educate people on a common misconception about a progressive income tax rate, which is once your income is high enough and you are on 33% it is only every dollar over $70,000 that is taxed at 33% we don’t expect David Hisco to pay more than 10.5% on his first $14,000 same as everyone else as it wouldn’t be fair to expect him to pay any more than anyone else.

Class dismissed.

westerly
21-06-2019, 10:32 AM
Hard to understand why you bother with all that trivia. The only important part of all that waffle is in the last paragraph. There is no fairness in 5 per cent of taxpayers paying a third of all income tax. 'It is wrong that if a person's income doubles from $50,000 to $100,000 their tax bill triples'.

You obviously agree with that as a policy; many do, but don't for one minute argue it is fair.

Get over it . Life is'nt fair
The 5% possibly consume more resources, like drive a BMW as against a Susuki Swift or live on a lifestyle block rather than the back seat of a car.

westerly

fungus pudding
21-06-2019, 10:44 AM
Get over it . Life is'nt fair
The 5% possibly consume more resources, like drive a BMW as against a Susuki Swift or live on a lifestyle block rather than the back seat of a car.

westerly

Nothing to get over. Life indeed isn't fair, which doesn't worry me. You shouldn't waste your time worrying about it either. Better to spend your time going for what you want.

blackcap
21-06-2019, 01:13 PM
I was hoping to educate people on a common misconception about a progressive income tax rate, which is once your income is high enough and you are on 33% it is only every dollar over $70,000 that is taxed at 33% we don’t expect David Hisco to pay more than 10.5% on his first $14,000 same as everyone else as it wouldn’t be fair to expect him to pay any more than anyone else.

Class dismissed.

I did not bother answering because to me it is pretty obvious and self evident. Everybody knows that everyone pays tax at 10.5% on the first $14k etc. Well I presumed everyone did. Most people earning over 70k know that they do not pay 33% on the whole lot only the marginal amount.

Aaron
21-06-2019, 01:32 PM
I did not bother answering because to me it is pretty obvious and self evident. Everybody knows that everyone pays tax at 10.5% on the first $14k etc. Well I presumed everyone did. Most people earning over 70k know that they do not pay 33% on the whole lot only the marginal amount.

You might be surprised at the number of people who do not appreciate this fact. But once you do appreciate it, progressive taxation doesn't sound as unfair as David Seymour and FP make it out to be.

fungus pudding
21-06-2019, 01:58 PM
You might be surprised at the number of people who do not appreciate this fact. But once you do appreciate it, progressive taxation doesn't sound as unfair as David Seymour and FP make it out to be.

Anyone with half a brain knows the tax rates are progressive. You must know some very strange people. You and I have a different understanding of the words 'fair' and 'unfair'. It can only be fair in my eyes if we all pay the same percentage on earnings, just as we pay the same percentage of tax on our groceries. Or is that 'unfair'?

Aaron
21-06-2019, 02:08 PM
Anyone with half a brain knows the tax rates are progressive. You must know some very strange people. You and I have a different understanding of the words 'fair' and 'unfair'. It can only be fair in my eyes if we all pay the same percentage on earnings, just as we pay the same percentage of tax on our groceries. Or is that 'unfair'?

FP you never answered the quiz I can only assume you were stumped by the questions or weren't aspirational enough to do the maths.

Are you turning into a troll?? We have been over how GST is a regressive tax many times and I find you very strange not being able to comprehend something so basic. But you are entitled to your beliefs even if they are not based on any sort of reality. That is why having strong ideological beliefs is so good, it saves a lot of time not having to think.

Aaron
31-07-2019, 07:51 AM
As we were talking about tax, I thought this was interesting.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/114628351/an-inconvenient-truth-about-tax-in-new-zealand

fungus pudding
31-07-2019, 09:26 AM
FP you never answered the quiz I can only assume you were stumped by the questions or weren't aspirational enough to do the maths.

Are you turning into a troll?? We have been over how GST is a regressive tax many times and I find you very strange not being able to comprehend something so basic. But you are entitled to your beliefs even if they are not based on any sort of reality. That is why having strong ideological beliefs is so good, it saves a lot of time not having to think.

I gather you would consider it 'fair' for a school teacher to wander around the playground, confiscating marbles from the kid who had the biggest bag, and giving them to the kids who only had a small bag.
And no doubt you consider the kid with not many marbles should be able to buy more at a lower price than the kid who had more because he had won them, or inherited them from his big sister.

RTM
31-07-2019, 10:39 AM
As we were talking about tax, I thought this was interesting.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/114628351/an-inconvenient-truth-about-tax-in-new-zealand

Yes, that is interesting. Doesn't seem right either. Thanks for posting.

Aaron
31-07-2019, 01:42 PM
I gather you would consider it 'fair' for a school teacher to wander around the playground, confiscating marbles from the kid who had the biggest bag, and giving them to the kids who only had a small bag.
And no doubt you consider the kid with not many marbles should be able to buy more at a lower price than the kid who had more because he had won them, or inherited them from his big sister.
This might be a bit simplistic but if I understand you correctly the teacher is the government, the kids are the taxpayers and the marbles represent wealth and the playground society in general. Assuming kids without marbles died in the playground if they had no marbles I could probably cope with the teacher taking some marbles from the kids with a lot of marbles to make sure the kids without didn't die. What are you advocating FP let the kids without marbles die?

Aaron
31-07-2019, 01:42 PM
Yes, that is interesting. Doesn't seem right either. Thanks for posting.

What the article or the tax system?

iceman
31-07-2019, 04:36 PM
What the article or the tax system?

The tax system. Not many households paying net tax in NZ

nextbigthing
01-08-2019, 03:47 PM
Called out NZ Firsts richard prosser and their proposal to nationilse energy companies at $3.10 a share when they are trading at $5.85. "But that makes me really angry - what a f##king idiot"

Just how much do you like David Seymour MM. For a fee you can have an exclusive dinner with him.

Joshuatree
01-08-2019, 03:52 PM
Haha no thanks:scared:. But i fully support him getting the euthanasia bill over the line despite M barry's attempt slowing the process and drag it out.They will both be remembered for that for very different reasons.One honourable and one despicable imo.

RTM
01-08-2019, 06:15 PM
The tax system. Not many households paying net tax in NZ

Thank you Iceman. Yes, the tax system. I’m sure the article is on the money.

janner
15-08-2019, 08:54 PM
The tax system. Not many households paying net tax in NZ

Could that be because so many are not being taught how to use the marbles they have ?..

fish
16-08-2019, 06:11 AM
Thank you Iceman. Yes, the tax system. I’m sure the article is on the money.

Yes a good article and on the money.
I must admit I like the balance we have in NZ.
Would like more to help poverty but it will not be helped by increasing taxes .
We need to increase economic activity to provide aid(not money) to help lift families-especially kids in adverse circumstances affecting their health and futures .
Banning oil and gas exploration is just one of the many current policies that will backfire.
I guess Jacinda had to pacify the greens

Joshuatree
14-11-2019, 04:36 PM
Congrats to d seymour getting this through by a decent majority. Im sure NZ will agree.

Vickers proud after euthanasia vote (https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/euthanasia-debate/117399296/mps-vote-6951-to-pass-david-seymours-end-of-life-choice-bill)

jonu
14-11-2019, 07:36 PM
Congrats to d seymour getting this through by a decent majority. Im sure NZ will agree.

Vickers proud after euthanasia vote (https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/euthanasia-debate/117399296/mps-vote-6951-to-pass-david-seymours-end-of-life-choice-bill)

Doctors aren't keen to perform it. It goes against their ethics. The palliative care speciallists don't want it either. So the professionals who deal with these issues everyday have been ignored by an MP (and all those who voted for it) who is only in parliament by an accident of MMP.
Much like abortion. The vast majority of the country's abortions are done by a handful of people, bloodsoaked to the elbows. Overseas abortionists have high turnover and suicide rates. Conscience finally gets to them in the end. I wonder whether Seymour has one?

couta1
14-11-2019, 08:39 PM
Congrats to d seymour getting this through by a decent majority. Im sure NZ will agree.

Vickers proud after euthanasia vote (https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/euthanasia-debate/117399296/mps-vote-6951-to-pass-david-seymours-end-of-life-choice-bill) Speak for yourself because a lot of NZ doesnt agree, most medically related people dont for a start, add to that the many different disability groups etc etc.

Joshuatree
14-11-2019, 08:48 PM
Im speaking for a majority. Long time coming and about time. Nobody but nobody has the right to force someone to suffer. We all want a good death.Also was disgusted at some people pretending they had valid reasons against when they were actually only religious ones, no compassion there.

blackcap
14-11-2019, 09:08 PM
Im speaking for a majority. Long time coming and about time. Nobody but nobody has the right to force someone to suffer. We all want a good death.Also was disgusted at some people pretending they had valid reasons against when they were actually only religious ones, no compassion there.

I would argue religious conviction is a totally valid reason. Or are people of a religious persuasion not allowed to have a view that aligns with their beliefs?

Joshuatree
14-11-2019, 09:26 PM
No not when some one is terminal and their pain cant be managed for example, no place at all.

couta1
14-11-2019, 09:48 PM
No not when some one is terminal and their pain cant be managed for example, no place at all. It's very rare that pain can't be managed in this day and age and I've seen a lot of people with terminal illness die over the last 30 yrs.

blackcap
14-11-2019, 10:26 PM
No not when some one is terminal and their pain cant be managed for example, no place at all.

Totally disagree. The amount of "suffering" or "discomfort" does not even come into it.

t.rexjr
15-11-2019, 12:32 AM
I would argue religious conviction is a totally valid reason. Or are people of a religious persuasion not allowed to have a view that aligns with their beliefs?

The Bill has nothing to do with religion. Not one iota. People of a religious persuasion are still allowed to have a view that aligns with their beliefs

That statement may now be written:

People have the ability to maintain a view, & now also make a choice, that aligns with their beliefs, their situation and themselves...

t.rexjr
15-11-2019, 12:40 AM
Doctors aren't keen to perform it. It goes against their ethics. The palliative care speciallists don't want it either. So the professionals who deal with these issues everyday have been ignored by an MP (and all those who voted for it) who is only in parliament by an accident of MMP.
Much like abortion. The vast majority of the country's abortions are done by a handful of people, bloodsoaked to the elbows. Overseas abortionists have high turnover and suicide rates. Conscience finally gets to them in the end. I wonder whether Seymour has one?

Given that a Doctor or Medical Professional risked being stuck off if they voiced their belief, it's misguided to cast that statement upon those that you seemingly speak on behalf of...

blackcap
15-11-2019, 06:56 AM
The Bill has nothing to do with religion. Not one iota. People of a religious persuasion are still allowed to have a view that aligns with their beliefs

That statement may now be written:

People have the ability to maintain a view, & now also make a choice, that aligns with their beliefs, their situation and themselves...

That is the point I am trying to make. If people of religious persuasion and view think that euthanasia is a good thing they can vote accordingly. If they think it is a bad thing they can vote accordingly. (of course there are many other variables at play when people make decisions but that is up to them)

jonu
15-11-2019, 07:06 AM
Im speaking for a majority. Long time coming and about time. Nobody but nobody has the right to force someone to suffer. We all want a good death.Also was disgusted at some people pretending they had valid reasons against when they were actually only religious ones, no compassion there.

And there is the voice of bigotry.

"Pretending"? Protecting the vulnerable is the height of compassion. Ignoring a persons secular arguments because they also happen to be religious? Bigotry, pure and simple.

t.rexjr
15-11-2019, 09:16 AM
To vote, protest or rally against something, demanding your belief (secular or not) upon others when the outcome does not effect you is the epitome of bigotry.

jonu
15-11-2019, 10:39 AM
To vote, protest or rally against something, demanding your belief (secular or not) upon others when the outcome does not effect you is the epitome of bigotry.

You have a strange definition of bigot. I stand by my comment.

artemis
15-11-2019, 11:57 AM
It's very rare that pain can't be managed in this day and age and I've seen a lot of people with terminal illness die over the last 30 yrs.

It does happen though, but perhaps less so than in the past. Husband of a close work colleague (next desk) died in his 50s a few years back and was one of those few with pain that could not be well managed. A huge amount of effort went into managing but not very successful. Just terrible. Ok, sample of one, but terrible for all concerned. For weeks, fortunately not months.

artemis
15-11-2019, 12:03 PM
Getting his highly controversial Bill through third reading is a significant achievement for a single MP. Mr Seymour deserves credit for that.

Vagabond47
24-01-2020, 04:05 PM
It's very rare that pain can't be managed in this day and age and I've seen a lot of people with terminal illness die over the last 30 yrs.

When the "pain management" turns the patient into a stoned zombie they have no quality of life. Better to let them take an overdose of "pain management" if that is their wish.

Balance
04-06-2020, 05:28 PM
Loved his rebuttal today in Parliament - ‘It’s alright, Grandpa’ to Winston 🤣

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12337324

moka
14-07-2020, 10:03 PM
ACT Party candidate Nicole McKee believes New Zealand's laws should be rooted in policies that recognise the democratic rights to think, speak and behave in a legal and unobstructed way, which sounds fair.

But only for some people because she wants “electronic income management” for some beneficiaries. Instead of getting welfare payments in cash, these beneficiaries would get an electronic card that can’t be used to buy alcohol, tobacco or casino chips. So some people will be restricted in how they can spend their money. No freedom for them, according to ACT.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/06/act-party-candidate-nicole-mckee-wants-commonsense-and-practicalities-brought-back-into-government.html
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/acts-seymour-no-longer-man-alone

Balance
14-07-2020, 10:25 PM
ACT Party candidate Nicole McKee believes New Zealand's laws should be rooted in policies that recognise the democratic rights to think, speak and behave in a legal and unobstructed way, which sounds fair.

But only for some people because she wants “electronic income management” for some beneficiaries. Instead of getting welfare payments in cash, these beneficiaries would get an electronic card that can’t be used to buy alcohol, tobacco or casino chips. So some people will be restricted in how they can spend their money. No freedom for them, according to ACT.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/06/act-party-candidate-nicole-mckee-wants-commonsense-and-practicalities-brought-back-into-government.html
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/acts-seymour-no-longer-man-alone

100% agree with that approach.

Better than the bleeding heart 'be kind' and breed as many beneficiaries as possible as possible Labour & Greens approach.

fungus pudding
15-07-2020, 01:38 AM
ACT Party candidate Nicole McKee believes New Zealand's laws should be rooted in policies that recognise the democratic rights to think, speak and behave in a legal and unobstructed way, which sounds fair.

But only for some people because she wants “electronic income management” for some beneficiaries. Instead of getting welfare payments in cash, these beneficiaries would get an electronic card that can’t be used to buy alcohol, tobacco or casino chips. So some people will be restricted in how they can spend their money. No freedom for them, according to ACT.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/06/act-party-candidate-nicole-mckee-wants-commonsense-and-practicalities-brought-back-into-government.html
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/acts-seymour-no-longer-man-alone

It's hardly 'their money' when it's taken by legislation from a working taxpayer and given to them. Restricting purchase of certain things, particularly casino chips, seems perfectly reasonable.
I think my party vote will go to Act in September. No point in an electorate vote in my seat. Labour, NZ First, and Greens are all definitely out this time round.

Panda-NZ-
15-07-2020, 05:58 AM
It will cost heaps and is more red tape.

their insurance policy is poorly thought through too. imagine taxing people more in a recession and less in a boom. act is bad at economics.
The actual working people ideally should not pay a cent more in their income tax.

blackcap
15-07-2020, 09:33 AM
ACT Party candidate Nicole McKee believes New Zealand's laws should be rooted in policies that recognise the democratic rights to think, speak and behave in a legal and unobstructed way, which sounds fair.

But only for some people because she wants “electronic income management” for some beneficiaries. Instead of getting welfare payments in cash, these beneficiaries would get an electronic card that can’t be used to buy alcohol, tobacco or casino chips. So some people will be restricted in how they can spend their money. No freedom for them, according to ACT.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/06/act-party-candidate-nicole-mckee-wants-commonsense-and-practicalities-brought-back-into-government.html
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/acts-seymour-no-longer-man-alone

I think that is a great approach. It's not their money to do with as they please. It's mine and other hard working tax payers that give them this money out of compassion. For them to then throw it away is spitting in the face of the giver. Some (as she points out) beneficiaries have shown they cannot cope with the money given to them so this policy will actually help them and their families. You say it cost more to administer but think of the health and other services savings that this will ensure. Thanks for pointing this out Moka, I may just have to stick with Act this time around although Judith does warm the cockles.

Zaphod
15-07-2020, 09:44 AM
It will cost heaps and is more red tape.

To be honest, I do like the concept however you're right, it could cost more. If that's the case then as an alternative, the policy could be rolled out for those who haved repeatedly required emergency benefit supplements whom the budgeting service of Work & Income deem to need additional assistance.

I haven't had a chance to look at the insurance policy yet.

Panda-NZ-
15-07-2020, 09:46 AM
I think that is a great approach. It's not their money to do with as they please. It's mine and other hard working tax payers that give them this money out of compassion. For them to then throw it away is spitting in the face of the giver. Some (as she points out) beneficiaries have shown they cannot cope with the money given to them so this policy will actually help them and their families. You say it cost more to administer but think of the health and other services savings that this will ensure. Thanks for pointing this out Moka, I may just have to stick with Act this time around although Judith does warm the cockles.

Every dollar is spent in NZ and not on european car imports, boats and other things. This is pretty good for the economy and not a concern.

artemis
15-07-2020, 01:41 PM
To be honest, I do like the concept however you're right, it could cost more. If that's the case then as an alternative, the policy could be rolled out for those who haved repeatedly required emergency benefit supplements whom the budgeting service of Work & Income deem to need additional assistance.

I haven't had a chance to look at the insurance policy yet.

Such a system is already in place, except more restrictive. It is the Young Parent Payment for teen parents, and could easily be rolled out to others, especially those not coping, as you suggest Zaphod. The scheme combines support, financial management, responsibilities and rewards for meeting them. There is a limited amount of pocket money with no strings attached.

It is expensive to run. But it was an early initiative of the last government's social investment programme, where data indicated that teen parents were the group most likely to stay on benefit for the longest. The programme is designed to cut that off at the pass.

Something is working as teen parent numbers here are half that of 10 years ago. Various reasons for that, no doubt.

https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/products/a-z-benefits/young-parent-payment.html

moka
15-07-2020, 05:46 PM
It's hardly 'their money' when it's taken by legislation from a working taxpayer and given to them. Restricting purchase of certain things, particularly casino chips, seems perfectly reasonable.
I think my party vote will go to Act in September. No point in an electorate vote in my seat. Labour, NZ First, and Greens are all definitely out this time round.
Interesting how some people think that taxes are still “their” money when it is received by the government. Try telling Inland Revenue that it is still your money. Legally it is beneficiaries’ money and they are entitled to spend it however they like just like any other New Zealander. Excessive control of people like ACT are proposing leads to dependency. People need the freedom to make their own mistakes and learn from them.

moka
15-07-2020, 05:53 PM
It will cost heaps and is more red tape.

their insurance policy is poorly thought through too. imagine taxing people more in a recession and less in a boom. act is bad at economics.
The actual working people ideally should not pay a cent more in their income tax.
My first thought about an employment insurance fund was more funds for very well paid fund managers to manage. Lucky them, helping the rich get richer. And always a risk if it is not well managed and in a recession when you really need the money its value has gone down suddenly.

moka
15-07-2020, 06:19 PM
I think that is a great approach. It's not their money to do with as they please. It's mine and other hard working tax payers that give them this money out of compassion. For them to then throw it away is spitting in the face of the giver. Some (as she points out) beneficiaries have shown they cannot cope with the money given to them so this policy will actually help them and their families. You say it cost more to administer but think of the health and other services savings that this will ensure. Thanks for pointing this out Moka, I may just have to stick with Act this time around although Judith does warm the cockles.
It is their money, once their eligibility has been determined. There are certainly some people on here who think that beneficiaries are second-class citizens and inferior to themselves, and should be treated accordingly. Interesting that you say that hard working tax payers give them this money out of compassion. That is not how it is legally, but the ideology is still reflected in the word “beneficiary” receiving something from a “benefactor.” Beneficiaries should be grateful for whatever small crumbs they are given. What about human rights and equality?

Balance
15-07-2020, 06:22 PM
People need the freedom to make their own mistakes and learn from them.

Not with our money, they don't.

Panda-NZ-
15-07-2020, 06:30 PM
I don't get to decide what is spent on defence and other areas I consider a waste. Why should you have a say in this small area. It's a focus on a quite trivial issue when there are more important things.

artemis
16-07-2020, 05:11 AM
I don't get to decide what is spent on defence and other areas I consider a waste. Why should you have a say in this small area. It's a focus on a quite trivial issue when there are more important things.

Not OK for people to have opinions? Or does that only apply to issues you decide are trivial?

Panda-NZ-
16-07-2020, 05:22 AM
I didn't decide it, it's a fact given it's a low percentage of total crown expenses. social support for the working age population is low here.
We will likely need to transition to a form of affordable basic income in time given the technology changes which are coming. Again its easily affordable with a sovereign wealth fund :)

westerly
16-07-2020, 12:03 PM
I think that is a great approach. It's not their money to do with as they please. It's mine and other hard working tax payers that give them this money out of compassion.

What a load of sanctimonious rubbish.
You pay taxes out of compassion ?

westerly

iceman
20-07-2020, 11:45 AM
A classic from Seymour that obviously got a big rant back from Winnie:
@dbseymour
Winston Peters’ swansong promise to slash immigration is tragic. Peters himself will soon be retired and will require a care worker to help him get dressed and go for a walk. He’ll discover that such facilities can’t function without migrant workers.

Panda-NZ-
21-07-2020, 02:52 PM
$1 million for one person. Some people have too much money to waste. :\

Zaphod
21-07-2020, 05:21 PM
A classic from Seymour that obviously got a big rant back from Winnie:
@dbseymour
Winston Peters’ swansong promise to slash immigration is tragic. Peters himself will soon be retired and will require a care worker to help him get dressed and go for a walk. He’ll discover that such facilities can’t function without migrant workers.

Peters will need to keep working for a while yet to pay back that $320K he owes the crown from his failed Trump-esque lawsuit. Litigate first, think later!

Panda-NZ-
21-07-2020, 05:31 PM
He doesn't though. He's eligible for appeal which may well succeed.

Zaphod
21-07-2020, 05:33 PM
He doesn't though. He's eligible for appeal which may well succeed.

Right now he does, and based upon the facts presented (or perhaps lake of them), I don't like his chances. This time he may have bitten off more than he can chew.

Panda-NZ-
21-07-2020, 05:34 PM
I don't like his chances.

Based on what lol? Seymour needs to account for his $1m+

Zaphod
21-07-2020, 05:38 PM
Based on what lol? Seymour needs to account for his $1m+

The facts of the case obviously, or rather show we say the lack there-of from Winston.

Panda-NZ-
21-07-2020, 06:24 PM
Related to the super issue, and a good article:


Opinion: Winston Peters' $320k court bill shows legal access is only for the rich
Lawyer Graeme Edgeler says the Peters superannuation leak case shows just how broken the litigation system is, leading to a less democratic society.


https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/opinion-winston-peters-320k-court-bill-shows-legal-access-only-rich (https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/opinion-winston-peters-320k-court-bill-shows-legal-access-only-rich)

We need a crack legal team to investigate the Act donation arrangements.

tim23
21-07-2020, 07:17 PM
Related to the super issue, and a good article:


https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/opinion-winston-peters-320k-court-bill-shows-legal-access-only-rich (https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/opinion-winston-peters-320k-court-bill-shows-legal-access-only-rich)

We need a crack legal team to investigate the Act donation arrangements.

Be careful Act might threaten to shoot you - they like guns!

blackcap
21-07-2020, 09:09 PM
Peters will need to keep working for a while yet to pay back that $320K he owes the crown from his failed Trump-esque lawsuit. Litigate first, think later!

Unfortunately Peters does not have to pay the $320k. The crown pays it. Sucks I know but thems the rules.

blackcap
21-07-2020, 09:10 PM
Be careful Act might threaten to shoot you - they like guns!

I like guns too. I see you are based in Masterton. I actually go shooting in your neck of the woods from time to time. The Tararua's are good but also the eastern hills.

Balance
22-07-2020, 07:53 PM
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300063480/acts-david-seymour-accuses-winston-peters-of-disgraceful-use-of-parliament

Zaphod
23-07-2020, 03:21 PM
Unfortunately Peters does not have to pay the $320k. The crown pays it. Sucks I know but thems the rules.

Very true. At least we've kept some lawyers gainfully employed over this terrible time! I'm feeling the warm fuzzies over that one.

Balance
23-07-2020, 03:47 PM
Very true. At least we've kept some lawyers gainfully employed over this terrible time! I'm feeling the warm fuzzies over that one.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12348961

You will be pleased to know that he has to pay the $320,000 personally.

He is appealing but still has to pay first.

fungus pudding
23-07-2020, 04:23 PM
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12348961

You will be pleased to know that he has to pay the $320,000 personally.

He is appealing but still has to pay first.

Oh dear. What a shame.

stones
23-07-2020, 04:29 PM
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12348961

You will be pleased to know that he has to pay the $320,000 personally.

He is appealing but still has to pay first.

Good job I say

percy
23-07-2020, 05:14 PM
I would expect there will be more twists and turns in this saga.

blackcap
23-07-2020, 06:51 PM
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12348961

You will be pleased to know that he has to pay the $320,000 personally.

He is appealing but still has to pay first.

Very happy to hear that. Thanks.

tim23
23-07-2020, 08:15 PM
I like guns too. I see you are based in Masterton. I actually go shooting in your neck of the woods from time to time. The Tararua's are good but also the eastern hills.

Not my gig but its a happy hunting ground around here!

Joshuatree
31-07-2020, 06:13 PM
Pretty cunning mve of Seymour bringing onboardthe entire pro gun voters,theanti 1080 voters,the anti DOC voters,and many assorted rednecks, a sorry motley crew imo.

Balance
31-07-2020, 08:15 PM
Pretty cunning mve of Seymour bringing onboardthe entire pro gun voters,theanti 1080 voters,the anti DOC voters,and many assorted rednecks, a sorry motley crew imo.

Not as cunning, cynical or hypocritical as Comrade Cindy wearing the hijab (symbol of oppression in some Muslim countries) to capture the Muslim votes and to burnish her UN job credentials?

blackcap
01-08-2020, 06:07 AM
Pretty cunning mve of Seymour bringing onboardthe entire pro gun voters,theanti 1080 voters,the anti DOC voters,and many assorted rednecks, a sorry motley crew imo.

I am proud to be a pro gun person, I am not that much in favour of Doc and am ambivalent to 1080. Yet I am a professional and would definitely not categorise myself as redneck. There are many like me who are not rednecks who will possibly be voting for Act.

artemis
01-08-2020, 06:28 AM
I am proud to be a pro gun person, I am not that much in favour of Doc and am ambivalent to 1080. Yet I am a professional and would definitely not categorise myself as redneck. There are many like me who are not rednecks who will possibly be voting for Act.

Clearly you are in the basket of deplorables.

blackcap
01-08-2020, 06:29 AM
Clearly you are in the basket of deplorables.

Thanks for clarifying artemis :) Forgot about that term of endearment.

Blue Skies
01-08-2020, 08:58 AM
duplication

Blue Skies
26-09-2020, 12:45 PM
Enlightening euthanasia bill debate between David Seymour & a Palliative Care Doctor representing the Palliative Care medical profession who have taken the unusual step of jointly signing a letter saying the bill is leaky & would expose thousands of NZ'ers to being put in an extremely vulnerable position.

Seymour awful, a complete jerk, arrogant & full of hubris, talking over the top of and patronising an obviously deeply caring medical specialist who has devoted 25 years to looking after people at end of life stage.

It is obvious Palliative Care needs more funding rather than euthanasia being the solution to an underfunded area of medicine.

All ACT seem to care about are the costs of everything, they don't seem to value anything.
After watching this, I'll be reversing the way I was intending to vote on this bill.


https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/09/euthanasia-referendum-anti-euthanasia-doctor-slams-david-seymour-s-disgraceful-questioning-of-her-motives.html

fungus pudding
26-09-2020, 01:10 PM
Enlightening euthanasia bill debate between David Seymour & a Palliative Care Doctor representing the Palliative Care medical profession who have taken the unusual step of jointly signing a letter saying the bill is leaky & would expose thousands of NZ'ers to being put in an extremely vulnerable position.

Seymour awful, a complete jerk, arrogant & full of hubris, talking over the top of and patronising an obviously deeply caring medical specialist who has devoted 25 years to looking after people at end of life stage.

It is obvious Palliative Care needs more funding rather than euthanasia being the solution to an underfunded area of medicine.

All ACT seem to care about are the costs of everything, they don't seem to value anything.
After watching this, I'll be reversing the way I was intending to vote on this bill.


https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/09/euthanasia-referendum-anti-euthanasia-doctor-slams-david-seymour-s-disgraceful-questioning-of-her-motives.html

Then again you might wonder why any doctor would wish to see someone in real suffering be forced to live through a long painful death against their will. I thought Seymour's views on the Nation showed compassion. I'm not sure why the doctor wants to inflict her views on anyone, when the only thing she can change is adding a little extra life, and a lot of pain. She didn't show a compassionate side.
I must say I find it difficult to believe anyone would change their mind because of anything the doctor said. She may have lifted some out of the undecided camp, but to actually change anyone's mind ...... unbelievable.

Blue Skies
26-09-2020, 01:25 PM
Then again you might wonder why any doctor would wish to see someone in real suffering be forced to live through a long painful death against their will. I thought Seymour's views on the Nation showed compassion. I'm not sure why the doctor wants to inflict her views on anyone, when the only thing she can change is adding a little extra life, and a lot of pain. But she didn't show a compassionate side.


In real practice, doctors don't force people to live through long painful deaths against their will.
Think of it this way, if a specialist say an engineer with 25 years experience in a particular field told you a bridge was unsafe, but a politician said its fine, who would you believe?
If a doctors with 25 years experience in this field, supported by far the majority of medical specialists also in this field, says this bill is unsafe, I don't think it would be very wise to ignore them & support the opposite view of a politician with no experience & a vested interest in getting his bill passed.

fungus pudding
26-09-2020, 01:35 PM
In real practice, doctors don't force people to live through long painful deaths against their will.
Think of it this way, if a specialist say an engineer with 25 years experience in a particular field told you a bridge was unsafe, but a politician said its fine, who would you believe?
If a doctors with 25 years experience in this field, supported by far the majority of medical specialists also in this field, says this bill is unsafe, I don't think it would be very wise to ignore them & support the opposite view of a politician with no experience & a vested interest in getting his bill passed.


Your previous post claims the doctor on the nation changed your mind. Now you've decide to quote the majority of doctors. (wherever you got the idea that the majority oppose it) Why did you wait until The Nation to change your mind? I doubt you were ever in support of euthanasia, and that's fine - but just say so without all the b/s about changing your vote.

Panda-NZ-
26-09-2020, 01:48 PM
There are things which can be done to manage pain for the 6 months time window of this bill.

Those in chronic long term pain would not be helped by this proposal. Not a fan of the spokesperson either so will be voting against but yes for cannibas (two plant per household limit).

fungus pudding
26-09-2020, 01:54 PM
There are things which can be done to manage pain for the 6 months time window of this bill.

Those in chronic long term pain would not be helped by this proposal. Not a fan of the spokesperson either so will be voting against but yes for cannibas (two plant per household limit).

Not liking the spokesperson must be the best reason I've ever heard for opposing this bill. Well done. Presumably you don't think much of anyone you've ever known, barely existing in extreme pain, either. Make them suffer - keep in mind you don't like 'the spokesperson'. Tell them that at their bedside.

Panda-NZ-
26-09-2020, 01:59 PM
What problem will it solve given it's 6 months and either they will recover or die anyway? Plus as I said the pain can be managed in that timeframe rather well or kept in a medical coma for that time.

I'm sure medical experts know more and we should listen to them preferably.

Blue Skies
26-09-2020, 03:07 PM
Your previous post claims the doctor on the nation changed your mind. Now you've decide to quote the majority of doctors. (wherever you got the idea that the majority oppose it) Why did you wait until The Nation to change your mind? I doubt you were ever in support of euthanasia, and that's fine - but just say so without all the b/s about changing your vote.


Whoa...take a deep breath before you start shooting from the hip & jumping to conclusions. No need for the crude personal attacks.

If you listen to the interview, Dr Donnelly the Specialist Palliative Care doctor states..."the Palliative Care Nurses NZ, Hospice NZ & the Palliative Care Doctors of NZ, are all deeply concerned about the risks this act has in it.".... "everyday we look after people who are dying, people who are extremely vulnerable."
1700 doctors have signed a petition against the bill, and the way I see it, it would be foolish to ignore all of this advice from dedicated specialists working in this field.

As I said, prior to seeing this interview, I was going to vote for the bill, but I'm inclined to follow the advice of specialists and dedicated people who work in palliative care rather than my own preconceived ideas.

As a person presently undergoing cancer treatment myself I previously thought euthanasia would be a very good option to have, but I can also now imagine how vulnerable you might feel, and I also know from direct observation those working in the palliative care field do not 'let people die long painful deaths against their will', in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

If you don't see it that way, that's fine, just vote for the bill, but please don't presume you know what I am thinking and less of the personal attacks just because you disagree.

Raz
26-09-2020, 03:08 PM
What problem will it solve given it's 6 months and either they will recover or die anyway? Plus as I said the pain can be managed in that timeframe rather well or kept in a medical coma for that time.

I'm sure medical experts know more and we should listen to them preferably.


Well that does not happen now. I have seen palliative care not be effective. So perhaps like all disciplines, her's been the specialist area of palliative care, she has bias to what she has invested her life's work in and caught by group think.

fungus pudding
26-09-2020, 04:18 PM
Whoa...take a deep breath before you start shooting from the hip & jumping to conclusions. No need for the crude personal attacks.

If you listen to the interview, Dr Donnelly the Specialist Palliative Care doctor states..."the Palliative Care Nurses NZ, Hospice NZ & the Palliative Care Doctors of NZ, are all deeply concerned about the risks this act has in it.".... "everyday we look after people who are dying, people who are extremely vulnerable."
1700 doctors have signed a petition against the bill, and the way I see it, it would be foolish to ignore all of this advice from dedicated specialists working in this field.

As I said, prior to seeing this interview, I was going to vote for the bill, but I'm inclined to follow the advice of specialists and dedicated people who work in palliative care rather than my own preconceived ideas.

As a person presently undergoing cancer treatment myself I previously thought euthanasia would be a very good option to have, but I can also now imagine how vulnerable you might feel, and I also know from direct observation those working in the palliative care field do not 'let people die long painful deaths against their will', in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

If you don't see it that way, that's fine, just vote for the bill, but please don't presume you know what I am thinking and less of the personal attacks just because you disagree.


Fair enough, but I there are a large number of health professionals with the opposite view. I remain surprised that one program influenced your opinion - which is not a personal attack. I have a number of nurses in my circle of acquaintances, and they overwhelmingly support the bill, most having spent many years nursing end of life patients. It took me a long time to decide what to vote, and had decided I would abstain, but after further consideration I have decided it's unfair to withhold my support from anyone opting for that choice. I have settled on yes. I have met and spoken to Seymour, and I like him. He's certainly intelligent and I don't see the arrogance that you do - but that's just our personal viewpoints. Best wishes with your treatment.

Blue Skies
26-09-2020, 04:54 PM
Fair enough, but I there are a large number of health professionals with the opposite view. I remain surprised that one program influenced your opinion - which is not a personal attack. I have a number of nurses in my circle of acquaintances, and they overwhelmingly support the bill, most having spent many years nursing end of life patients. It took me a long time to decide what to vote, and had decided I would abstain, but after further consideration I have decided it's unfair to withhold my support from anyone opting for that choice. I have settled on yes. I have met and spoken to Seymour, and I like him. He's certainly intelligent and I don't see the arrogance that you do - but that's just our personal viewpoints. Best wishes with your treatment.


All good, cheers.
I'm finding it a difficult decision & can see arguments both for & against, not so much against euthanasia but the way the bill is written.
I suppose the two things which got to me were the arguments 1) the safeguards in the way the bill is presently written as not being considered safe enough or workable by many in the palliative care sector.
2) like a jury decision, needing to be 100% certain the bill in it's current form is not ever going to result in any suffering or injustice to anyone in an extremely vulnerable position.
However, I'll continue to think about it.

fungus pudding
26-09-2020, 05:01 PM
All good, cheers.
I'm finding it a difficult decision & can see arguments both for & against, not so much against euthanasia but the way the bill is written.
I suppose the two things which got to me were the arguments 1) the safeguards in the way the bill is presently written as not being considered safe enough or workable by many in the palliative care sector.
2) like a jury decision, needing to be 100% certain the bill in it's current form is not ever going to result in any suffering or injustice to anyone in an extremely vulnerable position.
However, I'll continue to think about it.

Indeed it's a tricky one, but I'm satisfied that the safeguards will provide the necessary protection.

Norwest
27-09-2020, 10:06 AM
Well that does not happen now. I have seen palliative care not be effective. So perhaps like all disciplines, her's been the specialist area of palliative care, she has bias to what she has invested her life's work in and caught by group think.

I agree, she has pecuniary motivations not to allow euthanasia


"the Palliative Care Nurses NZ, Hospice NZ & the Palliative Care Doctors of NZ, are all deeply concerned about the risks this act has in it.".... "everyday we look after people who are dying"

Yes and all of those organizations have pecuniary motivations as well.

Blue Skies
27-09-2020, 12:09 PM
I agree, she has pecuniary motivations not to allow euthanasia



Yes and all of those organizations have pecuniary motivations as well.


I'm sorry Norwest but that's an unbelievably ignorant & offensive thing to say.

Whatever their personal reasons are based on, whether you agree or nor, I can assure you money does not come into it.

blackcap
27-09-2020, 12:48 PM
I agree, she has pecuniary motivations not to allow euthanasia



Yes and all of those organizations have pecuniary motivations as well.

That's a bit nasty of you. Casting aspersions there. Can you back up your assertions?

Norwest
27-09-2020, 07:12 PM
I didn't want to appear as mean or nasty. I apologize if you felt I meant to come off that way.

If Euthanasia is made legal, there is going to be less of a need for palliative care. Less palliative care equals less money (e.g. government subsidies, funding etc and also private money) given to anyone involved with providing palliative care.

adjective: palliative (of a medicine or medical care) relieving pain without dealing with the cause of the condition.

adjective: pecuniary relating to or consisting of money.

The fact that the palliative care doctor arguing with Seymour is involved with a private healthcare facility has it's ownership structured in a way through a systematic series of holding companies ultimately ending up in the Channel Island's, a known tax haven. If she wasn't involved with this organization I would have kept my mouth shut.

fungus pudding
27-09-2020, 08:56 PM
I didn't want to appear as mean or nasty. I apologize if you felt I meant to come off that way.

If Euthanasia is made legal, there is going to be less of a need for palliative care. Less palliative care equals less money (e.g. government subsidies, funding etc and also private money) given to anyone involved with providing palliative care.

adjective: palliative (of a medicine or medical care) relieving pain without dealing with the cause of the condition.

adjective: pecuniary relating to or consisting of money.

The fact that the palliative care doctor arguing with Seymour is involved with a private healthcare facility has it's ownership structured in a way through a systematic series of holding companies ultimately ending up in the Channel Island's, a known tax haven. If she wasn't involved with this organization I would have kept my mouth shut.

Fascinating. How about some more detail, e.g. name of pvt. healthcare facility, details of holding companies etc.

moka
27-09-2020, 10:26 PM
All good, cheers.
I'm finding it a difficult decision & can see arguments both for & against, not so much against euthanasia but the way the bill is written.
I suppose the two things which got to me were the arguments 1) the safeguards in the way the bill is presently written as not being considered safe enough or workable by many in the palliative care sector.
2) like a jury decision, needing to be 100% certain the bill in it's current form is not ever going to result in any suffering or injustice to anyone in an extremely vulnerable position.
However, I'll continue to think about it.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/23-09-2020/the-end-of-life-choice-bill-is-safer-than-many-of-our-current-critical-care-laws/
The End of Life Choice bill is safer than many of our current critical care laws.

A lot of the recent focus from opponents has been on how we can’t be absolutely certain that the act will be safe. How it isn’t entirely “watertight.” Quite reasonably, people will wonder and worry about those sorts of claims. But how worrying are they?

What’s a lot more dubious is the idea that this is a unique or particular risk for assisted dying, that can only be addressed by banning it altogether.
The main risks that opponents have been pointing to seem to be:
That doctors can’t predict with absolute accuracy that someone is within six months of death.
That doctors can’t determine with perfect accuracy that someone is competent, or that they aren’t being pressured.

I’m willing to concede both of these points. It probably is impossible to be perfectly certain about either of those things. But that’s not in any way particular to the EoLC Act.

We don’t know the precise figure, but a 2017 article in the British Journal of Anaesthesia claimed that treatment withdrawal decisions account for 60% of deaths in critical care.
If we were being honest, we’d have to admit that very few of those decisions were 100% certain or “watertight”.

When a doctor makes a call that a tumour or aneurism isn’t operable; that a patient isn’t suitable for dialysis or transplant; that aggressive treatment isn’t appropriate or that life support should be withdrawn from a patient with no chance of recovery – these are all judgment calls.

The End of Life Choice Act has better safety features than any of those decisions. While we can refuse life-saving treatment even if it would restore us to perfect health, assisted dying will only be an option for those who are close to death already. Maybe doctors can’t always say with total accuracy that they’re within six months of death, but it’s a pretty major safeguard over and above those other life-ending choices.

moka
28-09-2020, 12:54 AM
Fascinating. How about some more detail, e.g. name of pvt. healthcare facility, details of holding companies etc.
https://www.wakefield.co.nz/specialists-and-services/our-specialists/specialists-wakefield/d/donnelly,-sinead
Dr Sinead Donnelly works at Wakefield Hospital. The article said that “a televised debate on the upcoming euthanasia referendum turned nasty, when one participant accused the other of basing her objections on religion, not facts”
Interesting that the hospital was started over 80 years ago by a Catholic order of nursing sisters.

There has been a hospital on the present Wakefield Hospital site in the Wellington suburb of Newtown for over 80 years. Lewisham Hospital was owned and operated by a Catholic order of nursing sisters. The name of the hospital was changed to Calvary Hospital in 1953 and the Mary Potter Hospice operated at the hospital until 1990.
In December 2015, Evolution Healthcare (a privately owned Australian and New Zealand private hospital operator) acquired 100% of Acurity Health Group Ltd (NZ). Evolution Healthcare continues to focus on supporting staff, VMO engagement and developing the staged expansion plan for Wakefield Hospital.
https://www.acurity.co.nz/about-us/our-history

fungus pudding
28-09-2020, 01:29 AM
https://www.wakefield.co.nz/specialists-and-services/our-specialists/specialists-wakefield/d/donnelly,-sinead
Dr Sinead Donnelly works at Wakefield Hospital. The article said that “a televised debate on the upcoming euthanasia referendum turned nasty, when one participant accused the other of basing her objections on religion, not facts”
Interesting that the hospital was started over 80 years ago by a Catholic order of nursing sisters.

There has been a hospital on the present Wakefield Hospital site in the Wellington suburb of Newtown for over 80 years. Lewisham Hospital was owned and operated by a Catholic order of nursing sisters. The name of the hospital was changed to Calvary Hospital in 1953 and the Mary Potter Hospice operated at the hospital until 1990.
In December 2015, Evolution Healthcare (a privately owned Australian and New Zealand private hospital operator) acquired 100% of Acurity Health Group Ltd (NZ). Evolution Healthcare continues to focus on supporting staff, VMO engagement and developing the staged expansion plan for Wakefield Hospital.
https://www.acurity.co.nz/about-us/our-history

I am more interested in the claim about the ownership structure, specifically this "The fact that the palliative care doctor arguing with Seymour is involved with a private healthcare facility has it's ownership structured in a way through a systematic series of holding companies ultimately ending up in the Channel Island's, a known tax haven".

lissica
17-10-2020, 11:58 PM
I didn't want to appear as mean or nasty. I apologize if you felt I meant to come off that way.

If Euthanasia is made legal, there is going to be less of a need for palliative care. Less palliative care equals less money (e.g. government subsidies, funding etc and also private money) given to anyone involved with providing palliative care.

adjective: palliative (of a medicine or medical care) relieving pain without dealing with the cause of the condition.

adjective: pecuniary relating to or consisting of money.

The fact that the palliative care doctor arguing with Seymour is involved with a private healthcare facility has it's ownership structured in a way through a systematic series of holding companies ultimately ending up in the Channel Island's, a known tax haven. If she wasn't involved with this organization I would have kept my mouth shut.

I doubt Dr Donnelly is doing so to remain gainfully employed, there is plenty of work for palliative care physicians. Nor has she argued from the standpoint of religion.

David Seymour can do better than that.

Blue Skies
18-10-2020, 06:43 PM
When asked what their top priorities would be on getting to parliament, one of the new ACT MP's said,
defeating communism,
property rights,
& loosening the gun laws.

Scary, sounds like he belongs in Trump's America.

Panda-NZ-
18-10-2020, 07:06 PM
When asked what their top priorities would be on getting to parliament, one of the new ACT MP's said,
defeating communism,
property rights,
& loosening the gun laws.

Scary, sounds like he belongs in Trump's America.

& the financial perks of course. So, a party which doesn't believe in government now has 10 people drawing a salary on the taxpayer.

fungus pudding
18-10-2020, 07:14 PM
& the financial perks of course. A party which doesn't believe in government now has 10 people drawing a salary on the taxpayer.

Another dopey comment.

Baa_Baa
18-10-2020, 07:28 PM
& the financial perks of course. So, a party which doesn't believe in government now has 10 people drawing a salary on the taxpayer.

No more salaries than are already paid. Thankfully with national and act we have a loud voice calling out the numerous failings of the labour government to deliver, almost anything!

Incredible the power of stardust but the failures of labour to deliver will undo the new government and we shall soon enough see the leader follow her dream outside the party.

Panda-NZ-
18-10-2020, 07:41 PM
John only scraped in because his opposition was hopeless. I think the situation is changed now that lots of returning expats/migrants becoming eligble to vote.

They have 35-45 seats as the "strong oppostion"..

Maybe they can hold themselves to account and not change leader or think that Trump-lite is a good platform.

Baa_Baa
18-10-2020, 08:04 PM
John only scraped in because his opposition was hopeless. I think the situation is changed now that lots of returning expats/migrants becoming eligble to vote.

They have 35-45 seats as the "strong oppostion".
Maybe they can hold themselves to account and not change leader or think Trump-lite is a good platform.

That is almost incomprehensible gibberish, the returnees are cashed up, they’re not going to like socialist policy stealing their hard earned.

Jacinda is already embarrassed by her party inability to achieve anything, she’ll be gone before the second term is over, further failure to deliver will finish her political capital if she doesn’t.

Panda-NZ-
18-10-2020, 08:08 PM
That is almost incomprehensible gibberish, the returnees are cashed up, they’re not going to like socialist policy stealing their hard earned.

Jacinda is already embarrassed by her party inability to achieve anything, she’ll be gone before the second term is over, further failure to deliver will finish her political capital if she doesn’t.

Even the greens wealth tax only applies to the amount above $1m.

fungus pudding
18-10-2020, 08:09 PM
That is almost incomprehensible gibberish, the returnees are cashed up, they’re not going to like socialist policy stealing their hard earned.

Jacinda is already embarrassed by her party inability to achieve anything, she’ll be gone before the second term is over, further failure to deliver will finish her political capital if she doesn’t.

Why 'almost'? It's total rubbish. Not possible to know who John is, or what 35 to 45 seats means.

Norwest
19-10-2020, 08:46 AM
& the financial perks of course. So, a party which doesn't believe in government now has 10 people drawing a salary on the taxpayer.

That is a cynical comment.

Have a read of the "Smaller Government Bill" to reduce the number of MPs from 120 to 100 and reduce the size of the executive from 31 to 20. ACT proposed this.

Reducing the size of the public service and the size of parliament has been a key ACT policy since inception.

You may remember the referendum (non binding) in 1999 to reduce the number of MPs to 99 had 81.5 percent in favour and 18.5 against... that is an overwhelmingly mandate for this to be implemented but other than NZ First and ACT all the other parties absolutely ignored this referendum.

You can call plenty of parties "troughers" but ACT is certainly not one of them.

JBmurc
19-10-2020, 03:37 PM
That is a cynical comment.

Have a read of the "Smaller Government Bill" to reduce the number of MPs from 120 to 100 and reduce the size of the executive from 31 to 20. ACT proposed this.

Reducing the size of the public service and the size of parliament has been a key ACT policy since inception.

You may remember the referendum (non binding) in 1999 to reduce the number of MPs to 99 had 81.5 percent in favour and 18.5 against... that is an overwhelmingly mandate for this to be implemented but other than NZ First and ACT all the other parties absolutely ignored this referendum.

You can call plenty of parties "troughers" but ACT is certainly not one of them.

Yes as why ACT got my vote

Zaphod
19-10-2020, 05:06 PM
Even the greens wealth tax only applies to the amount above $1m.

Relatively speaking that's not a huge value for debt-free assets. We are already going to punish the younger generations through massive intergenerational debt, and now we're suggesting that we should also tax those generations on any potential assets they inherit from their parents because they supposedly wealthy. The only people who will benefit from a policy like this will be accountants, lawyers, and the immigration services of foreign countries.

fungus pudding
19-10-2020, 05:25 PM
Relatively speaking that's not a huge value for debt-free assets. We are already going to punish the younger generations through massive intergenerational debt, and now we're suggesting that we should also tax those generations on any potential assets they inherit from their parents because they supposedly wealthy. The only people who will benefit from a policy like this will be accountants, lawyers, and the immigration services of foreign countries.

............And big-mattress manufacturers.

Aaron
21-10-2020, 02:35 PM
Who would have thought me and David Seymour on the same page regarding a current issue. Not much influence from the opposition benches though.

https://www.interest.co.nz/news/107565/david-seymour-suggests-government-should-consider-requiring-rbnzs-monetary-policy

I am surprised he didn't suggest the free market setting interest rates but I suspect this type of libertarianism would upset his voter base.