PDA

View Full Version : If National wins ...



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

Banksie
01-08-2014, 10:32 AM
A wonderful read as Hosking confirms all we expected. He's a self-absorbed, immature, intellectual lightweight.

So belg, at the risk of arguing with myself ;) (Cuzzie, this is a joke, the winking emoticon is common used after a light-hearted or sarcastic remark.), reading his article at face value he doesn't see such a bad sort (I never watch him on TV so haven't got a preconceived bias).

He likes some centre-left policies and some centre-right policies and this is kind of where I find myself.

Banksie
01-08-2014, 10:46 AM
Suggest you do. It'll all become clear.

He does the seven-sharp show right, the rehash of the news with light banter - yeah, I guess anyone doing that, I shouldn't take too seriously.

That is one of the things that frustrates me though, so many people are basing their choice on the opinions of people like him, rather than finding out the facts and forming their own opinions. It is kinda "lazy democracy".

Cuzzie
01-08-2014, 11:23 AM
Oh Dear Cuz ... http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11302217

So we have one National minister displaying either ignorance or contempt and another National minister displaying ineptitude or outright lying?

Just smile and wave, boys. Smile and wave. [Key in a quiet voice: Geez. Do you think they're onto us?] #TeamKey
There's no news there, the Antarctic toothfish is clearly legal to eat in Singapore and I've shouted meals that have cost more than that.

BTW, fat.com should be in line next for paying the bribery money. Same as prostitution before it was legalised by Helen Clark, both parties are guilty.

elZorro
01-08-2014, 11:36 AM
Just to add my 2c worth, I'd quite like to have a beer with Banksie and Belgarion sometime. I'm sure there would be three of us. Cuzzie, it's up to you to disprove that.

You must have more spare time than me Banksie, when I get home I'll send some compiled graphs through as a post. They show a deteriorating trend from 2008 onwards, in many areas. That's a big part of why "right" supporters tend to talk about people, not policies. Anything but policies.

I heard the tea tape, it was posted on the internet for a while. Poor quality recording, but most of the salient bits have already been widely reported. Banks and Key were sitting there, figuring out amongst themselves who would say what to the press afterwards, how to put a good PR spin on the deal. John Banks helping to direct Key's words. In between that, they were slinging off at Winston and Don Brash. I hope Winston remembers all this post election.

BlackPeter
01-08-2014, 12:35 PM
Can I suggest that you don't jump to too many conclusions regarding my motivation, seeing as we are debating online, with out the benefit of body language or facial expression...but I will give you this, I am bored at work and do enjoy a good political debate that does not degenerate into mud-slinging and name calling (I save that for later when I do it at the pub with a jug of Monteiths (does drinking monteiths make be a commie b@$tard or a greenie pinko I wonder ;)).

Nothing wrong with drinking a jug of Monteiths (even without name-calling) - maybe we found another common interest (but political debate)?

Re the unemployment numbers: great that the NZ numbers start even looking flash compared to the Aussies (who didn't feel the GFC thanks to their mining boom - what a horror for a Green supporter). Maybe you should run the comparison as well against Spain, Italy, Ireland - now this would make our National government look flash ...

Greed Tax ... yes, I do see that Labour moderated somewhat its taxing the "Rich" policy. The original version was probably too unpopular. But even the modified proposal doesn't make it right and not effective. Any government must find a way to put a fair tax on everybody including corporates (which are currently shifting their profits internationally around) instead of just putting the thumb screws on to the poor bastards who can't shift their income abroad. I would very much prefer everybody paying say 20% tax (or in that vicinity) of their total income - and I mean EVERYBODY, instead as now (under National as well as under Labour) many (really) rich people paying (basically) nothing and Labour going the easy way of just screwing up the taxes for the better off salary earners.

Cuzzie
01-08-2014, 12:52 PM
How very typical of a Nastie. Throw the mud based on nothing more than a conspiracy theory. Hope it sticks. And make no effort whatsoever. Shameful behaviour. Thoroughly unprincipled behaviour and you call yourself a Christian!
I must of missed this. Funny how you call National supporters nasties when all the deception comes from the left. You may be right though, I would more or less call people names if they didn't accept my tomfoolery if I was that way inclined. Yes you are right, very shameful behaviour by me exposing you. Dare I say it, I'm a scab too. Name calling, little games, lies all the negative things in life are left of center. What do you know, here is just another lie by belg, where have I ever called myself a Christian. It's alright belg, I'm used to your misinformation. I'll just let it slip and push that aside with all your other sh!te. What else do we expect from you? Nada man, nada.

Hey belg, I thought you would of asked for your profile. Nevermind - perhaps another day.

Cuzzie
01-08-2014, 12:54 PM
Just to add my 2c worth, I'd quite like to have a beer with Banksie and Belgarion sometime. I'm sure there would be three of us. Cuzzie, it's up to you to disprove that.

No EZ, I think that would be a great idea for you all to get together for a beer, nothing wrong with that and good on you. I can see it now and you all turn up - all two of you.:cool:

Banksie
01-08-2014, 01:34 PM
Greed Tax ... yes, I do see that Labour moderated somewhat its taxing the "Rich" policy. The original version was probably too unpopular. But even the modified proposal doesn't make it right and not effective. Any government must find a way to put a fair tax on everybody including corporates (which are currently shifting their profits internationally around) instead of just putting the thumb screws on to the poor bastards who can't shift their income abroad.

Yeah, so I don't see the extra 3% tax on people earning over $150,000 bring in too much additional revenue. And it is probably a safe policy for labour as I think, if I understand the stats right, that only 10% of the population earn in this bracket. (I couldn't quite work out if it was 10% of workers or 10% of households).

I suppose labours ideological reasons for "thumb screwing" the top earners is that the society as a whole have created a system that allows those top earners to be top earners - and recycling that money through the system allows other to also be top earners (i.e. giving people a chance to dream cuzzie).

I do wish someone would have the gumption to propose something really alternative such as Tobin or Robinhood taxes, and see if it could be made to work.

As an aside on this issue as to who's paying tax and who's getting the benefit I have an opinion (no facts), that a large amount is moved from the taxpayer, cycled through the beneficiaries, and lands in property owners (landlords) pockets.

Banksie
01-08-2014, 01:38 PM
No EZ, I think that would be a great idea for you all to get together for a beer, nothing wrong with that and good on you. I can see it now and you all turn up - all two of you.:cool:

Cuzzie, I am not sure what I have done to earn your derision, and I do like to believe people are inherently good, and do what they believe is fair and equitable (even if that does not agree with my world view). But you do seem to contribute to the forum only to insult. <strike>Were you bullied a lot as a kid?</strike>. Sorry I know you don't like questions.

Harvey Specter
01-08-2014, 01:51 PM
Yeah, so I don't see the extra 3% tax on people earning over $150,000 bring in too much additional revenue. And it is probably a safe policy for labour as I think, if I understand the stats right, that only 10% of the population earn in this bracket. (I couldn't quite work out if it was 10% of workers or 10% of households).
Must be households as less than 2% earn over $150k!! http://www.ird.govt.nz/aboutir/external-stats/revenue-refunds/inc-dist-of-ind/revenue-refunds-inc-dist-of-ind2.html

a few of those will just retain profits in their company (taxed at 28%) provided their lifestyle isn't to much. That just leaves the rich CEO (ie. non owner employess) left to suck it up.

Banksie
01-08-2014, 02:07 PM
Must be households as less than 2% earn over $150k!! http://www.ird.govt.nz/aboutir/external-stats/revenue-refunds/inc-dist-of-ind/revenue-refunds-inc-dist-of-ind2.html

Ah, so it is really very few that would be affected by this policy, and by a very small amount 3c in every dollar you earn over $150000.

Banksie
01-08-2014, 02:54 PM
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/10337619/Shanghai-Pengxin-buys-second-large-farm

Is this a good deal? Should we allow foreign companies to own huge tracts of land in NZ?

Looks like NZ First, Conservatives and Greens are against, National is for, and Labour is as yet undecided.

Doesn't feel like a good thing to me, selling off productive farmland to overseas interests.

fungus pudding
01-08-2014, 04:10 PM
Ah, so it is really very few that would be affected by this policy, and by a very small amount 3c in every dollar you earn over $150000.

No. by an extra 3%. That might seem a small amount to you, but not to those making investment decisions, expanding businesses, employing people etc.. It's a token effort to placate the envious, but ignores the downside of a highly progressive tax system.

Harvey Specter
01-08-2014, 04:19 PM
And me. And a few legal eagles in my immediate family. I hasten to add we have no problem with it either. And we're okay with the CGT too. Seems completely fair.My issue with it is what is the point as it will raise so little off those that are already contributing a lot. They are also more likely to have private healthcare and schooling so even less of a drain on the taxpayer (themselves) but in the scheme of things not a major.

A CGT done right isn't a mjor either but will earn so little, again what is the point (in the UK, it is only about 1% of revenues).

My biggest issue is what is Labour going to spend all this money on? will it be value for money (repay debt of superfund contributions are good, extra government servants aren't)? And if they have overestimated the extra tax, are we no looking at budget deficits again?

Cuzzie
01-08-2014, 05:34 PM
I suggest we ignore Cuzzie's allegations. Clearly he's become unhinged due to the latest poll results.
You mean unhinged like you a couple of weeks ago when you threatened legal action if the Mod removed your post that was well over the top and then you had a melt down and threatened to leave ShareTrader for good. The Mod removed your post but you stayed without saying another word on the matter. Nah, not a melt down like yours, I'm just onto your little games that's all.


Latest poll results are 70 voters in 100 will not be voting for Labour. No joke belg, that does bother me a bit and you are quite correct in pointing it out. Glad you too recognise the 70 voters in 100 that won't be voting for Labour is a massive result for the loonie left & you would be right.


I would still love to see Labour driven below 20% for their new home, because that is where they deserve to be. Come election night Cunliffe will just be too freaky for most people anyway & hopefully National will be a runaway freight train.

Sgt Pepper
01-08-2014, 05:40 PM
No. by an extra 3%. That might seem a small amount to you, but not to those making investment decisions, expanding businesses, employing people etc.. It's a token effort to placate the envious, but ignores the downside of a highly progressive tax system.

FP
Yes , ideally income tax should be applied as thinly as possible and as evenly as possible. Just my opinion, not that I know a lot about tax.

Cuzzie
01-08-2014, 05:41 PM
Cuzzie, I am not sure what I have done to earn your derision, and I do like to believe people are inherently good, and do what they believe is fair and equitable (even if that does not agree with my world view). But you do seem to contribute to the forum only to insult. <strike>Were you bullied a lot as a kid?</strike>. Sorry I know you don't like questions. Play the victim all you like, fact is you fit right into the Labour fold by do so. Lets just say I don't take fools lightly and thats why you got my attention. We both know that you will not make any mileage out of me, so just move on to the next victim. I'm sure they will show you the same hospitality. You are as see through as glass.

westerly
01-08-2014, 06:19 PM
[QUOTE=belgarion;495464]I suggest we ignore Cuzzie's allegations. Clearly he's become unhinged due to the latest poll results.

Agree

westerly

janner
01-08-2014, 07:01 PM
FP
Yes , ideally income tax should be applied as thinly as possible and as evenly as possible. Just my opinion, not that I know a lot about tax.

Make all transactions to be electronic..

No cash.

Charge 0.01% tax.

No claw backs..

Would raise $90 billion

No one could escape paying..

Corporations.

The working unemployed.

Simple really.

Just to many pencil pushers objecting.

elZorro
01-08-2014, 07:18 PM
FP
Yes , ideally income tax should be applied as thinly as possible and as evenly as possible. Just my opinion, not that I know a lot about tax.

A problem with this, and with Janner's idea, is that existing setups would have to be unwound, and that can only be done slowly, or the ideas will not get implemented. A CGT is one way of evening up the taxes people pay. FP always says everyone's house should be in this scheme. Not so. Private people have to pay the mortgage interest on their home out of tax-paid income, and landlords get to claim it as an expense. This is an inequity, and it's why people jump at getting a return of even 5-6% on rental investments.

Janner, do you mean set the flat tax at 1% of all transactions, or 0.01%? The latter seems a bit light to me.

janner
01-08-2014, 07:25 PM
0.01%

On ALL transactions.

NO claw back.

Overseas Corporations would be paying the same as you and I .. Their fair share..

Excise taxes on Booze and Fags can still be applied , for health reasons ( Yeah right )..

It will come to pass .. Did I hear that Aussie is going to place welfare on electronic pay out system today ?

Cuzzie
01-08-2014, 07:51 PM
[QUOTE=belgarion;495464]I suggest we ignore Cuzzie's allegations. Clearly he's become unhinged due to the latest poll results.

Agree

westerlyThat's a win, win right there, no more name calling from you then. Thanks westerly, you've made my day.:)

Cuzzie
01-08-2014, 08:06 PM
OK, this copy & paste is on the long side but is very exciting news to say the least. I'm posting it here because it's another example of our National Govt. releasing the reins so to speak and letting investment in our country grow. This is massive news, except if you're on left of center. They will be green with envy. The Greens will be hopping mad, but the rest of us will just simply embrace. I know the value of palladium and have been watching a South African company closely with a view to invest. That interest will be solely directed at Coronado Resources from now on.

Enjoy.....

Lynx acquires five permits in New Zealand 2014-07-31 13:38 ET - News Release Mr. Daniel Brown reports CORONADO AWARDED PLATINUM GROUP METALS EXPLORATION PERMITS IN NEW ZEALAND On July 23, 2014, New Zealand's Minister of Energy and Resources, Simon Bridges, announced that Coronado Resources Ltd.'s 100-per-cent-owned subsidiary, Lynx Platinum Ltd., was awarded five mineral exploration permits totalling 129,202 acres in the New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals 2013 platinum blocks offer. Platinum group metals (PGM) occurrences are common in New Zealand, and there is considerable potential for PGM production in New Zealand, both from hardrock deposits and alluvial concentrations. All five permits awarded to Coronado are prospective for PGM discovery within the Longwood Range area, where Coronado has been awarded two permits and which is considered to be the most advanced area in terms of exploration undertaken to date. Numerous publications have included mention of the PGM potential in the Longwood Range, and recent aeromagnetic surveys, fieldwork and drilling have combined to give a new understanding of the geology and the potential for significant PGM discovery. GNS Science geologist Nick Mortimer said the Longwood Range has what geologists call a layered gabbro, similar to those found in platinum-rich areas of South Africa and the United States. Details of the permits awarded are summarized in the attached table. All five permits awarded reside on the South Island. Permit No. Permit name Permit size MEP 56411 Longwood B 18,755 acres MEP 56409 Longwood C 22,652 acres MEP 56410 Murchison E-2 29,207 acres MEP 56412 Murchison E-4 29,331 acres MEP 56413 Murchison E-5 29,257 acres 129,202 acres Initial efforts of the company will be focused on analyzing all existing data, and conducting the necessary geological and economic modelling to determine the potential of any commercial mineral deposits within these permits. Daniel Brown, chief executive officer of Coronado, commented, "We are pleased to have been awarded this very exciting opportunity in New Zealand, which is complementary to our gold development assets in Montana, and the company's growing clean power generation business for industrial and residential customers in New Zealand." Platinum group metals use and markets The suite of metals known as PGM includes platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), iridium (Ir), rhodium (Rh), osmium (Os) and ruthenium (Ru). Platinum group metals have become critical to industry because of their extraordinary physical and chemical properties. The metals are refractory, are chemically inert even at elevated temperatures and display excellent catalytic activity. These properties are the basis for their principal uses: as catalysts in the automotive, chemical and petroleum refining industries, and as corrosion-resistant materials in the chemical, electrical, glass, and medical and dental industries. World demand for PGM over the past decade has grown steadily, especially for palladium, which has been adopted as the standard for manufacture of auto catalysts. This has had far-reaching effects since the introduction of stricter pollution controls in the U.S. and Europe, which has caused demand for PGM to increase sharply. Since 1997, platinum and palladium demand has outstripped supply, mainly because Russia, the world's biggest palladium producer, has been unable to meet demand from new production and has run down its stockpiles. As a result, there has been a strong move to substitute other platinum group metals for palladium, with a consequent sharp rise in demand and price.

Cuzzie
01-08-2014, 08:39 PM
Once you're on 150k and have the mortgage paid off ones disposable income is huge. What extra do I need? New car? Nah, happy with current one. New boat? No, happy with current one. More overseas travel? Been there done that. Buy more shares? Not a good time to buy. Redress increasing levels of poverty? Sound like a good idea. Yip. That'd make me happy.Fine, donate to charity, time or money. I'm sure hospice could find you a job. Work less hours for income and more for nothing. You would be happy and I'm sure those you would help will be very appreciative. I can find you hospices phone number if you like, or perhaps one for deprived kids in South Auckland.

Sounds like a good idea, that would make you happy. Ahh, would not happen in a million years. You are so full of crappe man. All talk and no action. However, feel free to prove me wrong.


If you really want to help them, give them a job, start a new business for the unemployed. Don't forget belg, I have done a profile on you and can say that without a doubt, you would never do anything to help levels of poverty period. All talk which is what we expect from the left. These are people not pets, but hey at least you feel good in talking about it.

elZorro
01-08-2014, 10:15 PM
Fine, donate to charity, time or money. I'm sure hospice could find you a job. Work less hours for income and more for nothing. You would be happy and I'm sure those you would help will be very appreciative. I can find you hospices phone number if you like, or perhaps one for deprived kids in South Auckland.

Sounds like a good idea, that would make you happy. Ahh, would not happen in a million years. You are so full of crappe man. All talk and no action. However, feel free to prove me wrong.


If you really want to help them, give them a job, start a new business for the unemployed. Don't forget belg, I have done a profile on you and can say that without a doubt, you would never do anything to help levels of poverty period. All talk which is what we expect from the left. These are people not pets, but hey at least you feel good in talking about it.

Cuzzie, I'm an employer, but I'm not so sure about you being one.

Cuzzie
02-08-2014, 08:16 AM
Cuzzie, I'm an employer, but I'm not so sure about you being one.
Well I am a business owner, the rest you can carry on being not so sure about. BTW EZ, good on you for being an employer. At the end of the day it doesn't matter who you vote for, employment is the key. With the Greens trying to stop all forestry, mining and drilling, plus most other industries that don't resemble the Amish society, Labour has a massive problem making a partnership with them.

I see Cunning Winston Peters is moving away from Labour and smooching up with National now.
He has put a Ban on working with the Internet-Mana (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/election-2014/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503581&objectid=11302848) joke of a party and good thing to. He is a cunning sly old fox for sure.

Banksie
02-08-2014, 08:44 AM
With the Greens trying to stop all forestry, mining and drilling, plus most other industries that don't resemble the Amish society, Labour has a massive problem making a partnership with them.


This is just empty rhetoric Cuzzie. The greens have promised to: 3. Enhanced incentives to study and teach engineering, mathematics, computer and the physical sciences. The Green Party will fund an additional 1,000 places at tertiary institutions for students of engineering, mathematics, computer science, and the physical sciences, costing $50 million per year. Which doesn't sound very Amish to me.
I do wish you would take the time to actual read their policies. Since you so clearly don't understand the various parties policies, how did you arrive at your decision to back National? And which of their policies appeal to you?

Cuzzie
02-08-2014, 03:02 PM
This is just empty rhetoric Cuzzie. The greens have promised to: 3. Enhanced incentives to study and teach engineering, mathematics, computer and the physical sciences. The Green Party will fund an additional 1,000 places at tertiary institutions for students of engineering, mathematics, computer science, and the physical sciences, costing $50 million per year. Which doesn't sound very Amish to me.
I do wish you would take the time to actual read their policies. Since you so clearly don't understand the various parties policies, how did you arrive at your decision to back National? And which of their policies appeal to you?

This fellas true colours have come shining through too. Now we know what you pretension was all about. The Green Agenda (http://www.green-agenda.com/agenda21.html). Check out the Club of Rome (http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=FinalWarning&C=8.5) if you don't know what that is all about. Population Reduction is a biggy for them.
As for asking me further questions - how many times - don't bother. Anybody who manipulates like you do should not even be given the time of day. Add the fact that you are a NWO fanboy and you best stay well clear of me. Do me a favor and just pretend I don't even exist and go bother somebody else, I'm not interested in chin wagging with the likes of you - UNDERSTAND? Good so buzz off buddy. That's how I treat manipulators like you. Next time when somebody answers a question you have asked them, you have no right to change my answer to fit your agenda. Take note and learn, Banksie I'm actually doing you a favor because next time you think of manipulating I reckon you just might think twice.

Banksie
02-08-2014, 07:00 PM
Holy moly cuzzie, I can only suggest that you refrain from political debate if it gets you so worked up.

i happened to watch that Nigel Latta doco today belg, some interest points raised. Was the pre-rogernomics New Zealand the utopia people remember it as?

Cuzzie
02-08-2014, 07:22 PM
Cuz, You okay? Your recent posts are becoming more extreme and incoherent. All good in Cuz world?You wish. Nope just straight shooting like always. I take it both of you did not enjoy the two links I posted. They do give you insight into the political world of the Greens. Like I told Banksie before he decided to write his own little cool story by him about me - I'm Green as one can get. The Green Party or Greenpeace is not, far from it. Banksie manipulation or confusion on the matter was his entirely as I quite clearly stated where I stand and what the Greens do not stand for. His and your probs, not mine. Besides, you are the one that has breakdowns on-line remember belg!!!

Cuzzie
02-08-2014, 07:39 PM
This is how unhinged the UN is at the moment. UN Blasts Israel for Not Sharing Iron Dome with Hamas (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/183616#.U9yg7vmSw53). Now don't get me wrong, I'm not on Israel's side, but that statement by the U.N is just, well just plain stupid. This is war, not a classroom spat. That is the U.N for you and all of Greens direction is solely from the U.N. Don't think this is on subject, you would be wrong. The U.N is where the Green Party and Greenpeace N.Z is controlled. Nothing to do with Green matters, but everything to do with controlling the worlds population under one umbrella & in doing so they are using the very misleading cover of being Green. Understand that Banksie before you bark again.

Cuzzie
02-08-2014, 07:52 PM
I fully subscribe to this scenario from the NBR. It's subscription only so will copy & paste for you.

The Labour MPs who didn't want David Cunliffe as leader also didn't want him as prime minister. They still donít.These MPs are reverse campaigning. Their aim is to achieve a once-in-a-generation transformation of the Labour Party.
Their reverse campaigning is witnessed in their focus on the electorate vote, contradiction of party policy, plans to de-extinct moa and public criticism of Mr Cunliffe taking time to holiday.
None of this is accidental. These are professional politicians.
Hereís the logic. Labour this election picks up two Maori electorates plus Clayton Cosgrove wins Waimakariri and Stuart Nash wins Napier. Their success knocks out four Labour list candidates.
Labour polls in the low 20s. That means less than 30 MPs. The 27 constituencies that Labour wins largely fills Labourís MP quota. The list MPs are cleaned out. Sue Moroney, Andrew Little, Maryan Street and Moana Mackey are gone.
The result is a different Labour Party. The constituency MPs are centrists. They have to be to win and retain their seats. The list MPs are to the left. The election cleanout changes Labourís political dynamic. Itís ideological centre shifts rightward. The remnant Labour Party is more centre-right than Nationalís Cabinet.
Mr Cunliffe goes. He canít survive such a catastrophic defeat.
Good Labour sources tell me this is exactly the plan. To go down in a blaze of glory, heads held high while smirking that Cunliffeís supporters got their beans. Nash will win Napier, it is 50/50 in Waimakriri, and that shows the travesty of Labour this election, where against a two term government they canít win seats except in Napier where National put up a fool, and have now officially given up to the onslaught by Stuart Nash.
The remaining MPs didn't like Mr Cunliffe to begin with. They like him even less now. Three ex-leaders in the caucus is one too many. He doesn't just depart the leadership. He departs Parliament.
Thereís a by-election in New Lynn. And Labour rebuilds out of the rubble. The aim is to build a modern, centrist Labour Party, one than can win elections. The bigger the loss, the bigger the ideological change.
There is a lot more at stake this election than just who will be prime minister. The ideological future of the Labour Party is up in the air.
And consider the Greens. Russel Norman has pulled his head in. Metiria Turei has dressed like a corporate. It hurts like crazy but they have done everything they had to do to make government. And still they fall short.
They will celebrate their 20th birthday in Parliament never having made it around the table.
The purpose of politics is power. The Greens have never had it. They havenít succeeded in the one thing that matters.
Thereís a simple logic to Labour gaining power in 2017: work with the Greens. That means letting the Greens eat into Labourís party vote. Labour should concentrate on winning electorates. Thatís where their new politics position them.
I disagree with Rodney on this. The Greens are toxic, ironically. What Labour really needs to do is swallow some dead rats, move closer tot he centre, like John Key did, and then form a grand coalition with National and smash the Greens over coming years. Then politics can get back to sensible parties having at it without the distraction of the minnows.
They will likely only have two or so list MPs. A 10% shift in the party vote from Labour to the Greens would see Labour lose two MPs and the Greens gain 12. The exact number is open to conjecture but the MMP arithmetic is unassailable. But forget the math, it wonít happen.
Heís right it wonít happen.
Labour MPs will reason that they didnít clean out their own list to replace it with Green whackos. And so the Greens will spend a generation in Parliament without power. John Key will achieve a historic fourth term.
The Greens make Labour unelectable. The heads can be pulled in; the outfits tarted up. But they are still Green. The nonsense they spout on global warming looks more deranged each passing year.
And thatís where the Labour MPs reverse campaigning falls to bits. They can clean up their own list with an election-night cleanout. But they remain stuck with the Greens.
Still, politics, like life, is often one step at a time. And cleaning out Labourís list is a good first step.
Labour better get as used to swallowing dead rats as National didÖit is the only way they can get onto the treasury benches again.

BDL
02-08-2014, 08:37 PM
Cuzzie, Just had a quick look at "The Green Agenda" and "Club Of Rome". Think I might take anything you say now with a "pinch of salt"

Cuzzie
02-08-2014, 09:43 PM
Cuzzie, Just had a quick look at "The Green Agenda" and "Club Of Rome". Think I might take anything you say now with a "pinch of salt"How so, if you have a problem then declare it. The Green Agenda is real as is the Club of Rome. So does your head in the sand it appears. You can not wipe away the raw history of the U.N and them controlling Green politics by making a statement about me - make the statement about the U.N. The world is still flat and the emperor clothes might be real in your world. Let me tell you that Agenda 21, the UN, the Greens the W.H.O, the World Bank, NATO and the NWO are very much part of our daily lives controlling us already. The Greens are untouchable which is why, even the Labour party won't do deals with them. There wont be a Labour-Green Govt. after the next election even if they have the numbers & what I have told you is why. Do what you like with your salt mate I don't really care, but my advice is don't just brush it off, do some research on the matter. It will be sure to surprise you.

elZorro
03-08-2014, 09:04 AM
Just read thru all the comments at the bottom of the link. Most amusing.

If TVNZ persists with Hosking then only conclusion that can be drawn is that there has been direct government interference in the selection process.

We shouldn't be surprised by this. This is, after all, a callous, self-serving National govt who has no regard for the average person's rights. ... Just exactly who is supporting National this time around? Callous, self-serving National party supporters?

Or are there some National party supporters out there with a sense of honour and justice who are saying "Yes! Its time for change!"?

Hosking is probably part of the right-wing propaganda in NZ, just like the Initiative headed by Oliver Hartwich. A German national, he's classical liberal, and weekly musings from him and his staff reach my inbox, where I have a 2 second scan and delete them. I did read some of them early on, and sent a reply email negating some of their arguments, which they did at least reply to.

Why don't the left have something as impressive as this looks on paper? Up close, maybe it's not so impressive. Hartwich is ensconced in a tower building in Wellington, with 8-9 staff, $1.8mill annual budget. All this funding is paid by just 38 members. These are mostly big businesses and professional advisory firms (read, tax accountants). They'd like more members, but as no-one is reading their output, that has been hard to do. Don't see why, it's only an average $47,000 a year fee for members.

In comparison with this largesse from a few, it is illegal for an electorate campaign for spend more than about $27,000 on persuasion in the form of advertising, signage, media spending, in the last 3 months leading up to an election. So the $1.8mill could alternatively have funded most of 66 electoral campaigns. The National Party don't seem to have any shortage of funds either.

fungus pudding
03-08-2014, 09:28 AM
Holy moly cuzzie, I can only suggest that you refrain from political debate if it gets you so worked up.

i happened to watch that Nigel Latta doco today belg, some interest points raised. Was the pre-rogernomics New Zealand the utopia people remember it as?

It certainly wasn't. NZ was so far behind the rest of the world it wasn't funny. No choice in anything. Everything over regulated. It was awful.

BlackPeter
03-08-2014, 09:46 AM
How callous and unprincipled is John Key?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11303245

In case you're not following ... While Tania Billingsley had name suppression John Key said he would apologise to Tania, fully expecting he'd never really have to do as Tania would remain unknown. So Tania requests name suppression to be lifted. And guess what? John Key refused to apologise as he promised he would. Scumbag? Lacking honour? You choose.

If this sort of unprincipled behaviour is "acceptable" in our prime minister - Will it become okay for everyone to do this? ... No doubt about it .... Heading fast to Banana Republic status.

Just smile and wave, boys. Smile and wave. #TeamKey

Look Belg, I must say I find the media circus around Tania Billingsley quite appalling. The left must be quite desperate to try to make political capital out of this situation - and whoever is doing that has clearly not truth, justice or the (alleged) victims best interest in mind (unless Tanja's agenda is not about getting justice).

Maybe you have first hand knowledge I don't, but from where I stand:

1) A good looking and young woman who clearly seems to enjoy media attention makes a quite severe accusation towards a foreign diplomat which may or may not be true. If the courts find them true, than I hope that the offender will be appropriately punished, but given the media circus started by the alleged victim (and her political so called friends) do I have my doubts that it would be possible to still hold a fair trial on this allegation in New Zealand - hard to find a jury not influenced by all this publicity (which is purely playing on emotion and political point scoring, not on facts).

2) An alleged offender claims diplomatic immunity. Well, there is a good reason for the introduction of diplomatic immunity (even, if it results sometimes in appalling injustice) and you can't really blame National for the Genfer convention, or do you?

3) Yes, it looks like the communication paths in the department of foreign affairs didn't work as well as they should have (and I don't know, whether better communication would have resulted in a better outcome - do you?). However - I don't really see how this makes John Key liable to apologise to the alleged victim of an alleged assault. Sure - he is ultimately responsible for the government, but just remind me how HC apologised to the (proven) victims of state brutality her police department was responsible for (e.g. October 15 raids)? It was the National government who had to do this many years later.

Shouldn't we leave the cheap political point scoring to the Winston Peter's and Colin Craig's of this world? Honestly, even if we don't seem to have too many common political views - I thought so far, that you can do better.

fungus pudding
03-08-2014, 10:17 AM
John Key said he would apologise. He hasn't!

Real men do what they say.

Real men are not sorry for being men.

elZorro
03-08-2014, 10:23 AM
Real men are not sorry for being men.

Not in even one small aspect of their lives, in context? Get real.

BlackPeter
03-08-2014, 10:42 AM
John Key said he would apologise. He hasn't!

Real men do what they say.

Belg, just wondering whether you just shot yourself into the political foot ...

Propose you google "David Cunliffe lies". After doing some research on the 247,000 hits you might reflect on David Cunliffe's apology for being a man. Not saying that this was one of his lies, but then ... was this really a sincere apology, given that according to your definition he can't be a real men (if real men do what they say, I suppose they don't lie)? So how is David better than John?

Confused - what do you really want to tell us about David Cunliffe?

Discl: Yes, I don't particularly like David Cunliffe, but I am not very fond of John Key either. But above all - is there any chance we could have some political discussion with a bit more substance?

elZorro
03-08-2014, 10:45 AM
Belg, just wondering whether you just shot yourself into the political foot ...

Propose you google "David Cunliffe lies". After doing some research on the 247,000 hits you might reflect on David Cunliffe's apology for being a man. Not saying that this was one of his lies, but then ... was this really a sincere apology, given that according to your definition he can't be a real men (if real men do what they say, I suppose they don't lie)? So how is David better than John?

Confused - what do you really want to tell us about David Cunliffe?

Discl: Yes, I don't particularly like David Cunliffe, but I am not very fond of John Key either. But above all - is there any chance we could have some political discussion with a bit more substance?

Yes, we could talk about policies BP. How about that.

BlackPeter
03-08-2014, 10:55 AM
Yes, we could talk about policies BP. How about that.

Sure, lets talk about the stuff which is relevant to New Zealanders. So how would all our life's improve if we happen to get a Green / Labour / Mana / Internet party coalition or alternatively a Green / Labour / Winston First coalition (given that Winston says he won't go into bed with racists ... and hey, if Winston says that it must be true?). Inspire me ...

slimwin
03-08-2014, 11:11 AM
There most certainly is abused men Belg. To the point of poisoning them even.

elZorro
03-08-2014, 11:14 AM
Sure, lets talk about the stuff which is relevant to New Zealanders. So how would all our lives improve if we happen to get a Green / Labour / Mana / Internet party coalition or alternatively a Green / Labour / Winston First coalition (given that Winston says he won't go into bed with racists ... and hey, if Winston says that it must be true?). Inspire me ...

OK, I prefer the second coalition, mainly because it would be more acceptable, and get up and running quicker. At least these parties all know about the mechanism of being in the hot seat.

Labour would immediately bring in $15 an hour minimum adult wage, students would be on less of course, and I don't think they'll make that mistake again, a lot of junior staff got the flick, and lost their chances of job experience. That just highlights a relatively unfriendly employer environment, and shows that worker rights do need to be protected somewhat.

This extra money sloshing around will help retailers, even landlords. A portion will be added to the tax coffers, of course the tax rates for the well-off will rise a small amount on the very top of their earnings (no, that won't kill your take-home pay BP) and a CGT will start to make people think about what investments they have a go at.

At the same time R&D tax credits and a more even-handed scheme for business investment will help expose businesses as a better investment, and of course Labour and the Greens have great ideas for improving the existing housing stock and building new ones, with KiwiBuild. This will kickstart a new wave of building trade training and investment. On a big scale, and it won't cost the taxpayer anything. This will cool down the housing market in Auckland, making rents there more equitable, and buying first homes easier for many.

The Greens will be working on their swimmable waterways policy, and again that will be smart long-term strategy for a country which was the last significant settled land area in the world, and we have a lot to protect.

The govt budget will be in surplus quickly, we'll have more job-rich exports, probably more SOE activity, more employment, more prospects. Everyone wins.

fungus pudding
03-08-2014, 11:28 AM
OK, I prefer the second coalition, mainly because it would be more acceptable, and get up and running quicker. At least these parties all know about the mechanism of being in the hot seat.

Labour would immediately bring in $15 an hour minimum adult wage, students would be on less of course, and I don't think they'll make that mistake again, a lot of junior staff got the flick, and lost their chances of job experience. That just highlights a relatively unfriendly employer environment, and shows that worker rights do need to be protected somewhat.

This extra money sloshing around will help retailers, even landlords. A portion will be added to the tax coffers, of course the tax rates for the well-off will rise a small amount on the very top of their earnings (no, that won't kill your take-home pay BP) and a CGT will start to make people think about what investments they have a go at.



That extra money sloshing around will drive up prices, or businesses will fail. That's okay for those who benefit from inflation, e.g. highly geared investors in shares, property etc. Certainly will not help the lower paid. Like so many govt. economic theories, it will achieve the opposite of what is intended.
What other investments will investors think of when there are no exemptions apart from the primary residence? Oh golly gosh - I just answered my own question.

Banksie
03-08-2014, 11:48 AM
That extra money sloshing around will drive up prices, or businesses will fail. That's okay for those who benefit from inflation, e.g. highly geared investors in shares, property etc. Certainly will not help the lower paid. Like so many govt. economic theories, it will achieve the opposite of what is intended.
What other investments will investors think of when there are no exemptions apart from the primary residence? Oh golly gosh - I just answered my own question.

Surely the extra money will only drive up prices if there is a shortage of supply. This could be a problem in the housing sector, but should be balanced out with the Kiwibuild program.

I have lived through a CGT implementation, and you know what, the world didn't end and wealth was not destroyed :). Because of the aversion to CGT in NZ I agree with initially excluding the primary residence, but eventually it should be included as well. If every cent I earn comes from selling my time why should I be taxed on every dollar, while someone making money from an appreciating asset is not?

elZorro
03-08-2014, 11:55 AM
That extra money sloshing around will drive up prices, or businesses will fail. That's okay for those who benefit from inflation, e.g. highly geared investors in shares, property etc. Certainly will not help the lower paid. Like so many govt. economic theories, it will achieve the opposite of what is intended.
What other investments will investors think of when there are no exemptions apart from the primary residence? Oh golly gosh - I just answered my own question.

FP, here is the Labour policy on CGT, which I'm sure you've already had a look at.

https://www.labour.org.nz/sites/default/files/CGTWebdoct%20July%202011.pdf

You're right, there is no limit on the amount you can spend on the family home at the moment, not that I saw on a quick look. Also exempt is the boat, antiques etc, but not the bach, other land or buildings beside the family home. Commonsense will limit the spending on the family home, there's only so much the nearby market can stand. Having said that, our housing stock is in a moderately bad way overall. It needs some investment, and that'll create more jobs and training. BTW, all new houses now have to have double glazing in the windows/panels, and it's not much dearer than standard windows. Cuts down on noise, increases insulation, great. Who brought in that smart policy? Labour, 2007, 2008.

http://www.dbh.govt.nz/codewords-24-5

But you have assumed that there is no elasticity in retail prices, and that higher wages for the few lowest paid staff would cause higher prices. Surely a business only needs enough volume to generate enough profit, to pay for expenses and leave a return. So higher volume would allow this, without price increases. Shops already discount by well over 50% on RRP for some items, so they're trying it now for market share, with a dwindling spare income available. Extra fuel and housing costs have taken the cream already. A business that has something special to offer, won't be worried by any changes to minimum wage. Their staff will already be well above it.

FP, Labour increased the size of the NZ economy last time they were in, they had clear and strong budget surpluses, the GDP/capita went up, it worked. You're wrong if you think it won't work again.

slimwin
03-08-2014, 11:59 AM
What's percentage got to do with it Belg? Some people are more guilty than others huh. Just like some socialists are more equal than the others.

fungus pudding
03-08-2014, 12:51 PM
Think we agreed previously that you views on CGT isn't supported by anyone but yourself?


You do not know my view on GST.

fungus pudding
03-08-2014, 12:53 PM
You'll need to explain how you arrived at those five assertions.



I do not need to do anything at all. I'm quite happy as I am.

fungus pudding
03-08-2014, 01:14 PM
I was talking about CGT? Where did GST come from?

Assuming you meant CGT - then your views from what we've already got from you on this thread are well known. And, when countered by experts, you run away and hide like a real man. ;)

You are the most obnoxious poster I have ever encountered. Yes I meant CGT.

Banksie
03-08-2014, 02:09 PM
You are the most obnoxious poster I have ever encountered. Yes I meant CGT.

Lol FP, he is just having you on. I don't always agree with his methods, but he has a good point, why aren't you willing to explain how you arrived at your conclusions?

And yes, you have a right not to explain, but and this is the bit I fail to understand, why-oh-why post in a political debating forum if you are not prepared to backup your views. El Zorro goes to some length to explain his point of view and instead of engaging him on it you come back with "it won't work, cos I said so".

I must admit it is not a good look for National supporters, I have yet to read a well thought out, and coherent argument, for their policies. In fact FP you said "Like so many govt. economic theories, it will achieve the opposite of what is intended." does that mean Nationals policies are achieving the opposite of their intention as well, or are they the exception to the rule?

macduffy
03-08-2014, 02:22 PM
I'm trying hard to ignore all the buzz around the impending election but had to chuckle at today's news:

"United Future party has released the top ten names on its party list."

;)

Cuzzie
03-08-2014, 02:23 PM
Cuz, Who is the author of this fine piece of fiction?Subscribe to the NBR and find out for yourself. Hint, he was a politician, but not for National.

Cuzzie
03-08-2014, 02:24 PM
Typical of a pub economist and national party supporter. :)

You and Cuz related? ;)Yep, we are all unhinged, unbalanced & live in conspiracy laden world if you are in the 70% bracket of voters that don't vote Labour. We are all wrong 100% of the time and belg and his Labour mates get it right 100% of the time. You really need to get real.

Cuzzie
03-08-2014, 02:26 PM
My sister helps out at a women's refuge centre. Ever heard the stories from the women, FP? Ever heard of a man refuge centre? No?
This is also a relatives field of work, but as a professional not a volunteer. You talk of percentages between men & woman, how about you give me your answer, because I do have it. BTW, your sister will agree.

Banksie
03-08-2014, 02:37 PM
I'm trying hard to ignore all the buzz around the impending election but had to chuckle at today's news:

"United Future party has released the top ten names on its party list."

;)

Does it look like this

1. Peter Dunne
2. Peter Dunne
3. Peter Dunne
4. Peter Dunne
5. Peter Dunne
6. Peter Dunne
7. Peter Dunne
8. Peter Dunne
9. Peter Dunne
10. Peter Dunne

Banksie
03-08-2014, 02:42 PM
Does it look like this

1. Peter Dunne
2. Peter Dunne
3. Peter Dunne
4. Peter Dunne
5. Peter Dunne
6. Peter Dunne
7. Peter Dunne
8. Peter Dunne
9. Peter Dunne
10. Peter Dunne

Lol, the real one is even funnier http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1408/S00031/unitedfuture-list-top-10-announced.htm

Cuzzie
03-08-2014, 02:46 PM
Here is the Election report of the day from the Herald -
Seriously wounded under-pressure Labour Party leader David Cunliffe. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11303200)

If you listen to EZ, belg and the new strongly negative connotation by association Labour Fanboy Banksie, everything is rosey for Labour right now. No problems at all and nobody is going to vote for National. Can anybody see fault in that Blind man fool ideology. They can't see the truth because and I keep on saying this, but because everything is perfect with their Labour party and their leader. Perhaps if you got angry at D.C for his mistakes a bit more he won't make so many. Perhaps if you weren't so laid back about H.C leadership in the 2008 election and told her a Nanny state was unacceptable, she might of got three more years. Perhaps if you stopped Goff from making spending promises to buy the 2011 election he might of won and now you stand back and watch the worst leader of any major political party in my living history make the same mistakes as Clark & Goff, plus all the apologies he has had to make & you think the sun shines out of his a$$. I say, don't change a thing and don't learn from this election too. Win, win, win for National.

Cuzzie
03-08-2014, 02:50 PM
Warriors are on now, so talk amongst yourselves for a while. Maybe get some P.Ms or emails going to talk though your next plan of action.

Banksie
03-08-2014, 02:59 PM
Here is the Election report of the day from the Herald -
Seriously wounded under-pressure Labour Party leader David Cunliffe. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11303200)

If you listen to EZ, belg and the new strongly negative connotation by association Labour Fanboy Banksie, everything is rosey for Labour right now. No problems at all and nobody is going to vote for National. Can anybody see fault in that Blind man fool ideology. They can't see the truth because and I keep on saying this, but because everything is perfect with their Labour party and their leader. Perhaps if you got angry at D.C for his mistakes a bit more he won't make so many. Perhaps if you weren't so laid back about H.C leadership in the 2008 election and told her a Nanny state was unacceptable, she might of got three more years. Perhaps if you stopped Goff from making spending promises to buy the 2011 election he might of won and now you stand back and watch the worst leader of any major political party in my living history make the same mistakes as Clark & Goff, plus all the apologies he has had to make & you think the sun shines out of his a$$. I say, don't change a thing and don't learn from this election too. Win, win, win for National.

Troll (Internet)

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Two studies published in 2013 and 2014 have found that people who are identified as trolls tend to have dark personality traits and show signs of sadism, antisocial behavior, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism.

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet))

Major von Tempsky
03-08-2014, 03:16 PM
Actually Banksie ole boy, rather than calling Cuzzie a troll you should be jolly grateful to him for pointing out The Labour Party Emperor (DC) has no clothes.

Or maybe you should call all the well known media commentators like Vernon Small, Andrea Vance, Colin Espiner, Tracey Watkins, all the cartoonists, half a dozen political polling organisations and half the nations voters TROLLS!

And you can bounce into the Labour Party caucus after the election when they replace Cunliffe shouting TROLLS! TROLLS! YOU ARE ALL WRONG!
It should be amusing....

fungus pudding
03-08-2014, 03:49 PM
Surely the extra money will only drive up prices if there is a shortage of supply. This could be a problem in the housing sector, but should be balanced out with the Kiwibuild program.

I have lived through a CGT implementation, and you know what, the world didn't end and wealth was not destroyed :). Because of the aversion to CGT in NZ I agree with initially excluding the primary residence, but eventually it should be included as well. If every cent I earn comes from selling my time why should I be taxed on every dollar, while someone making money from an appreciating asset is not?

You cannot just raise wages 12.5% without causing price increases in goods and services: aka inflation. The reason why housing should be included in as CGT is that the main purpose of such a tax is to remove advantage. Including the family home for cgt goes part way to removing the advantage a home owner has over a tenant. And it should be the lower of 20% or payers marginal tax rate. As a matter of interest the most spectacular gains in house prices were following Rowling's speculator tax in the seventies. The market dried up and voila - fortunes were made. I'm not religious in any way, but if I were I would daily drop to my knees and pray, not to Jesus C, Allah, Buddha or any of the other 2000 recognised Gods, but to Wallace Rowling.

Cuzzie
03-08-2014, 04:17 PM
Actually Banksie ole boy, rather than calling Cuzzie a troll you should be jolly grateful to him for pointing out The Labour Party Emperor (DC) has no clothes.

Or maybe you should call all the well known media commentators like Vernon Small, Andrea Vance, Colin Espiner, Tracey Watkins, all the cartoonists, half a dozen political polling organisations and half the nations voters TROLLS!

And you can bounce into the Labour Party caucus after the election when they replace Cunliffe shouting TROLLS! TROLLS! YOU ARE ALL WRONG!
It should be amusing....Half time with the Warriors game and like National, they are threshing the opposition. All good Major, Banksie is blowing because I caught him out with his little game called manipulation. I'm no troll & if I was we all are. Maybe he thinks because I caught him out I'm a troll. Poor feller is deluded Funny how belg embraced it, endorsed it and now re-posts it right off the bat, real funny indeed. We might have a double personality in play here.

Cuzzie
03-08-2014, 04:23 PM
Just too funny TROLL. You have it or you don't.

And one notes, slimwin ain't playing this game after his silly post. I'm guessing he's wiser than to make a fool of himself.
I wont play around with this anymore and will give you the figures - no problem. You see it is my wife who is very much involved with this and I fully know exactly what is going on. The figures are impossible to quote. So there we go. As I said, your sister will confirm this. There are women who are abused by their male partners and or their females partners, then there are females that complain about abuse from their male or female partners that is fabricated. There is also your males that are abused by their female and or partners male partners & those who fabricate that they are abused by their female or male partners. Then to add to that, there are males and females who are abused by their same sex or opposite sex that do not make a complaint. That is 100% non-debatable and faculty to the point. There we go belg, how say you. Now back to the winning Warriors for the second half, like the election I think we may have a landslide on our hands.
belg, my suggestion is, if you don't know the answer don't pretend you do because there is always somebody who will know. As you have just found out again. I was the one for the umtenth time. How many times is this now. Anything else you would like to learn about?
Give me more of that Troll sh!t, just too funny.

Cuzzie
03-08-2014, 04:54 PM
Seriously deluded, Cuz.

Slimwin, care to support your assertion with fact?

Or are all National Party supporter arch-b*llsh*t artists? ;) Now tell me and everybody else where? I have never come across somebody that is so full of it as you are belg. May I suggest you phone your sister or maybe take your medication!!!

Banksie
03-08-2014, 05:18 PM
You cannot just raise wages 12.5% without causing price increases in goods and services: aka inflation. The reason why housing should be included in as CGT is that the main purpose of such a tax is to remove advantage. Including the family home for cgt goes part way to removing the advantage a home owner has over a tenant. And it should be the lower of 20% or payers marginal tax rate. As a matter of interest the most spectacular gains in house prices were following Rowling's speculator tax in the seventies. The market dried up and voila - fortunes were made. I'm not religious in any way, but if I were I would daily drop to my knees and pray, not to Jesus C, Allah, Buddha or any of the other 2000 recognised Gods, but to Wallace Rowling.

But is only minimum wage earners that are going up by 12.5%, and sure there will be some knock on with the just-above-minimum wager earners wanting an increase - but there are many industries that won't feel this at all, as they have no employees in that range. Also, people on minimum wage now are receiving benefits, so forcing industry to pay more shifts some of the burden from the state.

I agree with the cgt on the primary residence - I just don't think NZ are ready for it yet.

I cant comment on Rowlings, haven't researched his sins yet :).

Banksie
03-08-2014, 05:33 PM
Agreed. But if its not done "simply" at the get-go it'll just get harder and messier. It shouldn't actually be all that hard to sell once people realise the rich will be paying their way for once.
What they did in South Africa was to charge cgt on 33% of the profit on your primary residence, and 66% of the profit on other properties. The rate was your marginal tax rate. This gave an maximum effective rate of 13% on your primary property - but the advantage is these percentages of profit could be adjust without having to restructure the system. (I might be wrong but I think they initially set it at 25% and them moved it up to 33%)

fungus pudding
03-08-2014, 05:53 PM
But is only minimum wage earners that are going up by 12.5%, and sure there will be some knock on with the just-above-minimum wager earners wanting an increase - but there are many industries that won't feel this at all, as they have no employees in that range. Also, people on minimum wage now are receiving benefits, so forcing industry to pay more shifts some of the burden from the state.

I agree with the cgt on the primary residence - I just don't think NZ are ready for it yet.

I cant comment on Rowlings, haven't researched his sins yet :).

Every wage level will get an increase, with the higher paid getting more as to compensate for the higher taxes. Wage rises always flow through. Always - always.
Rowling was a laugh. Completely useless. A small man in every way who stepped into a big man's shoes. Muldoon, who could be an absolute prick, used to give him heaps. Some brilliant Muldoon quotes re Rowling if you bother finding them.

Cuzzie
03-08-2014, 06:02 PM
Now tell me and everybody else where? I have never come across somebody that is so full of it as you are belg. May I suggest you phone your sister or maybe take your medication!!!
Case in action just from today's news. Man found with knife lodged in head (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11303371)
Women are becoming far more violent towards each other and males. A high percentage of fights and bullying in our schools comes from females. Talking with you belg is like talking to the dinosaurs. Do yourself a favour and get yourself up to speed man. Maybe talk to your sister, she will back up what I've told you.

elZorro
03-08-2014, 06:06 PM
I'm with you Banksie, I can't see how NZ will ever vote in a CGT if the primary dwelling is included. But it's critical we get a CGT. Meaningless at first, it sets up long-term investment planning. Dropping out the house means it's transparent for many people who either only own their home, or are hoping to be able to buy someday. And fair enough, people spend too much on their own homes, don't account for it, and most capital gains there are imaginary.

I always cringed when Muldoon had a go at Bill Rowling.

FP, what would be the effect of a rise in minimum pay to $15, if applied as a flat dollar amount to most wage rates? Why should it be a percentage increase applied across the board?

Cuzzie
03-08-2014, 06:06 PM
Rowling was a weak man who was told to change his mind by the Americans and within five minutes - he did it in three. Lange was guilty of this carry on when he sold out New Zealands stand to the French. Two very weak P.Ms right there. What else do they have in common I wonder?

Cuzzie
03-08-2014, 06:09 PM
I'm with you Banksie, I can't see how NZ will ever vote in a CGT if the primary dwelling is included. But it's critical we get a CGT. Meaningless at first, it sets up long-term investment planning. Dropping out the house means it's transparent for many people who either only own their home, or are hoping to be able to buy someday. And fair enough, people spend too much on their own homes, don't account for it, and most capital gains there are imaginary.

I always cringed when Muldoon had a go at Bill Rowling.

FP, what would be the effect of a rise in minimum pay to $15, if applied as a flat dollar amount to most wage rates? Why should it be a percentage increase applied across the board? Say what you like about Muldoon, Helen Clark was only half the man he was.

fungus pudding
03-08-2014, 06:17 PM
I'm with you Banksie, I can't see how NZ will ever vote in a CGT if the primary dwelling is included. But it's critical we get a CGT. Meaningless at first, it sets up long-term investment planning. Dropping out the house means it's transparent for many people who either only own their home, or are hoping to be able to buy someday. And fair enough, people spend too much on their own homes, don't account for it, and most capital gains there are imaginary.

I always cringed when Muldoon had a go at Bill Rowling.

FP, what would be the effect of a rise in minimum pay to $15, if applied as a flat dollar amount to most wage rates? Why should it be a percentage increase applied across the board?

I didn't say it should be. I said it would be.

fungus pudding
03-08-2014, 06:18 PM
Say what you like about Muldoon, Helen Clark was only half the man he was.

And only half the socialist Muldoon was too.

Cuzzie
03-08-2014, 06:20 PM
And only half the socialist Muldoon was too.Maybe he was Clarks inspiration? :eek2:

fungus pudding
03-08-2014, 06:24 PM
Maybe he was Clarks inspiration? :eek2:

He certainly inspired me ..............................................to vote Labour.

Cuzzie
03-08-2014, 06:36 PM
He certainly inspired me ..............................................to vote Labour.I'm glad you got inspired to come back to the National party then.

fungus pudding
03-08-2014, 06:49 PM
I'm glad you got inspired to come back to the National party then.

I don't vote for parties. I vote in the most effective way I possibly can to minimise damage to the country by keeping out silly policies. Hence - National this election. I think we'll end up with National and Winston First in coalition. Act and Dunne will be there too. That won't be too bad. Winston will have his demands, but they'll be about baubles for Winston. 90% of policies that he currently espouses will be forgotten. Labour will offer more baubles, but Winston will use them to get National's bid up.

westerly
03-08-2014, 06:54 PM
Every wage level will get an increase, with the higher paid getting more as to compensate for the higher taxes. Wage rises always flow through. Always - always.
Rowling was a laugh. Completely useless. A small man in every way who stepped into a big man's shoes. Muldoon, who could be an absolute prick, used to give him heaps. Some brilliant Muldoon quotes re Rowling if you bother finding them.

Rowling lead the Labour party in 2 elections where Labour although defeated received more votes than National, probably resulting in the later move to MMP
He was in some ways similar to David Shearer probably preferring to avoid the point scoring at any cost that Muldoon was a master at. After Muldoon, Bolger, Mclay, and Shipley, were not exactly leading lights as Prime Ministers for the National party

westerly

elZorro
03-08-2014, 06:57 PM
I don't vote for parties. I vote in the most effective way I possibly can to minimise damage to the country by keeping out silly policies. Hence - National this election. I think we'll end up with National and Winston First in coalition. Act and Dunne will be there too. That won't be too bad. Winston will have his demands, but they'll be about baubles for Winston. 90% of policies that he currently espouses will be forgotten. Labour will offer more baubles, but Winston will use them to get National's bid up.

Sorry to interrupt this Liberal fan club, but Winston is more likely to remember how John Key has treated him in the last two elections. I think there's a very good chance he'll play National off against Labour, but end up in a Labour coalition.

Banksie
03-08-2014, 07:04 PM
I don't vote for parties. I vote in the most effective way I possibly can to minimise damage to the country by keeping out silly policies.
We may not 100% agree on which policies are silly, but I do like your approach to voting. It is about picking the policies you believe in (or the ones you want to avoid) and voting accordingly.

Noticed something interesting on the hoardings today, I see them for the national candidate, and also for the labour candidate - but all the green hoardings are just for the party vote. Guess they are telling their voters to pick the Labour candidate.

Minerbarejet
03-08-2014, 08:41 PM
We may not 100% agree on which policies are silly, but I do like your approach to voting. It is about picking the policies you believe in (or the ones you want to avoid) and voting accordingly.

Noticed something interesting on the hoardings today, I see them for the national candidate, and also for the labour candidate - but all the green hoardings are just for the party vote. Guess they are telling their voters to pick the Labour candidate.
Somewhere along the way did I see someone suggest a National/Labour coalition. What a great idea!

elZorro
04-08-2014, 06:16 AM
National hits back at Labour's two-step minimum wage increase policy.


Bridges critical of Labour’s wage proposals

With an election due in September the parties are starting to chuck big political rocks, and Labour Minister Simon Bridges has aimed one fairly at Labour’s head.
He said Labour’s intention to increase the minimum wage to two-thirds of the average wage would hurt business, cost jobs and reduce growth.
“Labour’s policy to immediately increase the minimum wage to $16.25 would cost at least 6,000 jobs, and a wage of $18 would cost around 16,500. If you want to make people unemployed this is a good way to go about it,” he said.
“Setting the minimum wage represents a careful balance between protecting low-paid workers and ensuring jobs are not lost. You cannot legislate your way to higher wages with the stroke of a pen.
“If it’s not based on increased productivity, simply paying people higher wages is a cost that gets passed on to New Zealanders as higher taxes, reduced competitiveness, inflation and fewer jobs.
“Labour’s promise to scrap National’s successful 90-day trial legislation would also cost thousands of jobs. Research showed that a third of employers who used the trial period would not have hired a new employee without it. And an overwhelming majority of employers have kept staff on after the trial period ended.”
He said that as for Labour’s promise to pay all core public service workers at least the Living Wage: why should core government employees — who only represent about 2% of the workforce — earn more than a private sector employee doing a similar job?
“Labour’s promise to implement industry standard agreements is a return to the 1970s and is a cynical payback to the Unions for their support.
“It would require all regional employers to pay the same pay rates as one in downtown Auckland. That would cause real damage to regional economies.”
The Key Government, he said, was achieving strong job growth by operating flexible labour market policies that encourage employers to take on new workers.




Several facts are missing from this article. Mainly, the idea that increasing the minimum wage costs a certain amount of jobs, that is flawed if the increase is small enough to be absorbed, as increased money flow will also create jobs in some areas. Where did Simon's figures come from? They were fabricated. It is true that employers will have to forego some of their own profits to ensure that a minimum wage gets closer to being able to support a young family on a single wage, like it used to decades ago. Businesses that were not making a profit at lower wages simply have to smarten up, morph, or close. A small wage increase should never be a tipping point for a sound business.

Aaron
04-08-2014, 07:38 AM
[I]ACT says it can boost economic growth by a third with a policy to cut the company tax rate to 12.5 per cent.

Leader Jamie Whyte says this will increase investment, and job and GDP by one third, leading to higher wages.

!
ACT's policies sound like bull**** to me but this might interest people who think NZ taxes the wealthy/job creators/Trickle downers too hard.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/10337295/Are-we-being-fairly-taxed
Interesting to note that GST is described as a regressive tax in this article can't remember who was arguing with me that is wasn't but nice to know other people think they were talking through a hole in their arse as well. I actually have no problem with GST as it is, maybe lower the rate but definitely not higher.
Capital Gains tax should include the family home and I wouldn't bring it in until after the next financial market crash or interest rate peak. John Key might be a nice guy but I would recommend voting for the party with the policies to make NZ a better place for everyone rather than just the top earners and wealthy foreigners.

fungus pudding
04-08-2014, 08:20 AM
National hits back at Labour's two-step minimum wage increase policy.



Several facts are missing from this article. Mainly, the idea that increasing the minimum wage costs a certain amount of jobs, that is flawed if the increase is small enough to be absorbed, as increased money flow will also create jobs in some areas. Where did Simon's figures come from? They were fabricated. It is true that employers will have to forego some of their own profits to ensure that a minimum wage gets closer to being able to support a young family on a single wage, like it used to decades ago. Businesses that were not making a profit at lower wages simply have to smarten up, morph, or close. A small wage increase should never be a tipping point for a sound business.


You simply cannot have 'an amount of jobs'. Your public school education is showing there eZ. Have a look around your house. You will notice that very very few of the products you own and use existed in the fifties and sixties or earlier. Not many families even owned a car. Many services you use were not available. Of course it is easier to survive on one wage when there is little to buy; and if you think businesses simply should forego some of their profits, you have little understanding of how many small businesses operate. There are plenty of them where the proprietor earns less than the minimum wage now.

Sgt Pepper
04-08-2014, 08:32 AM
Every wage level will get an increase, with the higher paid getting more as to compensate for the higher taxes. Wage rises always flow through. Always - always.
Rowling was a laugh. Completely useless. A small man in every way who stepped into a big man's shoes. Muldoon, who could be an absolute prick, used to give him heaps. Some brilliant Muldoon quotes re Rowling if you bother finding them.

FP

Regarding Bill Rowling. Son of a horticulturist. Labour MP who represented a RURAL electorate for his entire career. Master Degree in Economics( thesis Horticulure marketing), Fullbright Scholar to USA, Taught economics at University of Canterbury. Served in NZ Army,(Captain) went to Malaya during the civil war.

Not a bad bad CV dont you think. But of course he was Labour, so you dislike him. However if he was National, well that would be a different matter.

Have you ever completed any Military service for your country FP?

fungus pudding
04-08-2014, 08:38 AM
FP

Regarding Bill Rowling. Son of a horticulturist. Labour MP who represented a RURAL electorate for his entire career. Master Degree in Economics( thesis Horticulure marketing), Fullbright Scholar to USA, Taught economics at University of Canterbury. Served in NZ Army, went to Malaya during the civil war.

Not a bad bad CV dont you think.

Have you ever completed any Military service for your country FP?

Rowling, aka the mouse, might have had all the qualifications under the sun, but he was a failure as a politician.

Banksie
04-08-2014, 08:57 AM
Rowling, aka the mouse, might have had all the qualifications under the sun, but he was a failure as a politician.

Does this have ANY bearing on this election? Both major parties have a history of poor politicians and poor policies (and the opposite of course).

Elections should be about looking forward not backwards.

fungus pudding
04-08-2014, 09:00 AM
Does this have ANY bearing on this election? Both major parties have a history of poor politicians and poor policies (and the opposite of course).

Correct.

Elections should be about looking forward not backwards.


Correct.
.

Banksie
04-08-2014, 09:03 AM
You simply cannot have 'an amount of jobs'. Your public school education is showing there eZ. Have a look around your house. You will notice that very very few of the products you own and use existed in the fifties and sixties or earlier. Not many families even owned a car. Many services you use were not available. Of course it is easier to survive on one wage when there is little to buy; and if you think businesses simply should forego some of their profits, you have little understanding of how many small businesses operate. There are plenty of them where the proprietor earns less than the minimum wage now.

Regarding Bridges assertion that it would cost 6000 jobs. I suspect he is basing his figures on something like this research done in 2010 by the department of Labour. http://www.dol.govt.nz/er/pay/backgroundpapers/2010/page04.asp. They said everything else staying equal increasing to the top rate at that time (which was $15) 6000 less jobs would be created. So no jobs lost, just less new jobs...but they also said there were mixed views on whether or not raising the minimum wage increased unemployment and cited a number of overseas studies on the subject.

Banksie
04-08-2014, 09:13 AM
So what you're saying is that in the last 35+ years the world has changed and the relative price of things like cars has fallen dramatically relative to disposable incomes and there are now a whole bunch of new services available like colour TVs? ... That's called Progress, Fungus. Are you really trying to suggest that NZ's economic policy of 35+ years ago was responsible for this? ... Pull the other one. :)



Now that really is pub economics at its very best, Fungus. What's the real reason? Hint: a family could survive and live well on a single income. Why does it require two incomes now and even then the number of "working poor" is increasing and continuing to struggle?

I am not sure what we spend our money on is relevant, it is about what we consider a decent standard of living. Shouldn't everyone in our society be afforded the opportunity to have what we consider a decent standard of living? FP, you said things were pretty awful before rogernomics and NZ was very backwards. Well the price of that change is the consumption based society we now have.

This gets to the crux of my interest in New Zealand politics. I moved here for personal security. Personal security is lost when the disparity between the have and the have-nots gets too large.

Sgt Pepper
04-08-2014, 09:25 AM
Rowling, aka the mouse, might have had all the qualifications under the sun, but he was a failure as a politician.

By "failure" you mean what exactly??

fungus pudding
04-08-2014, 09:38 AM
By "failure" you mean what exactly??

I'm sure you know the definition of the word. In short he failed to achieve. I do think being known as the mouse rather than Wallace was a little unfair though. It probably came from the fact he squeaked rather than spoke.

BlackPeter
04-08-2014, 09:43 AM
[I]ACT says it can boost economic growth by a third with a policy to cut the company tax rate to 12.5 per cent.

Leader Jamie Whyte says this will increase investment, and job and GDP by one third, leading to higher wages.



Ever been to Singapore, Belg? Low (corporate as well as personal) tax rates certainly seem to work for them. Amazing how you can develop an (originally) quite poor economy, if you don't subscribe to screwing the rich, but instead to create a competitive but supportive environment. They have great infrastructure and an outstanding (and affordable) health and education system. You should see their universities (I did) .. they get per student roughly 5 times as much money from the state as they do in NZ (and they invest this money wisely - in great people, great research and outstanding learning environment). BTW - tax rates in Singapore are around 10%.

Actually - I think ACT might have a winning policy!

Banksie
04-08-2014, 10:11 AM
What about their compulsory superannuation fund that funds huge amounts of development in Singapore? Or the fact that's so massive and earns so much that the govt doesn't need to do many things ours does because the Fund does it and owns the assets created? Or perhaps the fact that Singapore's geographic location means the investment in its huge port infrastructure was going to be a sure fire winner?

The employer has to contribute 16% of the employee's monthly gross salary while the employee contributes 20% of his monthly gross salary to the compulsory superannuation fund. I believe part of this goes to a medical saving scheme.

Edit: Seems Singapore is struggling with many of the same issues we are https://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/why-time-good-hard-look-wealth-inequality-singapore-041959138.html

Sgt Pepper
04-08-2014, 10:28 AM
I'm sure you know the definition of the word. In short he failed to achieve. I do think being known as the mouse rather than Wallace was a little unfair though. It probably came from the fact he squeaked rather than spoke.

Hmm So what about Jim McLay?? And the military service question FP??

Banksie
04-08-2014, 10:32 AM
Hmm So what about Jim McLay?? And the military service question FP??

Okay Sgt Pepper, I agree that FP should not be harping on about a prime minster who has been dead for 20 years and only did one year in office but what has military service got to do with anything?

Cuzzie
04-08-2014, 11:19 AM
When I read this I was waiting for some "statistically challenged" and/or "root cause analysis challenged" person to post this. Glad I wasn't disappointed but then it was fairly predictable.

For the "statistically challenged": One example like this does not make up for all the incidences that the media doesn't report. Case in point: Family violence rates soaring in Hamilton (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/10343268/Family-violence-rates-soaring-in-Hamilton). Now isn't it strange that an area like Hamilton which has been a dairy boom town should be have this happening?

For the ""root cause analysis challenged": The article simply states the outcome. But why did the woman feel the need to throw the knife? Was she being assaulted? Was it self defence? What's the background of this? Has the violence been going on for ages? Was she protecting the children? Hopfully the facts will come out but they're likely to be so familiar that the it'll go unreported except as part of a large number in family violence statistics.

Sorry Cuz, if all National supporters are like you we really should be focusing on what our education system turns out because it seems to be failing.belg, you are using "what ifs" to base your agreement on and then you declare at the end of your post that, "if all National supporters are like you we really should be focusing on what our education system turns out because it seems to be failing" as some sort of twisted victory based on your "what ifs". You simply can't declare anything on a "what if serrano". I'll give you some "what ifs" back and say maybe the male had enough of his females partners bulling and he defend himself for once & she stabbed him or maybe he caught her cheating with another man (female if she's a Labour supporter) and she lashed out & stabbed him. Because of my serranos I just gave you belg, all Labour supporters need to back to school and get an education. I can't say that and you need to seriously work on some debating skills my friend. The fact is, there is a huge amount of abuse that is not reported by females and almost all abuse on males by females is not reported. I know I'm right and I bet you your bottom dollar you now also know I'm right after talking to your sister so don't try to make milage out of it belg, because I will be right here to bring you down again.

Major von Tempsky
04-08-2014, 11:34 AM
I thought I saw 4 consecutive posts in a row back there by Belge.
Talk about desperation - nobody else has been reduced to that!

Banksie
04-08-2014, 11:37 AM
A what if serrano :D

6094

Banksie
04-08-2014, 11:44 AM
I thought I saw 4 consecutive posts in a row back there by Belge.
Talk about desperation - nobody else has been reduced to that!

That just depends how you view the forum MVT. If you are in a threaded view the posts may be at the end of 4 different threads and do not appear consecutive.

Which goes to show, more than one interpretation can be correct, if you just tried to see something through the other persons viewpoint.

Cuzzie
04-08-2014, 11:52 AM
A what if serrano :D

6094
You got me. Spell checker is as bad as my spelling at times.

Cuzzie
04-08-2014, 11:56 AM
This is from Mike Smith and he quite clearly states what I have been saying all along about how negative Labour is. That's why they are polling so low - too much negative cr@p and too many election bribes. All Cunliffe is doing is buying an early retirement. Anyway, here is the article:

Former General Secretary, Mike Smith, the guy who lied to Police and the Electoral Commission over the pledge card, is being very vocal now about how dreadful David Cunliffe is.

David Cunliffe badly needs a new stump speech. On Thursday in Whanganui I heard him depress a large and sympathetic audience for ten minutes with tales of national woe, then promise a positive campaign but give no details. It is good to know that a positive campaign is proposed. Labour has promised an economic upgrade; it also needs a communications upgrade, and besides being positive it must be relevant. That could shift the polls.

The policy bones are all there Ė theyíre just not connected in a narrative that relates to voters. Because they are not connected they canít be repeated, so too much communication is undisciplined and unfocused, as we saw last week from several players. Focussed and disciplined communications are necessary for voters to have a clear idea of what is on offer, how it relates to them, and why Labourís alternative is best for them and for the country.

It is the mantra of misery and it besets everything that Labour says and does.

Message relevance is critical; this was key to Labourís late communication in 2005, described to some extent by Mike Williams in todayís Herald. Relevant communication to non-voters was critical to Labour coming from behind to lead on election day. Don Brash is still crying in the beer about it. And while Iím on 2005, getting Labourís numbers up is also critical to post-election decisions. The lead party will have first crack at forming a government, and much will depend on the numbers on the day.

Too much of Labourís communication has been relentlessly negative, coming from what appears to be a pervasive view that ďthe purpose of opposition is opposition.Ē Thatís fine if your purpose is to stay in opposition; my view is that the purpose of opposition is to get into government as soon as possible. To do that people have to know what is on offer, have a sense of hope and purpose, and that canít be done with a negative approach.

Finally if Labour is going to run a positive campaign, the its media unit needs to get with the programme. Weíve been getting their feed for several years, and endless series of negative or critical straplines is very off-putting. They also all follow a similar pattern; gripe followed (sometimes) by alternative. I suspect many of them by now donít even get opened.

Hopefully David Cunliffe will kick-start Labourís positive campaign tomorrow today in Christchurch. I canít wait.

Sorry to disappoint Mike Smith, Cunliffe and Labour wonít be promoting anything positive anytime soon.

It seems their campaign is to be based around relentless negativity.



- The Standard

That's as hot as a serrano and bet it burns twice as bad on the way out. Any thoughts on who will replace Cunliffe after his disastrous reign at the top of New Zealand's biggest minor party?

Banksie
04-08-2014, 12:07 PM
Hopefully David Cunliffe will kick-start Labour’s positive campaign tomorrow today in Christchurch. I can’t wait.

Sorry to disappoint Mike Smith, Cunliffe and Labour won’t be promoting anything positive anytime soon.

It seems their campaign is to be based around relentless negativity.

- The Standard

That's as hot as a serrano and bet it burns twice as bad on the way out. Any thoughts on who will replace Cunliffe after his disastrous reign at the top of New Zealand's biggest minor party?

Cuzzie, the way you post your quoted articles is very confusing. It is hard to see where Mike Smith's prose end and yours start. Did Mike say "It seems their campaign is to be based around relentless negativity." or did you say it?

Can I suggest you use a technique such as italics or quotation marks for separating your additions from the person you are quoting. This will make you posts easier to follow, and less likely to be misinterpreted or "manipulated".

Sgt Pepper
04-08-2014, 12:21 PM
I'm sure you know the definition of the word. In short he failed to achieve. I do think being known as the mouse rather than Wallace was a little unfair though. It probably came from the fact he squeaked rather than spoke.

Yes- like Robert Muldoon was referred to as " Rob" as he and National bankrupted NZ and "robbed" us. Although I must admit he was intelligent compared to the mediocre" diplomat in waiting"we have as the present leader of National .

Sgt Pepper
04-08-2014, 12:37 PM
MVT. I respond when I have time. Unlike you, I do read and seriously consider the pros and cons of both policy and argument.

And you? Just count the number of posts and don't read or consider anything that doesn't agree with your shallow and bigoted views. Shame on you. And then you conclude I'm desperate? What a dork!

Belg
don't be mean, MVT has read Mein Kampf many times, and when he really needs to broaden his mind he watches Fox News.

fungus pudding
04-08-2014, 12:38 PM
Hmm So what about Jim McLay?? And the military service question FP??


I'm not here to answer pointless irrelevant questions.

Cuzzie
04-08-2014, 01:24 PM
Cuzzie, the way you post your quoted articles is very confusing. It is hard to see where Mike Smith's prose end and yours start. Did Mike say "It seems their campaign is to be based around relentless negativity." or did you say it?

Can I suggest you use a technique such as italics or quotation marks for separating your additions from the person you are quoting. This will make you [maybe use your next time Banksie] posts easier to follow, and less likely to be misinterpreted or "manipulated".
May I suggest you go back to my post you are quoting from and read again. I have used italics and you have missed them. Also note that I have not done an edit on that post before you accuse me of that too. To help you further away from your manipulation of this matter, I will also quote my own quote below to highlight to others how you manipulate. Note the italics for my post which I ended with - here is the article:


This is from Mike Smith and he quite clearly states what I have been saying all along about how negative Labour is. That's why they are polling so low - too much negative cr@p and too many election bribes. All Cunliffe is doing is buying an early retirement. Anyway, here is the article:
And then/


Former General Secretary, Mike Smith, the guy who lied to Police and the Electoral Commission over the pledge card, is being very vocal now about how dreadful David Cunliffe is.

David Cunliffe badly needs a new stump speech. On Thursday in Whanganui I heard him depress a large and sympathetic audience for ten minutes with tales of national woe, then promise a positive campaign but give no details. It is good to know that a positive campaign is proposed. Labour has promised an economic upgrade; it also needs a communications upgrade, and besides being positive it must be relevant. That could shift the polls....................

Spot the difference? Banksie might not so go back to page 345 and post # 5166. Like I told you Banksie, the problem with your manipulation will always be the written word.
Anything else I can help you with? Wait there is. You still probably don't know who said "It seems their campaign is to be based around relentless negativity." do you. That was Mike Smith, not me. Look at all the confusion you have started here. See what I mean about Banksie, others be well aware of his little tricks. I will always highlight them when used against me. Just try and post Banksie and keep that rubbish out of it.

Banksie
04-08-2014, 01:42 PM
Yes you used italics in the beginning, but check the end of your post. I went and found the original article in the Standard to verify it.


Finally if Labour is going to run a positive campaign, the its media unit needs to get with the programme. We’ve been getting their feed for several years, and endless series of negative or critical straplines is very off-putting. They also all follow a similar pattern; gripe followed (sometimes) by alternative. I suspect many of them by now don’t even get opened.

Hopefully David Cunliffe will kick-start Labour’s positive campaign tomorrow today in Christchurch. I can’t wait.

Sorry to disappoint Mike Smith, Cunliffe and Labour won’t be promoting anything positive anytime soon.

It seems their campaign is to be based around relentless negativity.


- The Standard

Mike Smith's bit ends with the sentence I have put in bold. You add a bit and then put in the byline "- The Standard", which implies to the reader that all of the above came from the standard ?

I am just trying to point out why you keep getting misunderstood.

Edit: What does this even mean, I cannot make sense out of it, Like I told you Banksie, the problem with your manipulation will always be the written word

Edit:Edit: Here is the link to the article http://thestandard.org.nz/communication-upgrade-needed/, ironically titled Communication upgrade needed.

Banksie
04-08-2014, 01:53 PM
haha, okay I have found it. You were actually quoting whaleoil, quoting Mike Smith, and erroneously included Mr Slater's comments on the matter. (http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/06/mike-smith-labours-mantra-misery/)

May I suggest you are the one trying to manipulate, or did you just make a mistake?

BlackPeter
04-08-2014, 02:25 PM
Yip. Lived and worked in Singapore over a ten year period. Found it a little too hot. :)

If I read your argument right, BP, you're saying "that Singapore's economic growth is a result of their taxation system".

Bit simplistic don't you think?

What about their compulsory superannuation fund that funds huge amounts of development in Singapore? Or the fact that's so massive and earns so much that the govt doesn't need to do many things ours does because the Fund does it and owns the assets created? Or perhaps the fact that Singapore's geographic location means the investment in its huge port infrastructure was going to be a sure fire winner?

Maybe if you'd said - "that Singapore's taxation system is a result of their economic policies" - then I'd largely be agreeing with you. ;)

Hi Belg, yes - agree with your views on the heat .. can hit you like a hammer!

Looking into the argument - I didn't say that Singapore's low taxes are the only parameter which helped them to achieve their economical success. Yes, this would it make a bit simplistic. However, they are part of a very successful economical package. Sure - their geographic position in SEA helps, but than, they always have been there (well, if we ignore continental shift for a moment), but they haven't been successful prior to their economic reforms including the low tax rates).

Same thing with ACT's proposal - it does sound like a great idea which (I presume) is backed by other successful liberal economic policies. And hey - it looks certainly fresher and more intelligent than getting all the socialist torture instruments back out the box: screw the rich, increase existing taxes and invent some more of them ... hey I don't know any (comparable) country where this socialist recipe actually worked, but it looks like Labour wants to do it all again.

Banksie
04-08-2014, 02:34 PM
Same thing with ACT's proposal - it does sound like a great idea which (I presume) is backed by other successful liberal economic policies.

I guess that is one of the problems when deciding who to vote for. It is difficult to see how all their policies fit together, the voters just get the sound bites. And I hate they way policy is drip fed. I would prefer for them to get it all out there and give us plenty of time to compare and debate it.

I think we need some fresh and more intelligent thinking applied to how parties campaign, not just to their economic policies.

Aaron
04-08-2014, 03:36 PM
I guess that is one of the problems when deciding who to vote for. It is difficult to see how all their policies fit together, the voters just get the sound bites. And I hate they way policy is drip fed. I would prefer for them to get it all out there and give us plenty of time to compare and debate it.

I think we need some fresh and more intelligent thinking applied to how parties campaign, not just to their economic policies.

I guess we can go back to the electorate for that one. If you put all your policies out early the opposition can put their negative spin on it or highlight all the downside and the general population will buy into the negative spin. Better to wow the voters a couple of days out from the election before they have a chance to think and change their mind again. To be honest I am one who doesn't read the policies in any great detail.
Waiting to get the herald liftout summarizing all the different parties major policies then making a call. Normally based on what party gives me the most. Although I would like to think that self interest isn't the only factor affecting my decision, there are some policies that are good for NZ that might be a bit hard to swallow like further subsidising tertiary education and investing in the youth/future of NZ.

BlackPeter
04-08-2014, 03:39 PM
You would presume incorrectly. :)



How do you know? Any insider knowledge you want to share with us?

BlackPeter
04-08-2014, 03:58 PM
I'd like to see far more. I'd like to legislation to stop the nonsense. Maybe it'll happened in my lifetime? Unlikely. All political parties have to pander to the status quo. And the rich, aka status quo, simply won't allow it.

Ouch ...

Hi Belg. I certainly would second your (and Banksie's) desire for some improved party campaigns in NZ. However looking into the reasons why you think it doesn't happen in New Zealand - I honestly think you are wearing some serious blinders.

When arriving at New Zealand's shores (coming from Europe), I was shocked by the lack of political debate here and by the way how constituents are spoon-fed by political parties. I think part of this culture might be too much adaptation of the US system (vote for the best looking person), and part of it is probably caused by the British tendencies to put more emphasis on the game than on the outcome and to keep discussions focussed on the weather and sports anyway.

Believe me - there are a lot more rich people in continental Europe than here, but the political information and debate is orders of magnitude better.

westerly
04-08-2014, 06:34 PM
Steven Joyce is happy, John Key is happy, while Federated Farmers are not.
Opposition to the sale of 17000 hectare Lochinvar Station to the same Chinese firm that bought the Crafar farms is described as xenophobic by Joyce.
Overseas investment is good for NZ Joyce says but what he is really saying is National will take any overseas money available no matter whether it is in NZ' s best interests or not.
It well maybe good for NZ for overseas interests to establish a factory or even buy an existing enterprise as far as providing jobs etc. However in the case of farms what Key and Joyce are saying is NZ farmers are not as capable as overseas interests in maximizing farm production.
Labour and other parties have said they would prevent the sale of farms to foreign interests. Something that is long overdue.

westerly

Cuzzie
04-08-2014, 06:56 PM
Yes you used italics in the beginning, but check the end of your post. I went and found the original article in the Standard to verify it.



Mike Smith's bit ends with the sentence I have put in bold. You add a bit and then put in the byline "- The Standard", which implies [applies not implies] to the reader that all of the above came from the standard ?

I am just trying to point out why you keep getting misunderstood.

Edit: What does this even mean, I cannot make sense out of it, Like I told you Banksie, the problem with your manipulation will always be the written word

Edit:Edit: Here is the link to the article http://thestandard.org.nz/communication-upgrade-needed/, ironically titled Communication upgrade needed.OMFG you have got to be kidding. You really have to be hurting buddy and to think you have scored some kind of points over me. Yes, this is a direct copy & paste from Whale Oil, so what. You asked me to put in italics and I already had. I didn't add anything near the bottom above The Standard sign off because the copy & paste, my copy & paste by me not you from Whale Oil, included more than the original article by Mike Smith. Right at the very bottom, clearly it is my comments. Whale Oil also added something at the beginning - so what. It is my post not yours so please try to stop telling me how I must post for me in your style. You are some kind of control freak Banksie. Add that to your little games that you play. You wont make any headway with me and I will always point out you agenga. BTW, sort out your grammar. Are you for real? I've seen this befor from belg? Hmmmm. :cool: I'm so onto buddy.

Forget about your mind games read the article, it is factual and to the point want-to-be master manipulator.

elZorro
04-08-2014, 07:02 PM
Steven Joyce is happy, John Key is happy, while Federated Farmers are not.
Opposition to the sale of 17000 hectare Lochinvar Station to the same Chinese firm that bought the Crafar farms is described as xenophobic by Joyce.
Overseas investment is good for NZ Joyce says but what he is really saying is National will take any overseas money available no matter whether it is in NZ' s best interests or not.
It well maybe good for NZ for overseas interests to establish a factory or even buy an existing enterprise as far as providing jobs etc. However in the case of farms what Key and Joyce are saying is NZ farmers are not as capable as overseas interests in maximizing farm production.
Labour and other parties have said they would prevent the sale of farms to foreign interests. Something that is long overdue.

westerly

About 30 years ago we drove into that station on a family trip. I think the roads were gravel, and there were big mobs of sheep everywhere. Lots of workers houses, at least 30. Now it has been marketed as a dairy platform with ancillary uses. It's the sort of country that could dry out quite a bit, but irrigation would sort that out. I think it's a bit over 13,000Ha, but some of it is conservation estate. http://www.lochinver.co.nz/property.html

Stevensons owned it for 20 years or so, not a bad place to park money perhaps, and now they hope to create something like a super industrial park near Auckland, creating 8000 permanent jobs (well, the new businesses would do that). All in all, this is not a bad swap for 13000Ha which will not ever be prime dairying land, and which cannot support as many people, actually far less. If it ends up being run as a giant sheep/beef operation, it's fairly inefficient, and that limits the employee numbers, and the training and export potential.

I'll still be sad to see it going into overseas control. It's in a relatively accessible part of NZ, this is not some remote, barren but scenic sheep station in the South Island. Landcorp could have bought it, no harm done.

Cuzzie
04-08-2014, 07:06 PM
Steven Joyce is happy, John Key is happy, while Federated Farmers are not.
Opposition to the sale of 17000 hectare Lochinvar Station to the same Chinese firm that bought the Crafar farms is described as xenophobic by Joyce.
Overseas investment is good for NZ Joyce says but what he is really saying is National will take any overseas money available no matter whether it is in NZ' s best interests or not.
It well maybe good for NZ for overseas interests to establish a factory or even buy an existing enterprise as far as providing jobs etc. However in the case of farms what Key and Joyce are saying is NZ farmers are not as capable as overseas interests in maximizing farm production.
Labour and other parties have said they would prevent the sale of farms to foreign interests. Something that is long overdue.

westerlyHere we go. Tell me westerly, were any farms big small or massive sold to non-New Zealanders when Labour were in power? Also, I see you don't complain about American or English ownership in our farms. Do you have a problem with the Chinese? Which nation buys most of our real estate? Should there be a law against Chinese buying our land but everybody else can or should we ban all overseas investment. Would New Zealanders be blocked from investing overseas because we don't allow investment in the future? I thought I'd post Banksie style to see how others enjoy it. Two more days of this westerly befor I start changing your answers to fit my posts.

elZorro
04-08-2014, 07:53 PM
Which reminds me Banksie, I promised some of me poems, er, Graphs. Those on the right side of this thread will go quiet for a bit and pretend they don't exist. National has been able to show a graph of the nation's GDP for the last 2-3 years that perks up, because of the dairy and logging cheques. But they didn't do that with clever policy, just with some luck.

elZorro
04-08-2014, 08:02 PM
Only allowed five graphs per post, there are so many to choose from..

Cuzzie
04-08-2014, 08:37 PM
Post stats from where you like EZ that doesn't mean they are true. Point in action EZ, do you trust Wiki NZ? Wiki New Zealand has a disclaimer for instance which states: Wiki New Zealand is not perfect. There will be mistakes and it is impossible to have data entirely free from manipulation. Collaboration helps ensure the best possible representation of issues. [Underlined especially for Banksie] There is that word again - manipulation. I wonder if Banksie works there. Plus here is your other problem. A few months ago A Washington-based think-tank has found that New Zealand is the most socially advanced country in the world. BANKSIE I AM QUOTING NOW OK """""The country tops the world on indicators of personal rights and freedoms, and comes in the top four for water and sanitation, access to schooling and tertiary education, and tolerance and inclusion of minority groups.""""" BANKSIE THE QUOTE HAS FINISHED NOW OK. We, little old New Zealand came out on top and that was after our high rate of suicides was added into the equation too. Not bad at all. Here is the full report. NZ is tops. (http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/201414/progress.pdf)

iceman
04-08-2014, 08:42 PM
Here we go. Tell me westerly, were any farms big small or massive sold to non-New Zealanders when Labour were in power? Also, I see you don't complain about American or English ownership in our farms. Do you have a problem with the Chinese? Which nation buys most of our real estate? Should there be a law against Chinese buying our land but everybody else can or should we ban all overseas investment. Would New Zealanders be blocked from investing overseas because we don't allow investment in the future? I thought I'd post Banksie style to see how others enjoy it. Two more days of this westerly befor I start changing your answers to fit my posts.

The hypocrisy is indeed mind boggling Cuzzie. Labour during their 9 years, supported by Winston First and the Greens, sold of lots of land to foreigners, mainly Canadians and Germans as far as I know. That was all OK !!

Cuzzie
04-08-2014, 08:49 PM
The hypocrisy is indeed mind boggling Cuzzie. Labour during their 9 years, supported by Winston First and the Greens, sold of lots of land to foreigners, mainly Canadians and Germans as far as I know. That was all OK !!Out of control hypocrisy! Do they think we forget?

Banksie
04-08-2014, 08:52 PM
Thanks elZ. I didn't know about wiki New Zealand. Looks like a good resource for consolidated data.

Banksie
04-08-2014, 09:10 PM
Post stats from where you like EZ that doesn't mean they are true. Point in action EZ, do you trust Wiki NZ? Wiki New Zealand has a disclaimer for instance which states: Wiki New Zealand is not perfect. There will be mistakes and it is impossible to have data entirely free from manipulation. Collaboration helps ensure the best possible representation of issues. [Underlined especially for Banksie] There is that word again - manipulation. I wonder if Banksie works there. Plus here is your other problem. A few months ago A Washington-based think-tank has found that New Zealand is the most socially advanced country in the world. BANKSIE I AM QUOTING NOW OK """""The country tops the world on indicators of personal rights and freedoms, and comes in the top four for water and sanitation, access to schooling and tertiary education, and tolerance and inclusion of minority groups.""""" BANKSIE THE QUOTE HAS FINISHED NOW OK. We, little old New Zealand came out on top and that was after our high rate of suicides was added into the equation too. Not bad at all. Here is the full report. NZ is tops. (http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/201414/progress.pdf)

much better cuzzie, thanks. And thanks for the link to the social progress report, gonna take me a while to read through it, but it looks like the type of indicator we should be measuring ourselves against.

Banksie
04-08-2014, 09:14 PM
The hypocrisy is indeed mind boggling Cuzzie. Labour during their 9 years, supported by Winston First and the Greens, sold of lots of land to foreigners, mainly Canadians and Germans as far as I know. That was all OK !!

Isn't it possible it was wrong when labour did it, and it is still wrong now that national are doing it? I am not sure I have an informed opinion on land sales to foreigners yet, but it kinda feels wrong to me selling off productive farm land.

Banksie
04-08-2014, 09:23 PM
Forget about your mind games read the article, it is factual and to the point want-to-be master manipulator.
I have to disagree with you here cuzzie, the article in not factual, it is Mike Smith's opinion. You, and others, may agree with his opinion but it still does not make it factual.

BlackPeter
04-08-2014, 09:35 PM
Steven Joyce is happy, John Key is happy, while Federated Farmers are not.
Opposition to the sale of 17000 hectare Lochinvar Station to the same Chinese firm that bought the Crafar farms is described as xenophobic by Joyce.
Overseas investment is good for NZ Joyce says but what he is really saying is National will take any overseas money available no matter whether it is in NZ' s best interests or not.
It well maybe good for NZ for overseas interests to establish a factory or even buy an existing enterprise as far as providing jobs etc. However in the case of farms what Key and Joyce are saying is NZ farmers are not as capable as overseas interests in maximizing farm production.
Labour and other parties have said they would prevent the sale of farms to foreign interests. Something that is long overdue.

westerly

Well - lets face it, (some) NZ farmers are good in running their farms down (like Crafar) and others see farming just as a quick stunt before they subdivide their farms to sell them expensively to town folks and finance with the proceedings a lavish lifestyle at the Golden Bay (or wherever). Requiring land owners to hold a NZ passport doesn't help us in any way. Some NZ farmers look after their land, others just try to make money without caring about the next generation or NZ's interest.

Here is some news for you: Foreign farmers are probably not better than NZ farmers, but they are not worse either. And given, that the Chinese need the land for food production would I think that at least the subdivision risk is much lower.

If there is something we (as country) want from our farmers (like e.g. access to rivers and lakes, walking ways, a guarantee of ongoing food production, environmental conversation) than the right way would be to put this into law, and ask ALL farmers to follow these rules. I don't care whether the specific farmers are white, brown, yellow or black and whether they hold a NZ passport or not, as long as they follow the laws of the land.

elZorro
04-08-2014, 09:58 PM
Thanks elZ. I didn't know about wiki New Zealand. Looks like a good resource for consolidated data.

Banksie, these graphs are not from Wikipedia, they're from statsnz, Treasury or trading economics, which I see you've found also. Good on you for digging into the figures and finding out about where pub economics stops, and facts start.

My daughter sent me this video link, she's been active on social media too. Enjoy, Belgarion, although you've probably seen it!

http://vimeo.com/102441715

Oops, I forgot, we are all the same person. Now that's confusing :)

elZorro
05-08-2014, 06:29 AM
Cuzzie, your NZ is Tops link does show NZ on top of the table for human rights, well-being etc. It's helped by a top score on water quality for human use, but does lag a bit on general environmental issues. We are also moderately high for average personal income (shown as an indicator), although only about 2/3 that of Australia.

You should probably give credit where it's due though, for the work of Labour governments and their coalition partners more recently, in setting up many of the policies that have led to this result. National have been unable to undo most of them. As the document says very succinctly:


The structural change to New Zealand’s economy in the 1980’s resulted in considerable change across the board, particularly focused on welfare provision; and the country continues to search for the optimal balance between market and state to address some of New Zealand’s more persistent challenges. Like other countries, New Zealand is debating the rights and responsibilities of citizens and the role of the state in the 21st century, as a platform for sustained improvements in economic development and social progress.


Did it work, having the state a bit more involved in the nation's direction than those on the right would like? Yes, it did.

Cuzzie
05-08-2014, 08:21 AM
Banksie, these graphs are not from Wikipedia, they're from statsnz, Treasury or trading economics, which I see you've found also. Good on you for digging into the figures and finding out about where pub economics stops, and facts start.

My daughter sent me this video link, she's been active on social media too. Enjoy, Belgarion, although you've probably seen it!

http://vimeo.com/102441715

Oops, I forgot, we are all the same person. Now that's confusing :)EZ, Look at the first graph you posted - Labour Nat revenue changes, it's from Wiki New Zealand. Wiki New Zealand's disclaimer states: Wiki New Zealand is not perfect. There will be mistakes and it is impossible to have data entirely free from manipulation. Collaboration helps ensure the best possible representation of issues. You do know where you source your info from right?

Cuzzie
05-08-2014, 08:22 AM
Cuzzie, your NZ is Tops link does show NZ on top of the table for human rights, well-being etc. It's helped by a top score on water quality for human use, but does lag a bit on general environmental issues. We are also moderately high for average personal income (shown as an indicator), although only about 2/3 that of Australia.

You should probably give credit where it's due though, for the work of Labour governments and their coalition partners more recently, in setting up many of the policies that have led to this result. National have been unable to undo most of them. As the document says very succinctly:



Did it work, having the state a bit more involved in the nation's direction than those on the right would like? Yes, it did.
Yep. that would be right, Labour has not been in power since 2008 and yet you claim the victory for them for a 2014 Social Progress index which NZ Tops the world.

Now open both eyes. We did not get here by accident and we did not get here by one Govt. making it happen. This is a combination of both Labour and Nationals good work over the last 40 plus years. Forget about politics for a second too, the NZ people and our lifestyle have added greatly here as well. It's not often we get great news like this so forget about your point of view - just embrace.

iceman
05-08-2014, 08:30 AM
Isn't it possible it was wrong when labour did it, and it is still wrong now that national are doing it? I am not sure I have an informed opinion on land sales to foreigners yet, but it kinda feels wrong to me selling off productive farm land.

I think it has hard to argue, whatever your political persuasion, that the Crafar farms were a very "productive"and well managed land under the previous Kiwi ownership. From what I hear, the Chinese have invested lots in the farms since buying them and are making a good job of running them. Good on them I say.

Cuzzie
05-08-2014, 08:48 AM
Here is some more good news:

NZ leads worldwide in human freedom (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10858183)

New Zealand - #2 Best Countries for Business (http://www.forbes.com/places/new-zealand/)

Quality of Living survey Ė Auckland ranked #3 of 223 (http://www.experienzimmigration.co.nz/blog/post/1882/New-Zealand---A-great-country-to-live-in/)

NZ most free country on earth (http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/nz-leads-worldwide-in-human-freedom-5314956)

Starting a business we are #1 (http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/new-zealand)

#1 in protecting customers too (http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/new-zealand)

British migrants rate NZ as #1 expat destination. (http://www.workingin-newzealand.com/live-and-settle/life-in-new-zealand/top-living-destination#.U9_8uPmSw50)

I'm getting a big head looking. There is more. Look we live in a great country, in fact the best in the world. National is doing just fine right now and can't see the Govt. they replaced getting a look in for many elections. I know the Labour supports must try a paint a not so rosy picture of of economy and our Govt. as a whole. That's a tough job for them & just sour grapes.


We live in the best country in the world with a dam fine Govt. running the joint. Just embrace.

Sgt Pepper
05-08-2014, 08:55 AM
Here is some more good news:

NZ leads worldwide in human freedom (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10858183)

New Zealand - #2 Best Countries for Business (http://www.forbes.com/places/new-zealand/)

Quality of Living survey – Auckland ranked #3 of 223 (http://www.experienzimmigration.co.nz/blog/post/1882/New-Zealand---A-great-country-to-live-in/)

NZ most free country on earth (http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/nz-leads-worldwide-in-human-freedom-5314956)

Starting a business we are #1 (http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/new-zealand)

#1 in protecting customers too (http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/new-zealand)

British migrants rate NZ as #1 expat destination. (http://www.workingin-newzealand.com/live-and-settle/life-in-new-zealand/top-living-destination#.U9_8uPmSw50)

I'm getting a big head looking. There is more. Look we live in a great country, in fact the best in the world. National is doing just fine right now and can't see the Govt. they replaced getting a look in for many elections. I know the Labour supports must try a paint a not so rosy picture of of economy and our Govt. as a whole. That's a tough job for them & just sour grapes.


We live in the best country in the world with a dam fine Govt. running the joint. Just embrace.


Cuzzie
The best country in the world? on that point Cuzzie I totally agree.

fungus pudding
05-08-2014, 09:12 AM
We live in the best country in the world with a dam fine Govt. running the joint. Just embrace.



We do. We can only hope on election day that those who realise it outnumber the malcontents who moan and groan because life aint perfect for them.

Cuzzie
05-08-2014, 10:09 AM
Only 12 people turned up to hear Cunliffe speak in Labours heartland. That's not good.


New low turn out for Cunliffe (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10346878/Cunliffe-takes-campaign-to-Otara)

Cuzzie
05-08-2014, 10:24 AM
David Cunliffe ruled out working with Mana in government (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDsDLkUkrc0)


David Cunliffe not ruled out working with Mana in government (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11300818)

Then go back to this:

David Cunliffe telling porkies (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDsDLkUkrc0)


Somebody from the Left, please explain!!!

Sgt Pepper
05-08-2014, 10:38 AM
Sydney 16oohrs Crosby Textor Head Office

" Mark, incoming call from you know who wanting advice about something called Lochinver station,whatever that is"

" Can you put him off'" ?

" NO he seems really worried"

" Hi John, look this Lochinver station sale, just accuse Labour , the Conservatives and Winston of Xenophobia, alright?"

" Thanks Mark..... but whats XENOPHOBIA? you promised there would be no big words"

" OK don't worry, just ask Bill English to explain, or one of your staff. Bye John, Good Luck( and good riddance)

neopoleII
05-08-2014, 11:36 AM
it seems we have some professional bloggers on this site who are not only good wordsmiths
but are also trying their hand at brainwashing.

it goes something like"" this very mediocre National Govt"" over and over and over.

so I did a little research, wiki has lots of details, but here is a very simple site explaining it.

http://www.hypnosis101.com/hypnosis-tips/brainwash/

Repetition is one of the simplest ways to convince people of something. When we hear things multiple times, we tend to believe it more. It becomes more familiar and more familiar things seem more true. But we have to have a logical argument and facts to back our position up don’t we? And of course, we must have the other person’s attention! Well no, it turns out. - See more at: http://www.hypnosis101.com/hypnosis-tips/brainwash/#sthash.CV8GYnZt.dpuf

I spent the last four days going over the political blogs in NZ, both left and right, and then back to reading this forum and it seems that professional bloggers are definitely active here.
Not that that is an issue, but it goes someway to explaining the type of postings we are getting here.

My new favourite blogs are from mr whale and mr bomber, reading them side by side is like watching spy vs spy cartoons.
Much like what this thread and others have become....
penmanship turned to phallusmenship.

with a dollup of brainwashing chucked in.
At least from these threads I have found more entertaining discussions.

Banksie
05-08-2014, 11:54 AM
We do. We can only hope on election day that those who realise it outnumber the malcontents who moan and groan because life aint perfect for them.

I agree - this is one of the best countries in the world to live. That is why I chose to come here.

Who has made it this way? The voters (thanks to you all), not the governments. By debating, weighing up policies and usually voting the right person into office the voters are voting towards the utopia they want. But things can always be better, and we are at a stage now where complacency can creep in, we must not be lazy voters, we must discuss it, decide on the shape of our future and vote for it.

One of the worries is the reported apathy (I say reported cos I am not sure how true it is) from the younger voters. It is important to engage and include them. Young people are agents of change and will revolt against a system they perceive as unfair. If we don't get it right now will we may see an age war as they get increasingly tired of keeping old farts in brandy and cigars while they are toiling away to put food on the table and pay rent.

Banksie
05-08-2014, 11:58 AM
with a dollup of brainwashing chucked in.
At least from these threads I have found more entertaining discussions.

lol - yeah, at least with this forum both sides get to air their view while the comments on the blogs are all one sided, and the discussions on the press articles take too long to be moderate and published to be effective.

Cuzzie
05-08-2014, 12:01 PM
Um ... Cuz, are you seriously trying to claim that the good work put in over the last goodness-know-how-long by multiple governments, businesses, non-profit organisations and individuals in NZ is actually a reason to vote for this mediocre National govt?

Really?

If so, I too have a bridge to sell. Ah, you didn't read what I said above that post then belg. I said, "This is a combination of both Labour and Nationals good work over the last 40 plus years. Forget about politics for a second too, the NZ people and our lifestyle have added greatly here as well. It's not often we get great news like this so forget about your point of view - just embrace."

You have only got one eye open yet again. How many times? But then you do have your agenda.

Cuzzie
05-08-2014, 12:06 PM
Pretty damn simple, Cuz.

We don't really care what the media claims DC says. We're more interested in the policies the "left" has to take NZ forward and away from the winner-take-all policies of this very mediocre National Govt. If they get in I have no doubt that the coalition they'll be doing better for NZ'er than this very mediocre National Govt.

If, in your bro-love for Key, you believe the choice is a likeability contest between Key and Cunliffe then caste your vote accordingly.

Time for a change.
No .... that was David Cunliffe doing it all by himself, so which one was the lie? His words belg and him on the YouTube clip. You simply can't brush it off like that. belg, there will not be a change if the Labour leader is Mega negative and so too are all his followers, all 8% of them. It simply just is not going to happen, but you keep on thinking like that.

Cuzzie
05-08-2014, 12:22 PM
Can somebody answer this. Why is at that Labour is so negative? They have not got one positive bone in them. Always negative - always. Look how their bloggers carry on. Never a good word about how good their Govt. is doing and when it comes to mentioning some sort of recovery from the dark Labour days, it's simply shrugged off as National just being lucky. Then was it Labour just being unlucky which left NZ in one hell of a mess before National took over. Nope, you reap the benefit. There's no luck, what you put into it is what you get out. That is why NZ is doing so well under National and failed under Labour & the very reason why we see Labour polling amongst the other minor parties - because that's where they belong. If I was a Labour blogger, I too would be feeling it right now, but I would not be carrying on if there is nothing wrong. There is plenty wrong with Labour & I would be demanding changes for the better. We won't see that from this lot, because thats the way they are. They don't see a problem, completely blind to the fact & that is not good news at all for Labour in the short or long term. For me though, life is good, couldn't be better.

NZ is a great place to live, the best place in the world & we are very lucky to have such a positive Govt. in power right now.

artemis
05-08-2014, 12:30 PM
Can somebody answer this. Why is at that Labour is so negative? They have not got one positive bone in them. Always negative - always......... [/B]

Goes with the territory of being in opposition. Labour are in fact putting out positive policy announcements, but they seem to get drowned out by poll results and leadership issues.

Cuzzie
05-08-2014, 12:35 PM
Goes with the territory of being in opposition. Labour are in fact putting out positive policy announcements, but they seem to get drowned out by poll results and leadership issues.Nah, National didn't carry on like this when Labour were in power. They were positive and look what happened.

Cuzzie
05-08-2014, 01:21 PM
Um ... Cuz, are you seriously trying to claim that the good work put in over the last goodness-know-how-long by multiple governments, businesses, non-profit organisations and individuals in NZ is actually a reason to vote for this mediocre National govt?

Really?

If so, I too have a bridge to sell.Like I said - NZ is a great place to live, the best place in the world & we are very lucky to have such a positive Govt. in power right now.
Well that's not the case if you're a Labour blogger. I'm happy, you're not. Who's winning and who's whining, who's positive & who is negative? I wonder!!! I'll carry on being very happy, what will you be doing belg?

BlackPeter
05-08-2014, 01:51 PM
And idiot bloggers and forum posters. ;)

Hi Belg, you shouldn't be too hard on yourself - at the end of the day you are just trying to get your cronies into power - aren't you ? And for such an unselfish purpose obviously all means must be allowed?

Sorry - I do appreciate your posts in other threads, but you start to become here really incredibly negative and offensive. If you really want to help Labour, than you might add some value by dropping your aggression.

I know that EZ and Cuzzie have their underlying aggressions as well - but wouldn't it be time you all show us for a change your better side? It might help undecided voters actually to listen to your message. Name calling is just appalling. Is there really nothing of more substance you could contribute?

Major von Tempsky
05-08-2014, 02:33 PM
Correction, 4 posts in a row by Banksie a little bit further back. And 6 of the last 8 posts are from Belge. He's getting, worse, yes it has to be possible!

Why is it that only left wingers are reduced to desperate over the top repetitive verbiage and right wingers and centre backers just make well judged occasional postings?
They (left wingers) know their quality is lacking so they try to make it up with superfluous quantities?
In a moderated debate would you really allow one speaker, one side, to make 6 of the last 8 speeches? He'd be kicked off the podium!

elZorro
05-08-2014, 03:32 PM
Correction, 4 posts in a row by Banksie a little bit further back. And 6 of the last 8 posts are from Belge. He's getting, worse, yes it has to be possible!

Why is it that only left wingers are reduced to desperate over the top repetitive verbiage and right wingers and centre backers just make well judged occasional postings?
They (left wingers) know their quality is lacking so they try to make it up with superfluous quantities?
In a moderated debate would you really allow one speaker, one side, to make 6 of the last 8 speeches? He'd be kicked off the podium!


MVT, you have not told us anything, except in trying to put down any Labour arguments in general terms. What new National policy would you like us to discuss? Which of the trends/graphs we posted are incorrect? I'd like to point out we have covered a range of topics over the months.

westerly
05-08-2014, 04:08 PM
Well - lets face it, (some) NZ farmers are good in running their farms down (like Crafar) and others see farming just as a quick stunt before they subdivide their farms to sell them expensively to town folks and finance with the proceedings a lavish lifestyle at the Golden Bay (or wherever). Requiring land owners to hold a NZ passport doesn't help us in any way. Some NZ farmers look after their land, others just try to make money without caring about the next generation or NZ's interest.

Here is some news for you: Foreign farmers are probably not better than NZ farmers, but they are not worse either. And given, that the Chinese need the land for food production would I think that at least the subdivision risk is much lower.



If there is something we (as country) want from our farmers (like e.g. access to rivers and lakes, walking ways, a guarantee of ongoing food production, environmental conversation) than the right way would be to put this into law, and ask ALL farmers to follow these rules. I don't care whether the specific farmers are white, brown, yellow or black and whether they hold a NZ passport or not, as long as they follow the laws of the land.

One reason why Winston is popular with the older generation is his policies recall a more egalitarian NZ Allowing wealthy foreigners to buy up farms or high country stations prices most
NZ farmers out of the deal. It is very easy to say it is xenophobic when opposition is expressed just as it is very easy to call someone a redneck if any criticism of Maori is made.
When a overseas based Englishman can buy up two high country stations and establish his own personnel fiefdom charging for access to fishing or making it more difficult to access many get upset
You can hardly blame the vendor for accepting a good price and heading for Golden Bay.
The much criticized RMA the brainchild of Ruth Richardson has allowed the subdivision of land that should have remained for farming or horticulture giving massive windfall profits to many land owners. Again you cannot blame them for taking advantage.
National is proposing more changes to the RMA which has always worked to the benefit of those with deep pockets and good lawyers.

westerly

BlackPeter
05-08-2014, 05:21 PM
One reason why Winston is popular with the older generation is his policies recall a more egalitarian NZ Allowing wealthy foreigners to buy up farms or high country stations prices most
NZ farmers out of the deal. It is very easy to say it is xenophobic when opposition is expressed just as it is very easy to call someone a redneck if any criticism of Maori is made.
When a overseas based Englishman can buy up two high country stations and establish his own personnel fiefdom charging for access to fishing or making it more difficult to access many get upset
You can hardly blame the vendor for accepting a good price and heading for Golden Bay.
The much criticized RMA the brainchild of Ruth Richardson has allowed the subdivision of land that should have remained for farming or horticulture giving massive windfall profits to many land owners. Again you cannot blame them for taking advantage.
National is proposing more changes to the RMA which has always worked to the benefit of those with deep pockets and good lawyers.

westerly

Not quite sure I get your point ... how does any of that make it right to restrict the right of (supposedly) kiwi land owners to sell to non kiwi purchasers on a free market basis?
What benefit exactly would New Zealand have if we restrict the sale?
What disadvantage will New Zealand have if some more farms would be owned by foreigners (even if they look Asian)?

Banksie
05-08-2014, 06:08 PM
Not quite sure I get your point ... how does any of that make it right to restrict the right of (supposedly) kiwi land owners to sell to non kiwi purchasers on a free market basis?
What benefit exactly would New Zealand have if we restrict the sale?
What disadvantage will New Zealand have if some more farms would be owned by foreigners (even if they look Asian)?

So some of my thoughts on this subject (and I have still not 100% made up my mind) are:

1) if we sell off the land to foreign corporations who take both the production and the profits from the production offshore, would we be able to ensure we get a long term benefit from the transaction.

2) are we going through a type of corporate colonisation? It feels a little similar to what the British did when they purchased the land from the Maori.

BlackPeter
05-08-2014, 06:26 PM
So some of my thoughts on this subject (and I have still not 100% made up my mind) are:

1) if we sell off the land to foreign corporations who take both the production and the profits from the production offshore, would we be able to ensure we get a long term benefit from the transaction.

2) are we going through a type of corporate colonisation? It feels a little similar to what the British did when they purchased the land from the Maori.

Good questions - and I am not sure, whether I have all the answers either. However as first impression I would say:

1) Whoever buys the land - it can't go anywhere, and actually - it belongs anyway to the crown (you can't buy land in New Zealand, just the inheritable and saleable right to use it). Any person working on this land would be subject to NZ laws (including tax) - i.e. if somebody works there, we do get some return no matter the owners passport. If nobody works there, than it doesn't matter either whether the owner holds a Kiwi passport or not. Same applies to the produce. If they sell it, they need to pay taxes. If they don't produce - same benefits independant from the passport of the owner.

2) Good observation. We might (go through a corporate colonisation), and actually this might be a good thing. If Kiwi farms are that much worth - why not forming a Kiwi company prepared to pay more than some foreign company and run the farm? Would be great for the share market, but maybe (some) Kiwi's prefer to complain about foreigners buying New Zealand land instead of putting their own money where their mouth is ...

neopoleII
05-08-2014, 06:56 PM
one of the serious issues i see with NZ is this......
we are a modern country with huge land based wealth.
we have stable government.... left or right........
we have a very small population by world standards......
and we have....... for good or bad ...... excepted china as a "most favoured nation"
we are the ONLY western nation that has proclaimed this,
and the result is........
our doors are legally open for china to do business in NZ,
this includes legally buying as much land as they want as long as there is a "reasonable" return in the trade game.
no other oecd country allows this.
lots of impoverished African, south American, and middle Asian countries allow this, as this is where their investment dollars comes from.
imagine finland or sweden or england selling off their land by the square kilometer!!
only NZ does this.

all thanks to labour.
and now labour want to get back in power with its co hosts the greens and whinny!
China might be many things....... but short of memory is not one of them.
the greens and whinny dream of slamming the door on china,
and yet this is the coalition that the labs are placing their election promises on.
I believe china would love a strong dominate labour party in power,
but with the polls showing that the multiple tails are stronger than the dog, its best to let the dog sleep.

Imagine cunlif in china doing a business deal as prime minister while is deputy prime minister(s) the greens......
take charge of NZ and pontificate as acting prime ministers about tibet and low waged manufacturing staff!!

We know kiwis are dumb..... but not that dumb.

LOL, labour needs to clean up its act, and rebuild.
until then .... for better or worse the nats will rule.

even whinny knows this...... he would commit political suicide if he backed labours "most favored nation" policy.

and in todays world...... which national inherited.......
what can any government in this tiny country do to turn around the damage done??

cancel the "most favored nation" policy........ ah no,

fungus pudding
05-08-2014, 07:05 PM
Good questions - and I am not sure, whether I have all the answers either. However as first impression I would say:

1) Whoever buys the land - it can't go anywhere, and actually - it belongs anyway to the crown (you can't buy land in New Zealand, just the inheritable and saleable right to use it).

You are right. It's tiresome to hear so may complaining that we can't buy land in China. Well neither can the Chinese. We have the same rights there as they do. Their tenure is leasehold while ours is freehold; a different system but in practise it is much the same. Although the leases usually are terminating, our freehold properties can be taken by the crown so security is not guaranteed under either leasehold or fee simple tenure.

neopoleII
05-08-2014, 07:23 PM
further to my post here is an article that reviews what i was trying to say in laymans terms:

http://www.victoria.ac.nz/chinaresearchcentre/publications/papers/Uncertain-Opportunities-Chinese-Investors-Establishing-Investments-in-New-Zealand.pdf

all i can say after reading this article is that most of the public of NZ and politicians dont or didnt know what we got ourselves into.
and still today dont understand the full ramifications.

elZorro
05-08-2014, 07:23 PM
While $70mill isn't a lot of money for big business, the reason no NZers have stumped up that much, is that they don't see it being a great investment at that price, surely. It's over $5000/Ha, more if you remove the non-farming part. Sheep farming returns are about $300/ha/yr if all goes well, dairy farming can get as high as $3,000 or so in a good year. But they can also lose money, and a station that big, carries an associated risk.

Meanwhile Labour releases more policy for smaller businesses employing less than 20 staff.

https://www.labour.org.nz/sites/default/files/issues/policy-smallbusiness.pdf

Cuzzie
05-08-2014, 09:44 PM
One reason why Winston is popular with the older generation is his policies recall a more egalitarian NZ Allowing wealthy foreigners to buy up farms or high country stations prices most
NZ farmers out of the deal. It is very easy to say it is xenophobic when opposition is expressed just as it is very easy to call someone a redneck if any criticism of Maori is made.
When a overseas based Englishman can buy up two high country stations and establish his own personnel fiefdom charging for access to fishing or making it more difficult to access many get upset
You can hardly blame the vendor for accepting a good price and heading for Golden Bay.
The much criticized RMA the brainchild of Ruth Richardson has allowed the subdivision of land that should have remained for farming or horticulture giving massive windfall profits to many land owners. Again you cannot blame them for taking advantage.
National is proposing more changes to the RMA which has always worked to the benefit of those with deep pockets and good lawyers.

westerlyThe older generation are feed what they like to hear from winny, but they are not dumb. Winston Peters has been caught again telling pork pies. This straight from Whale Oil (http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/08/winston-peters-making-media-repeat-lies/). Dear oh dear, he was talking to Grey Power members too. I know he could be a potential partner for National, but there is one thing I can't stand and that is a B.Ser. Remember this blast from the past/ Winston Peters lying to New Zealand (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7QbDCyeJkc) My dad was a big fan of him, now you want to hear what he says about Poo. My old man has finally worked him out and so have most of his mates. None of them will ever give him another vote and will go back to National or Labour. That seems to be a theme in Hamilton, not sure why maybe EZ can add to that.

elZorro
05-08-2014, 10:01 PM
The older generation are feed what they like to hear from winny, but they are not dumb. Winston Peters has been caught again telling pork pies. This straight from Whale Oil (http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/08/winston-peters-making-media-repeat-lies/). Dear oh dear, he was talking to Grey Power members too. I know he could be a potential partner for National, but there is one thing I can't stand and that is a B.Ser. Remember this blast from the past/ Winston Peters lying to New Zealand (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7QbDCyeJkc) My dad was a big fan of him, now you want to hear what he says about Poo. My old man has finally worked him out and so have most of his mates. None of them will ever give him another vote and will go back to National or Labour. That seems to be a theme in Hamilton, not sure why maybe EZ can add to that.

I've got nothing. A student contractor we met was on the NZFirst LEC though, so Winston doesn't just appeal to the grey brigade.

FPA lives on under Chinese ownership, still employing more NZers.


Fisher & Paykel Appliances on hiring spree after ramping up R&D

Tuesday 5th August 2014




Fisher & Paykel Appliances, the home-appliance maker acquired by China's Haier in 2012, is seeking some 40 workers for research and development after opening a new design centre at its Auckland headquarters.
The company spent about $5.5 million on the new Auckland facility with another $1.5 million still to be invested, and is spending some $2.5 million to fit out its Dunedin R&D facility. F&P Appliances has hired 80 engineers and designers in the past 18 months. It is now one of Haier's five global 'centres of excellent' for product development in the group.
Haier New Zealand Investment Holding, which holds 80 percent of F&P Appliances, invested $36.3 million on property, plant and equipment in the nine months ended Dec. 31, 2013, and $7.9 million between Aug. 29, 2012 to March 31, 2013, according financial statements lodged with the Companies Office. Its accounts show it had revenue of $777.1 million through the final nine months of 2013. Haier New Zealand incurred research and development expenses of $17.9 million in the 2013 period, and $7.2 million in the 2012 reporting period. The other 20 percent of F&P Appliances is held by another Haier unit.
The Chinese company effectively rescued F&P Appliances in 2009 when it acquired a 20 percent stake as part of a capital raising that let the company refinance its debt. The local manufacturer got distribution into China as a result of the deal and the ability to further licence its technology.
Chairman Keith Turner said Haier has allowed F&P Appliances to remain an 'independent' business within the group.
"They have been hugely supportive of the company and the brand. Very clearly the mandate has remained," said Turner, whose chairmanship dates back to the time when the company was listed on the NZX.


BusinessDesk.co.nz

Cuzzie
06-08-2014, 10:10 AM
New Zealand's unemployment rate fell to a five-year low in the June quarter.


Read the link here. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11304727)


Key Points:
ē The number of people employed increased by 10,000 people.
ē The employment rate fell 0.1 percentage points, to 65.0 per cent.
ē The number of people unemployed decreased by 9,000 people.
ē The unemployment rate fell 0.3 percentage points to 5.6 per cent.
ē The labour force participation rate decreased 0.3 percentage points, to 68.9 per cent.

That's the lowest rate since March 2009, and below the 5.8 percent forecast in a Reuters survey of economists.





Hard to find a negative here, no doubt a certain somebody will try though.

Cuzzie
06-08-2014, 11:07 AM
Key ... Hiding and running scared?

from: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10352978/Strict-rules-for-Key-electorate-event

''It's on that basis that the prime minister agreed to be there.''

... and then this claim from National ...

His office had played no role in the shaping of the rules for the event, she said.

...and ...

Those questions must be submitted, in writing, before the event starts.

Hilarious.

Quite clearly #TeamKey want to be seen, wants to tell you stuff but does NOT want to face questions unless Crosby-Textor have provided them with answers.

Shameful stuff. And Key claims he's a real man? Cowardly weasel more like.

Just smile and wave, boys. Smile and wave. #teamkeyJust too funny belg!!! Any comment on the latest unemployment and employment figures?
I'm smiling, you belg?

BlackPeter
06-08-2014, 12:43 PM
Been to China FP? Ever been in a building where the lease is terminating? Or to a building where govt (or some cronie of govt) wants it for another purpose ... No? ... Thought not. Had you, I suspect you'd not post such nonsense! ... a different system but in practise it is much the same I'm still ROTFLMAO.

re ... our freehold properties can be taken by the crown so security is not guaranteed under either leasehold or fee simple tenure ... But far, far, far more rights are conveyed to NZ land owners than Chinese lease holders.

So whats your point, Belg?

FP said that same rules apply in China for buyers (no matter what passport) and so it should be as well in NZ. If you don't like the rules in China you don't need to buy. And remember, it was Labour negotiating and signing the free trade agreement with China, not National.

fungus pudding
06-08-2014, 01:15 PM
So whats your point, Belg?

FP said that same rules apply in China for buyers (no matter what passport) and so it should be as well in NZ. If you don't like the rules in China you don't need to buy. And remember, it was Labour negotiating and signing the free trade agreement with China, not National.

And Labour will do nothing to change the current situation with Chinese buyers. They're just not that silly. They'll huff and puff a bit but nothing would change if we had the misfortune to see them and their collection of oddballs win the election.

Cuzzie
06-08-2014, 01:23 PM
Ah Cuz, Cherry picking statistics again ... (by the way, you might want to check the figures you cut an pasted ;) )

Basically buggar all new jobs. ... The participation rate fell 0.3 of a percentage point to 68.9 percent, below expectations, as the workforce remained static and the population grew.

Wage rate growth still below inflation ... The labour cost index, which measures wage inflation, rose at a quarterly pace of 0.5 percent across all sectors including overtime, and at an annual pace of 1.7 percent. Private sector ordinary time wages rose 0.6 percent in the quarter and 1.8 percent in the year. That was bolstered by the 50 cent increase in the minimum wage to $14.25 an hour from April 1, which Statistics NZ said resulted in a 17 percent rise in all private sector ordinary time wage compared to what would have been a 15 percent gain if the increase hadn't taken effect. ... Wasn't this one of #teamkey's big election promises: To increase NZ productivity rate? (Another FAIL?)

Still lots of under employed people ...The underemployment rate edged up to 4.2 percent of part-time workers willing and able to take on more hours from 4.1 percent in March.

And if it weren't for the ChCh Earthquakes ... Canterbury's unemployment rate of 2.8 percent was the lowest across all regions, ... then the number would be higher.

And after 6 years of very high (by NZ standards) unemployment there is an unknown number of people who simply aren't being counted. Yes, the longer the time out of a job, the higher this number becomes so after 6 years it could be between 3 and 15 percent. Thus once new jobs become available (just where are those new job National?) these people will come out and start looking again and usually, get on the dole, to have WINZs assist in the process.

Sorry, after 6 years to deal with high unemployment, 6 frigging years ... I can't say National have done a good job. But I will admit ... that ever so slowly ... so very, very slowly ... it is a getting a eeny-weenie tiny bit better!And what else would we expect from you. How convenient to leave out the increase in NZs population in the last six years and the Global economic downturn National had to cope with when they came into power.
That teeny weeny tiny bit better becomes, the ability to cope with hard financial times beyond their control, a Govt. left in tatters by Labour, an increase in population to find jobs for and still drive unemployment down.


~Good job well done by National~

BlackPeter
06-08-2014, 01:56 PM
Please re-read what FP said and what I pulled him up on as being misleading.
Done - and still don't get how what I think you want to convey fits to what FP said. Looks like cross purpose to me.

Cuzzie
06-08-2014, 05:29 PM
Cuz, re ... Household Labour Survey

Seems your cut and paste was the same as what the NZ herald reporter did ... See
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/income-and-work/employment_and_unemployment/HouseholdLabourForceSurvey_HOTPJun14qtr.aspx

Nice graph on that page too Cuz ... Still think the Nats are doing a good job?

And a number that I'm following with interest is the Key quote that unemployment will have "5" in front of it by election day. Check the graphs. Think that's likely?
Yep same stats. Why would I think anything other than the Nats doing a great job. Better than predicted and they are soaking up the huge amount of Kiwis returns plus new immigrants, the terrible mess Labour left us in, a Global Financial crisis and a major disaster. We really must congratulate John Key and his hard working team for doing such a fine job. belg, I'll even smile. Just imagine if the apologetic wonder was in power from 08 on, how many sorrys would be up to now?


BTW belg, I've got wind of a new Tee Shirt for National supporters that goes like this:



I'm sorry - I'm sorry for not apologising
for being a man.
:)
Vote National
where being normal
is OK.

elZorro
06-08-2014, 06:57 PM
the terrible mess Labour left us in,

Cuzzie, you know that as long as you put those words inside your posts, we'll keep replying, even though the rest of your post is rubbish too? Because that's one big fat lie, and you know it.

Sgt Pepper
06-08-2014, 08:31 PM
Oh my goodness

John Key on one news tonight " oh yes.. well... dairy prices have come off A BIT" ( !!!)

Is there a possibility he will " snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" ?

Banksie
07-08-2014, 07:51 AM
One of the dangers of multi-term governments is that the arrogance starts to creep in. We saw it with Brownlee and the airport fiasco, and now he is doing it again.

In May he pooh-poohed the KordaMentha audit of council finances, promising an independent audit of the independent audit within 14 days. It is now more than 2 months later and nothing, no back down, no audit, no explanation. No matter if you are a National supporter or not, we shouldn't allow our politicians to get away with this.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/the-rebuild/10354262/Mystery-over-Brownlees-CCC-audit-review

(belg: I can see your reply now, "always been arrogant, not creeping bulldozing, blah, blah...", don't do it mate :D)

Cuzzie
07-08-2014, 08:55 AM
Cuzzie, you know that as long as you put those words inside your posts, we'll keep replying, even though the rest of your post is rubbish too? Because that's one big fat lie, and you know it.Is that a fact? Well..............................

Clark wanted a Nanny state and was going to regulate how much water we could use when having a shower and what light bulbs we must use in our homes & she was banging on about dirty greenhouse gas polluting our planet. This was the beginning of her new job at the U.N selling the Global Warming Hoax.

The massive universal student allowance not only cost Labour an election win then lose, but National had to carry on that bribe which comes out of their books too at the end of the day. Now add the other Labour bribes that National still have to carry on with.

Under Helen Clarkís leadership we have witnessed the introduction of the most immoral and anti-family legislation ever thought up.

Thanks to the Clark, we have legalised homosexual marriage under the lame guise of civil unions(I know National has gone one step further, but only to tidy up the civil union act), we have decriminalised prostitution, which is effectively legal prostitution.

A child can now get an abortion without their parentís consent, yet that same child couldn't get a Panadol at school without written parental permission. That's not good. Fantastic, my then teenage daughter could go out and marry a women, prostitute herself on the streets and have abortions all without telling me. That's plain and simple evil man and it still disgusts me to the bone.

The Labour party has investigated introducing hate speech laws, and members of her party have made no secret of the fact that they would like to see legalised euthanasia. Could come in handy for certain somebodies.

On the economic front, most economic experts are suggesting that Labour has simply spent its time in power reshuffling the chairs on the deck of the financial Titanic & yep they sink too.

Plus who could forget the election spending, or should that be bribery, targeted at increasing the Labour voter pool by offering financial incentives to vote Labour.

Then there are the dishonesty charges that have constantly dogged Helen Clark and the Labour Party. She always denied it which is what we see from our Labour Fanboys on here too.

There was that painting that Helen Clark signed and then had Steve Maharey destroy rather speedily once it came to light that she hadn't actually painted it as initially implied. Liar liar pants on fire. It most certainly a Labour trait, just look at D.C now.

There was the motorcade incident, where Helen Clark denied giving orders to put the pedal to the metal, and vehemently denied being aware that she was in the back of an average sized car travelling at speeds of over 140kph Ė Tui's right there!

Lets no forget the granddaddy of all dishonest behaviours, the famous pledge card spending which Labour was warned about, chose to do nothing about and then(that would be their arrogance doing that), after they got busted for it, proffered the idea that they should be able to introduce retrospective legislation to change the law so that they can keep the money they stole from the taxpayers. So sort of like robbing a bank, getting caught and then trying to pass a law that allows banks to get robbed & then backdating it. That's Labour for you, how do they get votes anyway?

But itís not just Helen who has a problem with honesty back then, remember the dodgy dealings of Annette King, Ruth Dyson and David Benson Pope? Then that brings us up towards the apologetic wonder. I won't mention everything he's been bad at within the last year because I simple have not got the time to type for hours, or the space to post it so will just add a forerunner to the man we only know too well. In the last election campaign, Phil Goff was let down by his then finance spokesman Cunliffe, when he was asked to show us the money for his policies. He could not, maybe that was some sort of Slam Dunk by D.C to make Goff look bad, nah it was just clueless D.C as we know him only too well now. D.Cs election bribes continue this election and at last count was about 4.5 billion more than National. Trying to buy an election. Just imagine if he wins. Will he carry out those bribes and if he does, how will he manage it. How many lies will he commit and how many apologies will we be bombarded with? I will state quite clearly and boldly that "with all that said above, Helen Clark would be ten times better than Cunliffe as a P.M of NZ". Matt McCarten has done a terrible job pulling D.Cs strings, but D.C must take the blame for letting Matt having total control over him.

So there you go EZ, shove that in your pipe and smoke it & oh yeah, I almost forgot the 12 Billion dollars that Clark left us in the red that you have now agreed upon after much debate with me. So no way buddy I'm not letting you get away with that propaganda.


Labour left us in a mess driven by a trainwreck of a leader Helen Clark - AND YOU KNOW IT EZ!!!

Sgt Pepper
07-08-2014, 09:26 AM
Cuzzie

To be fair National did not have to continue with any of the 5th Labour Governments policies. If they did not believe policies, i.e Working For Families, Interest Free Student Loans were desirable or affordable then upon attaining the treasury benches in November 2008 they should have reversed these entitlements, They would easily have had, and continue to have the numbers to pass legislation accordingly.
HOWEVER they decided not to. If they don't believe in these things then they should have the courage of their convictions and act accordingly.
I would be interested in your opinion.

Cuzzie
07-08-2014, 09:28 AM
Cuz, Are you being paid to make that all up?No, but clearly you are on the propaganda payroll. They are all stated facts penned in history, but like the Japanese history books about WW11, I feel you're about to try and alter them. Be warned though, the written word will be your enemy here.

Cuzzie
07-08-2014, 09:34 AM
Cuzzie

To be fair National did not have to continue with any of the 5th Labour Governments policies. If they did not believe policies, i.e Working For Families, Interest Free Student Loans were desirable or affordable then upon attaining the treasury benches in November 2008 they should have reversed these entitlements, They would easily have had, and continue to have the numbers to pass legislation accordingly.
HOWEVER they decided not to. If they don't believe in these things then they should have the courage of their convictions and act accordingly.
I would be interested in your opinion. And let down all the people that got sucked in by Labour. Labour would do exactly what you suggest, but isn't it better not to vote out everything the previous Govt. started? The cost of that alone is massive and the people you pi$$ off in doing so won't be voting for National will they. There lies the problem and Labour knows it. If Labour did win this time around it will be a problem they don't like inheriting too. That's Labour for you - working for themselves. National work for New Zealand, spot the difference?

fungus pudding
07-08-2014, 09:42 AM
Cuzzie

To be fair National did not have to continue with any of the 5th Labour Governments policies. If they did not believe policies, i.e Working For Families, Interest Free Student Loans were desirable or affordable then upon attaining the treasury benches in November 2008 they should have reversed these entitlements, They would easily have had, and continue to have the numbers to pass legislation accordingly.
HOWEVER they decided not to. If they don't believe in these things then they should have the courage of their convictions and act accordingly.
I would be interested in your opinion.

Once these things are in place it is political suicide to remove them. Our whole tax system is an ad hoc cumbersome and inefficient system. The only really constructive rebuilding of the system was the 84 to 90 Labour govt. who dropped the ridiculous 66% income tax rate, scrapped the complex and unwieldy, absolutely dreadful sales tax system and replaced it with the far better GST system. A vast improvement but never completed because Lange lost his marbles and destroyed his own party.

elZorro
07-08-2014, 09:44 AM
Cuzie, most of what you wrote about has almost zero impact on the economy or running of NZ, and Helen Clark ran a very tight ship actually. Crosby-Textor found a few little things that they made the most of, and you've parrotted them.

No, I don't dispute that the Labour Govt left office in 2008 with a Crown core debt remaining of about $12bill. Perhaps in all fairness you should research what the crown debt level was when Labour entered office, and admit that National left NZ with that debt. And how much was that?

No big long speeches required, just what the debt was in $billions, and a short statement of fact. You've researched everything else, this shouldn't be beyond your google powers.

Major von Tempsky
07-08-2014, 09:58 AM
Is it significant that the thread "If National Wins" is having more posts and more recent posts than the thread "If Labour Wins".... :-)

Makes you think doesn't it....

Cuzzie
07-08-2014, 10:17 AM
EZ & belg I now get it, if you just stuck with facts you would have nothing to say. It's taken me a while, call me slow but I now understand. Have any of you considered writing fictional books? After all, both of you have had tremendous practice on Sharetrader and have even picked up a couple of fans on the way. Just think, you could both turn your habits into money. Not sure if you would sell many books but hey, I know you'll both tell us differently. :cool:

Now answer me this, if all Labour Fanboys are right all of the time and those who see it in a different light are continually wrong, why is it that 92 people in 100 don't want David Cunliffe anywhere near running our Country? Are you saying 92% of NZ voters have got it wrong? Well in your eyes only Labour fans boys - In your eyes only. 92% of NZ voters would look at your propaganda on here and laugh alongside the rest of us. You are a minority talking as if you are the majority. Maybe if D.C had the support J.K has and J.K had the support D.C does not enjoy, you might have some credence. For me though, you both just sound like a couple of sore losers that can't find any good in a Govt. that is going great guns right now & and any bad in a terrible Govt. that is now history thank goodness, in Clarks Govt.

Sgt Pepper
07-08-2014, 10:58 AM
Once these things are in place it is political suicide to remove them. Our whole tax system is an ad hoc cumbersome and inefficient system. The only really constructive rebuilding of the system was the 84 to 90 Labour govt. who dropped the ridiculous 66% income tax rate, scrapped the complex and unwieldy, absolutely dreadful sales tax system and replaced it with the far better GST system. A vast improvement but never completed because Lange lost his marbles and destroyed his own party.

I think governments. of both the Left or the Right may be less risk averse if we had 4 year terms. I can see merit in 4 year term in that

1. allows governments to go to the electorate with policies that are more fully developed and have "borne fruit"( or have failed)

2. help control costs of government/governance with two election per decade not three.

elZorro
07-08-2014, 11:27 AM
Cuzzie, if I was your teacher and marking that answer, it's a zero (F), as you made no attempt to answer the actual question.

Here is a page showing some Fairfax views on the debt (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6957341/Labour-cops-debt-blame) (fairly right-minded) but it also presents the data. Looks like about $26bill of core debt in 1999, and down to $10bill in 2008. So Labour repaid $16bill of old (existing) debt while they were in office, and didn't rack up any new debts.

National, on the other hand, have borrowed an extra $60bill or so, since they got into office. They are still borrowing. How that relates to being able to spout that they will reach a budget surplus soon, is anyone's guess. But as many know, it has something to do with the massive budget blowouts on repairs reported by the Christchurch City Council. Govt has pased bills onto local bodies, and capitalised other bills, to fudge the books.

BlackPeter
07-08-2014, 11:56 AM
Yay!

Greens want $10 billion public transport spend (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11305354)

This should please Auckland rate payers. It certainly pleases this one!

Of this total, $2.2 billion would go towards seven key projects in Auckland including immediate construction of the City Rail Link, toward which 60 per cent of a recently-revised cost of $2.38 billion would be state-funded.

Have I mentioned before that the National Party seems pretty devoid of policies?

Oops. Hang on. They did have a policy. Their policy was to spend the money on more roads buying votes in electorates that National needed. That's a policy?

Just smile and wave, boys. Smile and wave. #TeamKey

LOL - you mean you prefer the green lollies to the blue ones? And its certainly not a problem for you that its the regions who are asked to pay for the green and red lollies .... can't be your money, can it?

Cuzzie
07-08-2014, 12:09 PM
Cuzzie, if I was your teacher and marking that answer, it's a zero (F), as you made no attempt to answer the actual question.

Here is a page showing some Fairfax views on the debt (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6957341/Labour-cops-debt-blame) (fairly right-minded) but it also presents the data. Looks like about $26bill of core debt in 1999, and down to $10bill in 2008. So Labour repaid $16bill of old (existing) debt while they were in office, and didn't rack up any new debts.

National, on the other hand, have borrowed an extra $60bill or so, since they got into office. They are still borrowing. How that relates to being able to spout that they will reach a budget surplus soon, is anyone's guess. But as many know, it has something to do with the massive budget blowouts on repairs reported by the Christchurch City Council. Govt has pased bills onto local bodies, and capitalised other bills, to fudge the books.
EZ, I have a confession to make, I don't always read your posts all the way. I get the theme in the first couple of sentences and stop right there. Same with this one, something about you teaching me and a link. Near the end is a spelling mistake that caught my eye, BTW it's passed not pased want to be teacher. EZ, you see you are a preacher not a teacher and your religion is not mine. Easy as.

elZorro
07-08-2014, 12:15 PM
EZ, I have a confession to make, I don't always read your posts all the way. I get the theme in the first couple of sentences and stop right there. Same with this one, something about you teaching me and a link. Near the end is a spelling mistake that caught my eye, BTW it's passed not pased want to be teacher. EZ, you see you are a preacher not a teacher and your religion is not mine. Easy as.

You just can't admit it, can you Cuzzie bro. Labour paid off old debt from previous governments. They left the books in far better shape than when they started in 1999. There, see how easy (EZ) it is? The stats don't lie.:)

Cuzzie
07-08-2014, 12:21 PM
Yay!

Greens want $10 billion public transport spend (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11305354)

This should please Auckland rate payers. It certainly pleases this one! Basically it means I'd get to spend about 3 hours more with family per working week.

Of this total, $2.2 billion would go towards seven key projects in Auckland including immediate construction of the City Rail Link, toward which 60 per cent of a recently-revised cost of $2.38 billion would be state-funded.

Have I mentioned before that the National Party seems pretty devoid of policies?

Oops. Hang on. They did have a policy. Their policy was to spend the money on more roads buying votes in electorates that National needed. That's a policy?

Just smile and wave, boys. Smile and wave. #TeamKeyGreat, if D.C takes that on board the loonie lefts bribes are now up to 16 billion. Easy spending money that is not yours aye!!! That's Taxpayer money, not red or green money. The Greens will add to that bill too. Something along the lines of extra tax on petrol and more road tolls to encourage you to use the $10 billion transport system. Labour will probably go for it too and when everybody has sold there cars, up goes the cost to use there money tree, not to mention Labours union mates calling a strike and really controlling everything. It is all about control - total control. Ian Wishart wrote the Book - Totalitarianism: What if the Enemy is the State? Good read BTW.


I'm happy, lifes good. Our Labour Fanboys might be a bit sad right now.
:)That makes me even happier.:)

Cuzzie
07-08-2014, 12:25 PM
You just can't admit it, can you Cuzzie bro. Labour paid off old debt from previous governments. They left the books in far better shape than when they started in 1999. There, see how easy (EZ) it is? The stats don't lie.:)

Posting in my theme aye EZ. Who is the teacher and who is the student?;)
I like your upgraded style but your message is found wanting? Become a truthseeker and drop the hater hat, then maybe, just maybe you might go up a grade.

Cuzzie
07-08-2014, 12:49 PM
Great, if D.C takes that on board the loonie lefts bribes are now up to 16 billion. Easy spending money that is not yours aye!!! That's Taxpayer money, not red or green money. The Greens will add to that bill too. Something along the lines of extra tax on petrol and more road tolls to encourage you to use the $10 billion transport system. Labour will probably go for it too and when everybody has sold there cars, up goes the cost to use there money tree, not to mention Labours union mates calling a strike and really controlling everything. It is all about control - total control. Ian Wishart wrote the Book - Totalitarianism: What if the Enemy is the State? Good read BTW.


I'm happy, lifes good. Our Labour Fanboys might be a bit sad right now.
:)That makes me even happier.:)
I forgot to mention if you haven't read Ian Wishart's book about the U.N - Totalitarianism: What if the Enemy is the State? you owe it to yourself to do so. I especially recommend it to S.P and Banksie.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57XDx3vIX1g

Cuzzie
07-08-2014, 01:20 PM
Cuzzie, are you incapable of admitting that you're wrong? Such people are usually Narcissists. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism Would the description fit you? Take the test and see.
Don't intent to, you already know I don't play little games and won't even look at your link. Nice try whatever it was.

Cuzzie
07-08-2014, 01:21 PM
Not just dim. But very short sighted as well.belg, you for one knows just how hard it is to except the truth.

BlackPeter
07-08-2014, 02:36 PM
Auckland is a powerhouse of the NZ economy. To suggest that the "regions" would be funding this is ludicrous. In actual fact, Auckland taxes (income & GST) fund many regions.



LOL again ... ever looked into a statistic showing NZ's export income (the only income which really counts)?

try this: http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-in-profile-2013/exports.aspx

Now - 70% of the exports come from primary industry: milk, meat, logs / wood / ...
Hi Belg, can you tell me how much of these are produced in Auckland? Not a lot ... maybe a tiny bit of wine ...

I am sure they contribute as well somehow to the less than 5% machinery and equipment NZ is exporting ... but than there are other engineering centres in NZ as well.

I give you that Auckland is certainly contributing to New Zealand its (more than) fair share of beneficiaries, lefties, greenies, traffic jams and smog ... but is this really a reason to drop them more lollies than they deserve (and certainly not earn)?

Can't see what Auckland is doing for us, they don't even administer or train us. The regions could well live without Auckland, but could Auckland live without the regions (and the tax flow from the regions Auckland got so used to). No offence intended, but I am sick of seeing my taxpayer money sunk into a huge bottomless barrel which takes so much and gives so little.

westerly
07-08-2014, 06:12 PM
Not quite sure I get your point ... how does any of that make it right to restrict the right of (supposedly) kiwi land owners to sell to non kiwi purchasers on a free market basis?
What benefit exactly would New Zealand have if we restrict the sale?
What disadvantage will New Zealand have if some more farms would be owned by foreigners (even if they look Asian)?

Quite frankly, on a free market basis I doubt the commitment to NZ of foreign ownership. If someone wants to live here take out citizenship and then buy a farm OK Generally foreign ownership is either to make money and take the profits elsewhere or to have a nice lifestyle in NZ
Foreign buyers almost always can outbid a NZ farmer or want to be farmer thus putting farm ownership out of reach . Farm land should only be worth what it can produce.
As far as China goes, we still import more from them than we export I think there is more benefit for China than NZ in the free trade agreement. Time will tell but small countries do not win many battles

Quote Iceman "The hypocrisy is indeed mind boggling Cuzzie. Labour during their 9 years, supported by Winston First and the Greens, sold of lots of land to foreigners, mainly Canadians and Germans as far as I know. That was all OK ! " Quote

No it was not OK But the Greens and Winston did not support this policy.

westerly

neopoleII
07-08-2014, 06:54 PM
""You'll need to explain that "the only income which really counts"""
if foot and mouth disease hit NZ and got established you might find that the aucklanders would end up losing the most......
since they dont produce much export dollars......... they do however export lots of dollars via purchasing overseas mortgage funds.

"If you check these assertions you'll find you're wrong. Auckland taxes and other large centres of population taxes are subsidising the regions."
from my understanding...... taxes are paid from profits, and the vast majority of profits made in NZ are created in the regions.
its the governments that spend the taxes in the cities.

The horrible "rich pr.k" farmers, growers and tourist operators in the regions that generate the vast majority of NZ incoming dollars,
then pay tax and then spend their profits....... its this money that churns through our society..... along with the billions of aucklands imported mortgage money.

Auckland is NZ's biggest powerhouse of cash churn...... but without the income of regional NZ, Auckland is a dead duck.
the export component of Auckland enterprise wouldnt even cover a 10th of is running costs.

and in the meantime, the regional folks have to pay high interest rates because central government hasnt got the correct tools to control the townies speculation greed........
while the regional folks a breaking their backs bringing export dollars into NZ.

NZ is still working with CHC damaged. NZ will still work if AUCK got damaged,
Damage the rural powerhouse export income, Auckland is game over.

I guess sitting papers in Auckland is different to hard graft working in regional areas.......

elZorro
07-08-2014, 07:25 PM
NeopoleII and Blackpeter, wasn't it just a few dozen pages back on this thread, where we were discussing the abysmally small amount of tax that farmers (http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/5017279/Dairy-farmers-paying-no-tax)(as a whole) pay each year? Surely if the regions are such powerhouses of exports and profit, they'd pay a lot of tax too?
Not so. In the absence of a CGT, farms are put up for sale, no tax is paid on the seller's profit, and the buyer defrays any tax they might be needing to pay from their other farm operation, on new interest costs and capital depreciation. It's a great system. One that every established farmer knows, off by heart.

BlackPeter
07-08-2014, 09:25 PM
You'll need to explain that "the only income which really counts" bit as it never was addressed in any economics papers I did. Or accountancy or statistics for that matter.


I knew there is something wrong with our university system - or maybe you just didn't pay enough attention?
We are a small country with a huge appetite for stuff imported from overseas (like cars, computers, cell phones, overseas travel, petrol, and the list goes on). The only way to pay our bills is by exporting stuff (or to increase overseas debt, but latter is not sustainable). Now - instead of crawling into your corner and cry - why don't you just pull some data (as you claimed you do only some pages ago) and prove to me, that Auckland is pulling its weight in terms of export (or even in terms of domestic produce). Sure - there are some companies in Auckland earning export money for all of us (not just AIA), but I doubt it comes close to the per capita export income coming form the regions.




Really? So what does Auckland do?


well - if you don't know what they are doing, how should I? And I was thinking that you just made a claim that Auckland is the powerhouse of NZ - and you don't know yourself what they are doing?



Alas. You have offended. Ignorance always offends me.

Ah well, maybe the ignorance was not on my side - at least did your post nothing to prove or reduce my alleged ignorance. Do I need to first perform some strange Labour ritual to become a part of the parish of the knowing ;)?

Belg, I must say the standard of your arguments on this thread seems to drop by the day we come closer to the elections (which is a pity - quite good to talk with you if its not about politics - and apparently about Auckland;)).

Sorry - I know you took it on your plate to convince everybody that Labour is the best thing since the invention of sliced bread, and now you even get stuck with simple things like comprehending the limited export income of the Auckland community (have another good look at the export stats I put into my last post). Maybe a good break until September 20 would do you good - all this mudslinging must be tough :p.

elZorro
08-08-2014, 06:05 AM
BP, what you are saying is fairly standard comment from investors in the rural sector - "We're doing all the exporting" while failing to mention "We're refusing to pay any of the tax".

This page is a spreadsheet link from the same StatsNZ site. It divulges that each year, NZ exports $16bill of services overseas, these are not physical goods. That figure is more than the dairy export total.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/economic_indicators/balance_of_payments/bop-international-trade-in-services.aspx

Here's another Labour policy which is sure to upset farmers: clean and swimmable waterways within a generation. This is very heartwarming, even to think that it is possible, that we could have those waterways back in good condition.


http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1408/S00103/labour-promises-swimmable-rivers-and-lakes-over-a-generation.htm

The mention of swimmable waterways has to be the strongest link yet to Greens policy. I've just been doing some numbers. The Green's party vote went from 6.72% in 2008, to 11.06% in 2011. They are spending more than ever this year. If they get to 15%, and Labour get 30% or more, National will lose this election.

craic
08-08-2014, 08:55 AM
In view of your comments above I come to the conclusion that you are the closest thing to an intellectual cripple that has ever graced these pages with a blitz of nearly 5000 opinions on anything and everything, many extremely offensive or mindless and for that reason I will depart - to join many others - who can no longer stoop to your level and not bother to read or post again here. I will provide El Zorro with a name and address so that our wager of $1,000 can be settled later.
The Cuzzie. A true National Supporter. (Dim. Short-sighted. Head in the sand. And a Narcissist.)

Time for a change

Major von Tempsky
08-08-2014, 08:57 AM
The claim that Auckland is the powerhouse of the N Z economy is a strange one.

Auckland is the main import port of NZ, Tauranga and the others are the main export ports. The export industries and ports are the powerhouse of the NZ economy.

Nearly all the new immigrants go to south Auckland, so do poor Maoris from the regions, and poor whites from the regions. The transfer payments, the social welfare payments to Auckland are stupendous. Is that a powerhouse?

Billions are being spent on Auckland motorways so cars can travel around and around Auckland and into Ponsonby for their favourite latte. Only the government has stopped (so far) more billions being spent on a metro so Aucklanders can catch it from the Britomart centre up to K road. Which much fewer than Len Brown hopes will actually do and it will be for consumption, retail, latte swilling rather than productive output. Yes, I know, I lived in Auckland for 16 years :-)

Cuzzie
08-08-2014, 09:16 AM
In view of your comments above I come to the conclusion that you are the closest thing to an intellectual cripple that has ever graced these pages with a blitz of nearly 5000 opinions on anything and everything, many extremely offensive or mindless and for that reason I will depart - to join many others - who can no longer stoop to your level and not bother to read or post again here. I will provide El Zorro with a name and address so that our wager of $1,000 can be settled later.craic, I wont bother to ask you to stay as I know you are a man of principles and don't go back on your word. I for one will miss your wit and honesty. I like the fact that you have the ability to cross over to the other side and agree with what EZ & co are saying at times(as I'm about to do in my next post). You my friend are not one eyed & will be greatly missed on ShareTrader. Don't gamble all your winnings from EZ on one horse. Maybe buy a nice bottle of single malt to enjoy. Take care mate.

Cheers, Cuzzie.

Major von Tempsky
08-08-2014, 09:23 AM
Its been obvious for a long time that Belge has some major psychological problems and has never grown up from being the playground bully.

I for one have never understood why he has not been banned for continual personal abuse, he just can't stop himself.

I would much rather that Belge departed than Craic. If he had a smidgen of decency he would offer to depart rather than Craic.

Cuzzie
08-08-2014, 09:27 AM
B.P & Major v.T, you might be surprised by these stats. We all know Auckland has the largest population in NZ by a country mile which is why it is the largest employment region for generating tax. Just to give you an idea, if Auckland had a major disaster like Christchurch to deal with at the same magnitude, the disaster would be at least five times as bad due to it's infrastructure and population. How much would it cost to replace the Auckland Harbour bridge for instance and look at how that would affect transportation alone. Auckland is our largest economy bar none, nobody else comes close. Not even within sniffing distance.
As reference to exporting from Aucks., Auckland is far more than just wine, machinery and equipment. In fact they are only a tiny part of Auckland exports. By far and away Food product manufacturing is the largest export. I can only find 2008 stats, but back then it was worth $1,385,000,000.

Here are the 2008 stats: (Yes 6 x 0s = a million)
Agriculture, forestry, fishing & mining - $130,000,000
Food product manufacturing - $1,385,000,000
Clothing & textiles - $142,000,000
Chemical, rubber & plastic products - $308,000,000
Metal & metal products - $418,000,000
Transport equipment manufacturing - $71,000,000
Machinery & equipment manufacturing - $333,000,000
All others - $3,442,000,000

Total - $6,229,000,000

Now add in the fact the as far as Regions go, Auckland is the second smallest region in NZ, only the Nelson Region is smaller, Auckland well and truly bats way above it should and adds greatly to everything in a massive way concerning economic matters in N.Z. The key stats here are - Regional Auckland is only 2% of the total area of NZ with a fair amount of that land tied up in housing yet 11% of N.Z exports come from the Auckland Region(2008 stats).

Reference:
http://www.marketeconomics.co.nz/ and their Understanding Aucklandís Role in New Zealandís Global Engagement report.
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/national-land-transport-programme/2009-2012/regional/auckland/docs/auckland.pdf

Auckland is an economic powerhouse and other areas of NZ that add to our exports are Agricultural powerhouse regions and if that means going into the red camp to argue the case I have no problem in doing so. I've got both eyes wide open. I love defending Auckland more than my politics and have no problem going one on one or one on one hundred in doing so.

Cuzzie
08-08-2014, 09:27 AM
Its been obvious for a long time that Belge has some major psychological problems and has never grown up from being the playground bully.

I for one have never understood why he has not been banned for continual personal abuse, he just can't stop himself.

I would much rather that Belge departed than Craic. If he had a smidgen of decency he would offer to depart rather than Craic. I'll second that.

fungus pudding
08-08-2014, 09:28 AM
Its been obvious for a long time that Belge has some major psychological problems


Paranoia.
.

Sgt Pepper
08-08-2014, 09:38 AM
The claim that Auckland is the powerhouse of the N Z economy is a strange one.

Auckland is the main import port of NZ, Tauranga and the others are the main export ports. The export industries and ports are the powerhouse of the NZ economy.

Nearly all the new immigrants go to south Auckland, so do poor Maoris from the regions, and poor whites from the regions. The transfer payments, the social welfare payments to Auckland are stupendous. Is that a powerhouse?

Billions are being spent on Auckland motorways so cars can travel around and around Auckland and into Ponsonby for their favourite latte. Only the government has stopped (so far) more billions being spent on a metro so Aucklanders can catch it from the Britomart centre up to K road. Which much fewer than Len Brown hopes will actually do and it will be for consumption, retail, latte swilling rather than productive output. Yes, I know, I lived in Auckland for 16 years :-)
etc

So how do you define Auckland companies like Douglas Pharmaceuticals, Fisher Paykel Healthcare etc?

slimwin
08-08-2014, 11:21 AM
How does Belg get away with being personally abusive to the point of a valued contributer leaving?

Cuzzie
08-08-2014, 11:53 AM
I'm sorry that you feel that way, Craic.

However, may I point out that calling me an "intellectual cripple", an intentionally insulting term which is patently false and unsupported by anything except your intent to belittle, is simply hypocritical in the extreme.

One can not help but note - you've allowed fellow National Supporters on this thread to spout nonsense as dogma and have seldom (if ever?) corrected them. Not very honourable? Or honest? Or perhaps you believed what they said? In which case, why not back them up with facts?

The post that you took exception to was the result of numerous attempts by myself and other posters to engage National supporters to assist in correcting Cuzzie's hyperbole. Not a single one of you stepped in the help the Cuz. Consequently, my provoking post.

I would put it you that if you don't like such provoking posts then you could step in correct your fellow National supporters or back them up with fact. By posting nothing, what message does that send?The problems with that statement are; one I do not nor will not stand back while you fabricate cool stories and two, even if you weren't fabricating all the time[but we all know you do including yourself] there are always two sides to one story. You take exception to everybody that doesn't share the way you see life those your rose tinted glasses with only one eye open. Then that character Banksie turned up & pretended to be totally oblivious to NZ politics, but duplicated your manipulation tactics down to a tee. Either a double up on ones membership or most Lefties are twisted like this. It seems to me that you feel no consequences to how you behave and that is a sure sign of, or at the very least a very strong sign of bipolar disorder. I told you I've done a profile on you belg have I not? We see that mad rush of posts while your mind is racing and raging.

Oh yeah, we see not so nice posts from me back to you, but that's just mostly you. I always treat fools like that. Look at the respect EZ gets even in opposing his view, he deserves that - you get what you give. You get what you give, think about that.

BlackPeter
08-08-2014, 12:16 PM
Not a red/blue/green issue. Just facts.

BP, anything further you'd like explained? I mentioned the "value chain" that has been alluded too but not fully explained.

Belg, haven't seen any facts provided by you in the latest discussion, just aggression, ridicule and ignorance. Typical bullying tactics. Pitty - I know some left wing people who are capable of having an open mind and an intelligent discussion, but I am not any more sure whether you are one of them.

Ah well, lets go back to talking shares - I don't think this particular thread adds a lot of value anymore given the blind dogmatism of some of the posters. Cheers - was nice to talk with some of you.

Banksie
08-08-2014, 12:29 PM
Then that character Banksie turned up & pretended to be totally oblivious to NZ politics, but duplicated your manipulation tactics down to a tee. Either a double up on ones membership or most Lefties are twisted like this.

I think you will find cuzzie, that I have been around a little longer than you on these forums. I stopped posting in most because, quite frankly, the quality of the posts had gone down in the shares I was interested in.

I am sorry you don't like me pointing out the contradictions and lack of substance in your posts, but in deference to your sensitivities I stopped responding to them, but you don't seem to be able to let it go. Did I hurt you that badly?

I have noticed the quality of your posts go down in the day, you were quite friendly and coherent this morning, but are less so now. I wonder what that could be due to?

Cuzzie
08-08-2014, 12:46 PM
I think you will find cuzzie, that I have been around a little longer than you on these forums. I stopped posting in most because, quite frankly, the quality of the posts had gone down in the shares I was interested in.

I am sorry you don't like me pointing out the contradictions and lack of substance in your posts, but in deference to your sensitivities I stopped responding to them, but you don't seem to be able to let it go. Did I hurt you that badly?

I have noticed the quality of your posts go down in the day, you were quite friendly and coherent this morning, but are less so now. I wonder what that could be due to?
I put up with you firing questions at me for two days straight and then you changed what I had said to fit your cool stories. Bottom dollar Banksie, I hate that sh!t and I will do my utmost to make that poster feel awkward in order to make them think twice before using manipulation tactics with me or anybody else again. Seriously, that is exactly what it is and I'll tell you what Banksie, you will not alter my written word ever again, that I can guarantee you. We both win. Just call it an anti-manipulation tool or tactic.

As for your last paragraph, give yourself an uppercut and save that for somebody you can control.
One automatically gets respect from me, including your goodself and belg and then it goes downhill from there. EZ & SP have both got my full respect and they deserve it too. The less respect I have for one the more a straight shoot. It's really as easy as that Banksie. So there you go.

Banksie
08-08-2014, 01:14 PM
Bottom dollar Banksie, I hate that sh!t and I will do my utmost to make that poster feel awkward in order to make them think twice before using manipulation tactics with me or anybody else again.

So let me get this right cuzzie, regardless of whether I post here or not, every couple of days you will slander my name because of some imagined slight that I made?

Cuzzie
08-08-2014, 01:28 PM
So let me get this right cuzzie, regardless of whether I post here or not, every couple of days you will slander my name because of some imagined slight that I made?May I suggest you post on topic and you will be just fine. With this post you have taken off your manipulation hat and put on your special needs hat. You asked me a question, in fact you 100% targeted me in your post before this one and I answered you factually. Because I declare that I won't let you get away with your little games, I'm slandering you? Get real belg, whoops Banksie. The easy answer is, you are slandering yourself Banksie. Talk politics, forget the games and you will left alone by me - simple aye!!!!
Here is a starter for you. How long will it take Labour to replace D.C after he polls poorly in the upcoming election?

elZorro
08-08-2014, 03:03 PM
Expect More

Cuzzie
08-08-2014, 05:49 PM
Cuzzie.

1. Suggesting someone has "special needs" is offensive.

2. Persisting with the nonsense that Banksie and I are the same person is also offensive. I have already mentioned that it is against ST rules to do this. And I have said that if you think this is occurring you should raise it with the Moderator. If you continue, I will report you to the Moderator to see what he/she has to say.Dear oh dear, you just don't get it do you, there is no helping you belg. You know, I spend far too much time on here and other things I should be concentrating on just get left neglected. I limit myself to certain times I post and I'm breaking that self imposed curfew right now. Why do I bother, National is going to romp in anyway? The whole thread has been dragged into the sewer by the likes of you who can't see past his nose. BTW, I reckon you have got a wheelbarrow to cart that thing around by now.

To answer your moans;
1 Putting your special needs hat[Banksie, not you] on is fair and precise criticism if it is obvious that one is engaging in such an act. He was and I called it.
2. That is solely your call and not necessary how I intended it to be, but isn't it funny you got drawn into that conclusion? Maybe I was, or maybe just making comment that all Labour fanboys act in this way. You leaned towards Banksie and you being the same person, therefore you offended yourself. That should confuse the buggery out of you.:)

I haven't heard much from you and EZ on the fat.com Mana party now D.C has cut ties with them. Funny that because both of you were talking him up, real funny. Would love to hear your lastest on that. In fact I think all of us right of center would love to hear anyone left of center explain the Internet-Mana party they stuck up for is not in Labour's plans - anymore.

elZorro
08-08-2014, 06:08 PM
Cuzzie, if you look at the past two elections, you'll see that 90% of the vote approx, was spent on Labour, National, Greens, NZFirst. So the Internet/Mana party might be looking for a share of the last 10% of the vote. If the left-of-centre vote is good enough, and with Winston calling the shots, there is just one issue for Labour - whose side will Winston be on after the election? According to the rhetoric, and most of his policies, he'll side with Labour.

Therefore, any criticism of a Labour/Green coalition over being flaky enough to include the Internet/Mana party, has been cancelled out. Here is a smart coalition, ready to govern. Expect more.

Cuzzie
08-08-2014, 06:43 PM
In the United States, special needs is a term used in clinical diagnostic and functional development to describe individuals who require assistance for disabilities that may be medical, mental, or psychological.

Bit rich calling me special needs when I allegedly managed to successfully manipulate you, cuzzie you are indeed a special kind of stupid. I suspect the real reason you feel so aggrieved by me is that I caught you out in your lies. I looked back at you very first post on sharetrader and already you were denigrating the greens. So who has a one-eyed agenda?

So rant and rave all you want as you are now on my ignore list and I will no longer have to put up with your delusional drivel. Banksie, there is a toilet named after you called Crapper. Before you jump up and down that is a true story, the guys surname is Crapper and he reminds me of you. Crapper is just an inventor, well an inventor of you know what!!!
Lies, first we have heard about these, do indulge story teller. Oh, the manipulation thing? I called it before you could yell out belg, but interesting to note that you have now admitted you allegedly managed to successfully manipulate me. Who said anything about successfully manipulate me? You didn't much to your dismay, but right here right now you lay claim to the fact. Banksie, that would be very special needs of you right there. God you remind me of somebody, who could that be?
Fat.com, any comments?

Cuzzie
08-08-2014, 06:58 PM
Cuzzie, if you look at the past two elections, you'll see that 90% of the vote approx, was spent on Labour, National, Greens, NZFirst. So the Internet/Mana party might be looking for a share of the last 10% of the vote. If the left-of-centre vote is good enough, and with Winston calling the shots, there is just one issue for Labour - whose side will Winston be on after the election? According to the rhetoric, and most of his policies, he'll side with Labour.

Therefore, any criticism of a Labour/Green coalition over being flaky enough to include the Internet/Mana party, has been cancelled out. Here is a smart coalition, ready to govern. Expect more.Hmm, I don't know if Winston Peters has done his dash. He could just be untouchable now. Plus, the Cons are making good noises right now. I know Mark Peters running in Wigram and he is a good man & one of my sisters good friends is running too. I won't mention her name just yet, but will talk about her later on.[BTW, not C.R] A very powerful woman who is well thought after & thinks like me in a lot of ways. I just can't disagree with what she says. EZ the Cons could surprise us all. It would be interesting to see what happens if they poll well after J.K didn't go through with that deal for ECB. Maybe he should of gone through with it and will call it a mistake on his part. Labour has not got a show EZ, I wished they did because I for one would be more interested in processings. I'll be having a National Party celebration party starting at 4 O'Clock on the day of the election. Should be good, do you want an invite?

elZorro
08-08-2014, 07:26 PM
Hmm, I don't know if Winston Peters has done his dash. He could just be untouchable now. Plus, the Cons are making good noises right now. I know Mark Peters running in Wigram and he is a good man & one of my sisters good friends is running too. I won't mention her name just yet, but will talk about her later on.[BTW, not C.R] A very powerful woman who is well thought after & thinks like me in a lot of ways. I just can't disagree with what she says. EZ the Cons could surprise us all. It would be interesting to see what happens if they poll well after J.K didn't go through with that deal for ECB. Maybe he should of gone through with it and will call it a mistake on his part. Labour has not got a show EZ, I wished they did because I for one would be more interested in processings. I'll be having a National Party celebration party starting at 4 O'Clock on the day of the election. Should be good, do you want an invite?

Cuzzie, I might be busy helping to "get in the vote" or whatever they call it. Thanks anyway. After that, I'll have to decide how to spend Craic's leftover betting cash windfall. :)

Banksie
09-08-2014, 09:03 AM
Busy watching the debate, quote of the day so far:

Almost all all practical problems are alleviated by becoming wealthy - Jamie Whyte

fungus pudding
09-08-2014, 09:03 AM
Busy watching the debate, quote of the day so far:

Almost all all practical problems are alleviated by becoming wealthy - Jamie Whyte

Pretty hard to argue with that one.

artemis
09-08-2014, 09:40 AM
Most amusing ... but unlikely to be true, human nature being what it is, as we'd simply find new problems or expect upgraded solutions ;)

Heh. Mae West: "I've been rich and I've been poor. Believe me, rich is better."

777
09-08-2014, 09:43 AM
Busy watching the debate, quote of the day so far:

Almost all all practical problems are alleviated by becoming wealthy - Jamie Whyte

Couldn't you find a dentist that was open on a Saturday.

elZorro
09-08-2014, 03:14 PM
An interesting read ...

Bruce Sheppard: Is the Government an economic success? (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/10354377/Is-the-Government-an-economic-success)

Bruce concludes: Conclusion, National cannot campaign on being exceptional financial managers, but equally labour can't campaign on them being an abject failure either. What is relevant is the lost opportunity of immigration.

Would that be another way of saying "mediocre"?

Just about every stat was worse than Australia's, especially GDP per worker.

More on NovoPay, a very big mistake that cost the taxpayer plenty.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business-editors-picks/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501981&objectid=11305530

GTM 3442
10-08-2014, 03:28 AM
How long will it take Labour to replace D.C after he polls poorly in the upcoming election?

About as long as it took National to dump Marshall, Muldoon, Shipley, English and Brash, I should imagine.

Alternatively, as long as it took Labour to dump Helen Clark in 1996.

Interesting to speculate.

elZorro
11-08-2014, 06:18 AM
Would a sugar tax be the answer?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/10363784/NZ-kids-crippled-by-their-weight

I would really like to know exactly what these kids eat to get so big. Surgery is really the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff; not to mention its a waste of taxpayer dollars to treat the symptoms and not the root cause.

The new free doctors visits policy released during the weekend by Labour will be very helpful for many. As David Parker said in his speech on Saturday I viewed, all Labour's policies are funded from income, they are part of the fiscal policy, and Labour will pay back govt debt to restore a 3% GDP debt, within 2 terms (all things being equal).

 

Labour will reduce net debt back to the level the current government inherited ...
The previous Labour-led Government made reducing government debt a central priority. In 2008, the New Zealand Government’s net debt was less than zero for the first time in history. It increased slightly during the recession to stand at 3.0% of GDP at the end of Fiscal Year 2008/09.
Since 2009, New Zealand’s net government debt has increased, from less than $6 billion to $35 billion and from 3.0% to 15.1% of GDP.
Much of the borrowing undertaken by the current government was necessary to pay for government services because the recession hit the tax take and the economy failed to recover as fast under National as had been forecast. The Canterbury earthquakes have also led to billions of dollars of justified borrowing.
But National also contributed to the debt unnecessarily. They cut income tax for the wealthiest New Zealanders during the recession, at a cost of over $4 billion so far. They have failed to make the required contributions to the Cullen Fund for the past five years, during which the Fund has made a 76% return. The Fund estimates that decision has cost it $3.8 billion in net returns.
Fixing the mistakes made by the current government and paying down debt so that New Zealand is able to weather future economic storms will be a priority of the incoming Labour-led Government.
Labour will run surpluses and pay down National’s debt. By the end of our second term, Fiscal Year 2020/21, our policies will have reduced net government debt back to 3.0%.
Labour will run larger surpluses than forecast in Budget 2014 throughout the forecast period. In the initial years, Labour’s net debt track runs slightly (0.3% of GDP) above the Budget 2014 projection as we raise the $1.5 billion of capital that will fund the KiwiBuild programme. From 2018/19, Labour reduces net debt more quickly than the Budget 2014 forecast as Labour’s net new spending is less than the new operating spending allowance in Budget 2014. In 2020/21, net debt reaches 3.0% under Labour’s policies, which is less than the 3.7% projected in Budget 2014.


Although the date of the document is June 2014, I'm not sure which figure for current net government debt is being used. In most charts we see, the net crown debt currently stands at about $65bill, predicting a peak at $70bill, or 30% of GDP.

Here is the full statement from June 2014. https://www.labour.org.nz/sites/default/files/issues/policy-fiscalplan.pdf

fungus pudding
11-08-2014, 07:12 AM
Shouldn't be long now before Cunliffe announces Labour's Free cars for Maoris policy.

elZorro
11-08-2014, 07:45 AM
Shouldn't be long now before Cunliffe announces Labour's Free cars for Maoris policy.

Not getting worried, are you FP? This doctor's visits policy reaches a wide part of NZ, it'll be helpful. All of it has been costed out, it's affordable in the budget Labour have developed. They will be steadily getting in some more tax, but a lot of it will be generated by building the economy, not by picking on a few at the top. We all win.

National has had their chance, 6 years is too long in my books. Keep watching the polls, it'll start to move now.

winner69
11-08-2014, 07:52 AM
Won't be enough doctors to handle the queues outside the practice lining up for free chats with the doctor free pills

fungus pudding
11-08-2014, 07:59 AM
Not getting worried, are you FP? This doctor's visits policy reaches a wide part of NZ, it'll be helpful. All of it has been costed out, it's affordable in the budget Labour have developed. They will be steadily getting in some more tax, but a lot of it will be generated by building the economy, not by picking on a few at the top. We all win.

National has had their chance, 6 years is too long in my books. Keep watching the polls, it'll start to move now.

Yes, they will.

Cuzzie
11-08-2014, 08:25 AM
The new free doctors visits policy released during the weekend by Labour will be very helpful for many. As David Parker said in his speech on Saturday I viewed, all Labour's policies are funded from income, they are part of the fiscal policy, and Labour will pay back govt debt to restore a 3% GDP debt, within 2 terms (all things being equal).

 


Although the date of the document is June 2014, I'm not sure which figure for current net government debt is being used. In most charts we see, the net crown debt currently stands at about $65bill, predicting a peak at $70bill, or 30% of GDP.

Here is the full statement from June 2014. https://www.labour.org.nz/sites/default/files/issues/policy-fiscalplan.pdf
That's just more Labour propaganda EZ & straight from their website, whoopie.


What's D.Cs bribes up to know? Maybe John Key should squeeze in a new bill forcing Parties to do what they say if they get voted in & if they don't, boot them out.. Makes a lot of sense to me.


EZ, Kim.com? How say you now? You have not answered me the last two times. Still talking him up? I suppose there is not a lot you can say, which is why we get nothing from you on the matter.

Cuzzie
11-08-2014, 08:46 AM
This is good news for NZ exports. High prices, tight supply good for NZ meat trade. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/beef/10369032/High-prices-tight-supply-good-for-NZ-meat-trade)

Milk prices drop but higher prices for meat and the demand is growing. Well not good news if you don't want NZ to do well & yes that means all our very own Labour bloggers on this site who only hope for the worst all the time. Why do they do that? When Labour was in power I never had thoughts like that. Well, you know what I'm going to say - It's because they are only negitive geared.

Harvey Specter
11-08-2014, 09:10 AM
The new free doctors visits policy released during the weekend by Labour will be very helpful for many. As David Parker said in his speech on Saturday I viewed, all Labour's policies are funded from income, they are part of the fiscal policy, and Labour will pay back govt debt to restore a 3% GDP debt, within 2 terms (all things being equal).
 
Although the date of the document is June 2014, I'm not sure which figure for current net government debt is being used. In most charts we see, the net crown debt currently stands at about $65bill, predicting a peak at $70bill, or 30% of GDP.

Here is the full statement from June 2014. https://www.labour.org.nz/sites/default/files/issues/policy-fiscalplan.pdfFor there 'net debt' I think they net off assets such as the superfund, which if you exclude, gets you back to the crown debt of $65B.

It is good to see that they accept Nationals spending (with the exception of the tax cuts) were justified. Investment into the superfund is easy to make in hindsight. Ideally the superfund would ahve just bought shares in Xero and PEB and sold them when they peaked - easy ;)

The question re Labour therefore is have they got their costing right? They have some expensive policies offset by changes in the top tax rate (wont pull in that much) and CGT which I think they are overstating as it has a long lead time till it pulls in large sums (the gain is only measured from a 'Valuation date' one the rules come into force so all existing CG will be untaxed).

Take for example healthcare for over 65's. They are the group that as a whole, is least in poverty - so why do we need to give them (more) untargeted assistance. Sure some are struggling but some are also doing very well with what the government already provides ()on top of what they have themselves). On top of this, Babyboomers, the generation that has seen the biggest increase in wealth (primarily untaxed in NZ due to no CGT) are about to retire. $120m doesn't sound that much if that is all it is but still, my parents, and grandparents dont really need any assistance from the taxpayer, let alone more than they currently get.

fungus pudding
11-08-2014, 09:11 AM
Won't be enough doctors to handle the queues outside the practice lining up for free chats with the doctor free pills


No doubt about that. British surveys show a high percentage want to see patients charged a fee directly. Makes no difference to the quack's income, but they're sick to death of people popping in for a chat and a free placebo. Good deal for hypochondriacs though.

Sgt Pepper
11-08-2014, 09:11 AM
Shouldn't be long now before Cunliffe announces Labour's Free cars for Maoris policy.

FP
2006 John Key" working for families, this policy is communism by stealth" !

2008 John Key " National government will not be altering working for families entitlements"

Some words come to mind, POT and KETTLE and BLACK may I also add HYPOCRITE.

fungus pudding
11-08-2014, 09:18 AM
FP
2006 John Key" working for families, this policy is communism by stealth" !

2008 John Key " National government will not be altering working for families entitlements"

Some words come to mind, POT and KETTLE and BLACK may I also add HYPOCRITE.


In spite of Labour moaning for six years when National cut the tax rate on incomes over 70k by 6% ridiculously claiming 'tax cuts for the rich', Labour have no plans to reinstate it. Same thing.
It's suicide for parties to remove such polices once established. That is why our tax system and social welfare system are so complex. Neither party would have the guts to scrap the lot and start from scratch. Even Cullen acknowledged that. To the best of my knowledge National have never said they would abolish WFF.

westerly
11-08-2014, 09:45 AM
In spite of Labour moaning for six years when National cut the tax rate on incomes over 70k by 6% ridiculously claiming 'tax cuts for the rich', Labour have no plans to reinstate it. Same thing.
It's suicide for parties to remove such polices once established. That is why our tax system and social welfare system are so complex. Neither party would have the guts to scrap the lot and start from scratch. Even Cullen acknowledged that. To the best of my knowledge National have never said they would abolish WFF.

National are a conservative party. They always op for the status quo.

westerly

Harvey Specter
11-08-2014, 09:51 AM
In spite of Labour moaning for six years when National cut the tax rate on incomes over 70k by 6% ridiculously claiming 'tax cuts for the rich', Labour have no plans to reinstate it. Same thing.
It's suicide for parties to remove such polices once established. That is why our tax system and social welfare system are so complex. Neither party would have the guts to scrap the lot and start from scratch. Even Cullen acknowledged that. To the best of my knowledge National have never said they would abolish WFF.Labour will increase the top tax rate but to 38% and only for those few above $150k.

That is my issue with the election bribes being handed out. Once in force, they are impossible to remove. Though National did do some tweeking of WFF to improve it.

elZorro
11-08-2014, 09:52 AM
For there 'net debt' I think they net off assets such as the superfund, which if you exclude, gets you back to the crown debt of $65B.

It is good to see that they accept Nationals spending (with the exception of the tax cuts) were justified. Investment into the superfund is easy to make in hindsight. Ideally the superfund would ahve just bought shares in Xero and PEB and sold them when they peaked - easy ;)

The question re Labour therefore is have they got their costing right? They have some expensive policies offset by changes in the top tax rate (wont pull in that much) and CGT which I think they are overstating as it has a long lead time till it pulls in large sums (the gain is only measured from a 'Valuation date' one the rules come into force so all existing CG will be untaxed).

Take for example healthcare for over 65's. They are the group that as a whole, is least in poverty - so why do we need to give them (more) untargeted assistance. Sure some are struggling but some are also doing very well with what the government already provides ()on top of what they have themselves). On top of this, Babyboomers, the generation that has seen the biggest increase in wealth (primarily untaxed in NZ due to no CGT) are about to retire. $120m doesn't sound that much if that is all it is but still, my parents, and grandparents dont really need any assistance from the taxpayer, let alone more than they currently get.

Thanks Harvey, I wasn't sure how the figures had been arrived at, it makes sense. What a windfall it would have been if the super fund had invested heaps in DIL, PEB and XRO etc, and known when to get out.


David Parker has done the numbers for the policies, probably with a team working on it, and they are all costed. It's all paid for, and the govt budget is in surplus. In the first 1-2 years the surplus is smaller, and then the results of the policies gives a substantial return to the govt, and of course the rest of NZ. If you look back over the figures for Labour's last three terms, that happened there, as the economy grew and GDP/capita improved.

Regarding the idea of the free doctor's visits. I have done a small amount of phone canvassing to see what it was like (scary and hard work). One person I spoke to a couple of months ago said she wasn't going to vote Labour this time. Why? She'd just had a rash of doctor's visits at about $100 each, and it was really hurting her budget. She's probably converted back to the fold by now:)

fungus pudding
11-08-2014, 10:58 AM
Labour will increase the top tax rate but to 38% and only for those few above $150k.

That is my issue with the election bribes being handed out. Once in force, they are impossible to remove. Though National did do some tweeking of WFF to improve it.

Labour have not yet mentioned their plans to reintroduce gift and death duties - that won't be mentioned until they get back in; around 2023

Sgt Pepper
11-08-2014, 12:44 PM
Labour have not yet mentioned their plans to reintroduce gift and death duties - that won't be mentioned until they get back in; around 2023

Just like JK saying he would not increase GST as I well recall. And what happened??

fungus pudding
11-08-2014, 12:53 PM
Just like JK saying he would not increase GST as I well recall. And what happened??

When did he say that? I thought he said he wouldn't increase tax but I could be wrong. I was one other time, years ago about something.

Sgt Pepper
11-08-2014, 01:17 PM
When did he say that? I thought he said he wouldn't increase tax but I could be wrong. I was one other time, years ago about something.

Yes FP

enjoy the video which Belg has kindly provided. John Key at his duplicitous best.
Well Im off to work now

fungus pudding
11-08-2014, 01:27 PM
Yes FP

enjoy the video which Belg has kindly provided. John Key at his duplicitous best.
Well Im off to work now

Not sure about any video, but I think you are right. I do recall Key saying something about most being better off when he reduced income tax rates. It was a good deal.

Cuzzie
11-08-2014, 06:59 PM
16 Billion and counting. Show us the money David - remember. Out of control man!!!
You & I and every NZer, VOTERS OR NOT will pay dearly for his bribes. Our unborn grandchildren will pay dearly for his bribes.

BTW, EZ for the fourth time, "Kim.com - how say you? After all the blogging you & belg did for the fatman, what are your thoughts on D.C doing the dirty on the joke party?

elZorro
11-08-2014, 10:16 PM
16 Billion and counting. Show us the money David - remember. Out of control man!!!
You & I and every NZer, VOTERS OR NOT will pay dearly for his bribes. Our unborn grandchildren will pay dearly for his bribes.

BTW, EZ for the fourth time, "Kim.com - how say you? After all the blogging you & belg did for the fatman, what are your thoughts on D.C doing the dirty on the joke party?

Cuzzie, maybe you're better at maths than David Parker, but he says that the policies are all funded, paid for, and the surpluses will start in year one of their term. If you'll remember, history is on his side. Labour posted 9 budget surpluses in a row, National has posted five deficits. Big ones. Who do I believe: paid Crosby-Textor-like wannabes - or the Labour Party? They didn't lie last time they were in, they did a great job.

I'm very happy Labour has sidelined Internet Mana from the serious vote. But I've just heard that Lailla Harre (and Gareth Hughes) were well received by uni students at Auckland, and at least those votes won't go to National. Anne Tolley was heckled.

Banksie
12-08-2014, 03:38 AM
I was chatting to a National candidate - and I am disappointed to say - he has the same mantra for labour and green policies, "where will they get the money from". He had obviously not read the policies that explain the funding.

One item that does bother me in the various budgets is the value that is being put on unpaid/avoided taxes. While it is easy to do a study coming up with a hypothetical value, how easy will it be to actually collect that tax.

elZorro
12-08-2014, 06:37 AM
I was chatting to a National candidate - and I am disappointed to say - he has the same mantra for labour and green policies, "where will they get the money from". He had obviously not read the policies that explain the funding.

One item that does bother me in the various budgets is the value that is being put on unpaid/avoided taxes. While it is easy to do a study coming up with a hypothetical value, how easy will it be to actually collect that tax.

Hi Banksie, I agree, you see how powerful it is to put the false word out there, even if it's a lie about funding shortfalls, it's effective for National. How long can they keep getting away with it I wonder?

Regarding collecting taxes, I've seen company office records behind some of the wealthy people who invest in the same shares we do here on the NZX. Quite often they are running layered companies which end up in tax havens. It's unscrupulous.

Here's the National govt picking winners: just 23 companies getting $41million of grants to part-fund their research. Even Xero gets some. Wait a minute, didn't they get a lot of funds from ordinary punters? Isn't that enough?

http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/new-growth-grants-high-tech-companies-6052615

Banksie
12-08-2014, 07:34 AM
Regarding collecting taxes, I've seen company office records behind some of the wealthy people who invest in the same shares we do here on the NZX. Quite often they are running layered companies which end up in tax havens. It's unscrupulous.

Here's the National govt picking winners: just 23 companies getting $41million of grants to part-fund their research. Even Xero gets some. Wait a minute, didn't they get a lot of funds from ordinary punters? Isn't that enough?

I went back and had a look at the fiscal policy regarding tax avoidance, this is what it has to say:

"Tax avoidance reduces government revenue by up to $5-7 billion a year. When a small percentage of people don’t pay their fair share, everyone else has to pick up the cost through higher taxes, reduced services, or higher public debt. Labour will set a target of reducing tax avoidance by $20 million a year in 2015/16, rising to $200 million a year in 2018/19."

Which seems achievable.

And yeah, the grant money is so little in comparison to what Xero raised from the shareholders, it seems a little unfair that they got that as well. Although (I'll give this disclaimer) I work for a company (not one on the list) that gets government grant money, which I believe we use for research programs undertaken by students. So yes we get the benefit of the research, but the students get the benefit of on-the-job training and work experience, so maybe targeted funding is not a bad idea.

fungus pudding
12-08-2014, 08:02 AM
I was chatting to a National candidate - and I am disappointed to say - he has the same mantra for labour and green policies, "where will they get the money from". He had obviously not read the policies that explain the funding.

One item that does bother me in the various budgets is the value that is being put on unpaid/avoided taxes. While it is easy to do a study coming up with a hypothetical value, how easy will it be to actually collect that tax.

The IRD have been trying for years to beat tax evasion - a change of govt. with a new bunch of clichťs won't do it.

elZorro
12-08-2014, 08:43 AM
I went back and had a look at the fiscal policy regarding tax avoidance, this is what it has to say:

"Tax avoidance reduces government revenue by up to $5-7 billion a year. When a small percentage of people don’t pay their fair share, everyone else has to pick up the cost through higher taxes, reduced services, or higher public debt. Labour will set a target of reducing tax avoidance by $20 million a year in 2015/16, rising to $200 million a year in 2018/19."

Which seems achievable.

And yeah, the grant money is so little in comparison to what Xero raised from the shareholders, it seems a little unfair that they got that as well. Although (I'll give this disclaimer) I work for a company (not one on the list) that gets government grant money, which I believe we use for research programs undertaken by students. So yes we get the benefit of the research, but the students get the benefit of on-the-job training and work experience, so maybe targeted funding is not a bad idea.

Good posts Banksie and Belgarion. We'd make a great campaign team!

Regarding R&D funding: I've had some come into my business too, never over $100k worth, and it also ends up with students and suppliers. I also fund some students myself out of cashflow, took on three last summer. It takes quite a while to organise, so when I see an average of $2mill heading into big firms, but only a few of them, I'm thinking that they are strong enough not to need the money, and that it'll fund R&D work they were having to do anyway. More importantly, it's not spread out. National could be helping ten times the number of firms, with an average $200k grant. Wouldn't that increase the likelihood of a game-changer? Chumps.